Over on the Family Scholars Blog, David Blankenhorn “can’t let go of Katha Pollitt’s argument” for same-sex marriage.
Like many same-sex marriage adovcates, Pollitt argues that we don’t require straights to be able to reproduce in order to have legal marriage, so we shouldn’t require it for gays either.
David responds:
But David’s analogy misses Pollitt’s point, because Pollitt was making an argument about how we decide marriages are legal or not. Even if we grant David’s point – marriage is, in some fundamental sense, for procreation – it remains true that we don’t legally forbid infertile straights from marriage.
To extend David’s analogy, it’s certainly not the case that Buddhist Temples make it “a central goal… to help people know and love God.” Nor could Humanistic Jewish congregations like Kahal B’raira be described that way. But no one claims that the law should therefore legally discriminate against Buddhists and Humanistic Jews by refusing to grant their temples the same legal status given other, more traditional churches. “To help people know and love god” may be a central purpose of most churches, but it’s not a means for determining their access to equal legal rights as a church.
The anti-same-sex-marriage argument doesn’t merely state that marriage is “centrally about bearing and raising children.” It states that marriage is “centrally about bearing and raising children,” and therefore lesbians and gay men should be denied equality. It is that latter proposition that Pollitt was attacking; and that latter proposition is as indefensible as denying Buddhists equal rights because they don’t believe in god..
you’re generalizing about Buddhists. It’s as diverse in its beliefs about “god(s)” as any other “religion.” Now if you’d said “zen buddhists,” perhaps…. While it is not necessary to believe in “god(s)” to be a Buddhist- many do.
I’m confused. Did the Supreme Court say that one of the reasons gays should be permitted to marry was to provide a secure foundation for their own children?
That is: the children onf gays require equal protection of the law and equal access to the benefits of having married parents?
Gays do raise children. Granted, the two children may not be the biological offspring of both parents. However, that’s no different from many heterosexual parents and step parent marriages!
The Supreme Court hasn’t said anything on the matter.
Sorry.. I meant the Massachusetts Supreme court, not US Supreme court. I know the US SC has not ruled on this matter.
Amp included a link with th Mas ruling in pdf format. The Mass Supremes said (among other things) that prohibiting gay marriage prevents children of same sex couples “from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.”
So..as far as I can tell, the judges justified gay marriage, in part, because all marriage, gay or otherwise, protects children!
Do we consider that perhaps the reason that homosexuality and same sex marriages has occurred in the US could be link to the decline in religiousness of its Citizens? After all, isn’t ssm and homo condemned in the Bible?
Then perhaps the US in finally realizing that we should do away with Biblical standards that have guided us from our inception. Yes, perhaps logic and individual rights should come before all morals that we have henceforth accepted. Actually, no. There is a place for morals, and our Congress and State legislatures have been putting them on the books for decades. Yes, actually, perhaps it is for the good of our society that we keep our morals, not just the children.
Brad, being religious doesn’t necessarily mean being a fundamentalist christian. As you are clearly unaware there are other religious teachings than literal interpretations of the King James Bible. There’s for instance Judaism, Catholocism, Hinduism, Shinto to name a few. You can read about these in your local library!
“Now we know!”
“And knowing is half the battle!”
And PS, most atheists and agnostics aren’t immoral or amoral just because they don’t believe in God. It’s true, though, that sometimes they ascribe to a different set of morals than certain religious individuals do–one that honors equal rights, tolerance, and love rather than self-righteous indignation.
It’s true, though, that sometimes they ascribe to a different set of morals than certain religious individuals do–one that honors equal rights, tolerance, and love rather than self-righteous indignation.
Which is why they will burn forever in the fires of Hell.
Try to argue with that logic.
Y’know, it’s true. Congress and state legislatures have been putting morals on the books for decades. And the courts have been knocking them off the books for decades. There are some laws that simply cannot be made in this country, no matter how much popular support they have. And thank God for that.
And frankly, I’d like to know exactly what uniquely Biblical standards have guided this country, particularly which ones have guided us toward the greater personal liberty and equality for all that has been the stated goal from the beginning (they may not have really meant it then, but there are those of us who really mean it now).
Which is why they will burn forever in the fires of Hell.
Try to argue with that logic.
My pat argument is “I’d rather party it up in Hell for eternity with the rest of the sinners than spend an eternity with self-righteous assholes like you”
And for the record – the country ws not founded on Biblical or even Christian ideals. It was founded on Deist principles, if anything. The first 6 presidents were all Deists, not Christians – as were Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and many of the other framers of the constitution (to name a few).
My pat argument is “I’d rather party it up in Hell for eternity with the rest of the sinners than spend an eternity with self-righteous assholes like you”
Ha ha. Kind of like that South Park where Heaven’s filled with mormons so no one else wants to go there.
I think the argument that this is a Christian nation goes something like this:
1. I blindly accept a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible as being the only thing that is true.
2. I also blindly accept that anything America does is always right and perfect.
3. Therefore America and Christianity must coincide.
Apparently, anyone who says anything religious must be ignorant, knowing no other religions or any history of the US.
My inital question was sitll unanswered, which I would still like to know. Is the reason that ssm and homosexuality is come to more prominence and popularity because of a decline in “religiousity”?
Also, I think I would trust my government into a group of people that have to face re-election every few years. Those people are more concerned with what their effects will have on a country, than just about if the laws are “correct” in their view. We sure have handed over a lot of legislative-ability to a group of individuals that was meant to have little or none at all.
Last, deists. Where do you think they came from? Perhaps they grew up with a christian influence, and through all their learning, then began to think everything out, and rationalized everything out. Of course, a belief in religion does take some “faith”, or a belief based on a type of feeling. So yeah, if they forgot that, but reading the notes on the Constitutional Convention, and letters home from the delegates, there were many alliterations to God and his influence. Perhaps not exactly Biblical, but based on the same God of the Bible? Probably…
This thread should be called how not to spell the word opponent’s.
Sorry if I don’t embrace your advanced debate tactica.
New advanced debate tactic I just learnt today – when you disagree with someone, wait 8.75 years then post a spelling correction. Just you wait until April of 2021, Lord Cerbereth, just you wait!
Wow, “learnt” haven’t seen that word before it must be new.
I am not a grammar Nazi, but I am amazed nobody mentioned it. As far as the actual argument being discussed I don’t really care one way or the other that’s why I chose to comment on the spelling error instead.
Learnt: past participle, past tense of learn (Verb)
Verb: Gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study, experience, or being taught.
Commit to memory.
Huh, that took all of 5 seconds of googling.
The *descriptive* answer in British English is:
“learned” is used in phrases such as “a learned professor”, in which case it is pronounced with two syllables.
Either “learnt” or “learned” are used interchangably in phrases like “I learnt a valuable lesson today”.
The *descriptive* answer in American English is:
There is no such word as “learnt”. Use “learned” always.
I guess Eytan Zweig and Erik D. are natural British English speakers who knew?
*sob* I must confess, you have discovered my deep and shameful secret – I am, indeed, a speaker of British English. I wonder who else knows – my wife, who is British, my neighbours here in the UK, or my employer, an English university that requires British spelling in all our official communications. Oh, the shame!
You’re just lucky you weren’t around on the 4th, buddy. We make it a habit of finding a Brit to savagely beat on Independence Day. (Well, I make it a habit, anyway.)
But I’ve got my eye on you for next year.
No, that would be the *pre*scriptve answer. You can tell the difference because it *prescribes* a specific usage, rather than just *describing* how or if the word is used.