"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples" - Chief U.S District Judge Vaughn Walker
Opposite-sex couples are superior, when looking at the State's interests, as only opposite-sex couples are capable of generating and rearing children, which are desperately needed for the continuance of our society (not to mention paying off the national debt). Any policy should reflect reality.
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Family, and the Reality of Marriage
Some thoughts that have been banging around the ol' cranium:
How can one make an argument against "gay marriage" without resorting to religious proof texting? One could appeal to natural law, physics, biology and reality.
Society is completely subsidiary to a heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond. Wherever there is a man and a woman, there is the possibility of life and of society. Therefore, Society owes its existence to the heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond, and should give it every deference. Society calls these bonds 'Marriages'.
Sure, modern society has provided ways and means of creating simulacrums of productive, life-sustaining unions. But these inherently sterile cooperatives, either by nature or by choice, do not contribute to the future of the society. Sure, the participants may derive sentimental pleasure and personal affirmation from these pairings, but they offer no future to the larger society. They are dead-ends.
Proponents will point to the modern decline of the quality of marriages to somehow strengthen their argument that artificial unions are just as good. The problem with modern marriages is not with the definition of marriage, but of modern peoples' obsession with selfish pursuits of edification and gratification. Don't blame the recipe for cake when you start your disaster by substituting dirt for flour.
Sure, a homosexual couple can procure common property, furnishings, and even children produced by others. They can surround themselves with every trapping similar to a heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond, but it does not change the inherent difference, it does not change the truth. Sure, humans have built aircraft to soar above the ground, but it hasn't changed the laws of physics and gravity.
The larger society needs to recognize that its future can only be made with the help of the heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond. In that recognition, the society must give that union due deference by honoring its significance, not dithering away its definition to pander to peoples' feelings and sentimental illusions.
How can one make an argument against "gay marriage" without resorting to religious proof texting? One could appeal to natural law, physics, biology and reality.
Society is completely subsidiary to a heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond. Wherever there is a man and a woman, there is the possibility of life and of society. Therefore, Society owes its existence to the heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond, and should give it every deference. Society calls these bonds 'Marriages'.
Sure, modern society has provided ways and means of creating simulacrums of productive, life-sustaining unions. But these inherently sterile cooperatives, either by nature or by choice, do not contribute to the future of the society. Sure, the participants may derive sentimental pleasure and personal affirmation from these pairings, but they offer no future to the larger society. They are dead-ends.
Proponents will point to the modern decline of the quality of marriages to somehow strengthen their argument that artificial unions are just as good. The problem with modern marriages is not with the definition of marriage, but of modern peoples' obsession with selfish pursuits of edification and gratification. Don't blame the recipe for cake when you start your disaster by substituting dirt for flour.
Sure, a homosexual couple can procure common property, furnishings, and even children produced by others. They can surround themselves with every trapping similar to a heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond, but it does not change the inherent difference, it does not change the truth. Sure, humans have built aircraft to soar above the ground, but it hasn't changed the laws of physics and gravity.
The larger society needs to recognize that its future can only be made with the help of the heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond. In that recognition, the society must give that union due deference by honoring its significance, not dithering away its definition to pander to peoples' feelings and sentimental illusions.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Arbiter of Constitutional Validity
By all means, let's not do anything to make a popular TV personality sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
