Posted on 04/21/2014 4:00:10 PM PDT by Louis Foxwell
Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List notification of new articles.
FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off the Sultan Knish ping list. I highly recommend an occasional look at the Sultan Knish blog. It is a rich source of materials, links and more from one of the preeminent writers of our age.
We are uniquely privileged to be able to enjoy DG from our perch at FR.
Lou
Quite so, Daniel. The new morality is the old sin. Sin with fervor and you will be praised for your character.
Three women and a giraffe? Don’t give them any ideas.
> Others have already pointed out the absurdity that gay marriage is becoming a right in places where plastic bags and large sodas are becoming against the law.
Marriage is not a secular entity. It is a religious one. What the government says on the matter is pretty meaningless. If your kids don’t understand that you brought the up wrong.
Take divorce for example. Divorce is a government action, since Henry The 8th.
There is another, its corollary: the necessity to damage, even kill, the Oppressor. That is, in application, pretty much whoever the activists decide it is, whether there actually ever was any oppression or not. The constant in class warfare is warfare, not class.
The power conferred by the control of this warfare is immense. If, for example, you happen to be a leader in a country that has just lost a war and is crippled by reparations, and you can find some Jews to blame, You can ride that all the way to a Third Reich. You need not be a majority. Activists never are. All you need is the power.
And who do you think just might start pushing for polygamy in America? (And it ain’t the Mormons....)
Brave New World was not supposed to be a guide!!
Wrong. Marriage has plenty of valid secular aspects, apart from religious aspects, which warrants our government to pass laws to protect it.
For when government begins to remove itself from the benefits of marriage, we now find ourselves hopelessly mired in a welfare state.
bkmk
Greenfield pretty much nails it as usual.
Marriage to the left is meaningless except as a civil contract.
No, actually marriage is a universal, natural human institution, and in that sense is secular, in that it pre-exists all extant human religions (unless you want to posit that some animist religion in Africa practiced by some tiny tribe might pre-exist marriage), exists in all societies past or present, regardless of their religious commitments, from the India of the Vedas to modern India, from animist ancient Korea to atheist North Korea and mixed Christian/Buddhist South Korea, from the pagan society of Ur which Abraham left to the modern Near East with its mix of Jews, Muslims and Christians, from the homogeneously Orthodox Christian Republic of Novgorod to its contemporary, the religiously pluralist Mongol Empire, from the Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony to the modern United States of America.
In some societies it has been closely regulated by the state, in others the state simply recognized it as a fact. In some polygamy is or was permitted or marriage coexisted with some sort of legally regularized concubinage. In some marriages were or are grounded in what we now call romantic love, in others, they were or are arranged by the families of the spouses-to-be. But the basic nature of the institution is the same, and the notion that the parties need not be a man and a woman is an absurdity.
Its origins are biological, as Our Lord Jesus Christ commented on it during His earthly ministry when he criticized the Mosaic permission for divorce, and to the secular-minded it can be defended and explained on purely Darwinian grounds as optimizing the survival chances of offspring (or even of “selfish genes”): since human children require nurture, creating a stable, socially supported bond between a male and a female likely to have offspring ensures that children are more likely to be raised by those with whom they share the most genetic material — their biological parents. This fact also accounts for the traditional tendency to favor grandparents, adult siblings, or failing that aunts and uncles as adoptive parents for orphans.
And what happens when one of the burgeoning shows about polygamous marriages becomes a big hit? Then we'll have no choice but to ratify polygamous marriage equality because that's the new national values system and the television ratings prove that everyone is clearly down with it.
This year Reid calls us 'domestic terrorists' next year - new mood - new meme. Execution by firing squads... yeah, that's popular. What's to stop him? The old morality?
That is a remarkably thorough explication of the nature of marriage as the relationship of a man and a woman. Alternatives are historically, morally, biologically, religiously, socially and politically ridiculous. We live in the age of ridiculous.
Conservative is the new Negro.
Ding Dang. How is your current logic, Defiant. Do you have basis for such a statement- “Conservative is the new Negro.”??? I will enjoy your response generally and in detail. Respond, pontificate...
Yassa, boss. See, we conservatives have to bow and scrape to the new Jim Crow laws, the same ones the same democrat party put in over a hunnert years ago, only this time, the ones wit no rites is conservatives, not Negroes. We haves to watch what we say, not git too uppity, oh else we loses our jobs, maybe goes to jail fo a hate crime. So our betters, who are benevolent to the igno'nt foos like us, will tola-ate us so long as we knows our place. We's the negroes now.
You jus' wanna fight, foo? Git back on da porch, you house conservative!
“Oh, Lordy, Lord, he’s desperate! Do what he say! Do what he say.”
I thought I was channeling my inner Mark Twain, but now I think it was my inner Mel Brooks. LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.