Posted on 10/15/2013 5:26:17 PM PDT by rhema
A New Jersey judge’s contorted and nonsensical decision that the state is responsible for the federal government’s failure to recognize same-sex marriage highlights the irrationality that permeates the campaign for “marriage equality.”
One of the most striking features of the campaign for same-sex marriage has been the prominence of its assault on reasoning itself. The logical relations of legal categories with one another, as those categories represent persons, their interactions, and their rights and duties, are at the heart of all legal decision-making and ideally inform legislative and administrative policymaking as well. But the impulse to redefine marriage so that it is no longer understood as the conjugal union of a man and a woman has been consistently heedless of logic and the rational relations of legal categories.
Begin with the steadfast refusal of same-sex marriage advocates even to define what “marriage” is now supposed to mean. As the authors of What Is Marriage? have tirelessly argued, marriage has had a consistent core meaning, essentially the same rationally defensible one, in every human civilization. Those who reject that meaning haven’t offered an intellectually coherent new meaning for the word. Is marriage now simply an affective/sentimental/romantic/sexual relationship of two persons who wish to share their lives together? Then what limiting principle demands that it be sexual, and not affective in other non-sexual ways? Or that marriage be exclusive, with a requirement of fidelity to one’s spouse? Or that it be permanent—or even that its dissolution be governed by any standards other than the will of the parties? Or that the relation be limited to two persons, or that it rule out the union of close blood-family members?
Same-sex marriage advocates have offered no serious answers to any of these questions—or, at least, none that do not crumble under the slightest
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...
Arguments are well put.
homosexual sham marriage is just another step to destroy the family and attack the first amendment and Christians.
In the benighted Middle Ages, the core curriculum consisted grammar, logic and rhetoric, so that people could learn to think and communicate.
In our enlightened modern age, schools teach that there is no truth. So why bother thinking?
“Is marriage now simply an affective/sentimental/romantic/sexual relationship of two persons who wish to share their lives together? Then what limiting principle demands that it be sexual, and not affective in other non-sexual ways? Or that marriage be exclusive, with a requirement of fidelity to one’s spouse? Or that it be permanent—or even that its dissolution be governed by any standards other than the will of the parties? Or that the relation be limited to two persons, or that it rule out the union of close blood-family members?”
To the state in the modern era the only limiting principle concerning marriage is however judges, politicians, or the voting public think it should be limited at any one time. To the state that’s all it can be, the definition can coincide with actual marriage, or it can depart from it. For some faiths it departed a long time ago with civil divorce and remarriage, for many more it departed with easy serial divorce and remarriage, and now even more with ‘gay marriage.’
100 years from now the state will probably recognize things like marrying your own child clones or human/animal hybrids. That’s no more preposterous than telling someone in 1913 that by the year 2013 ‘gay marriage’ would be accepted in 13 states.
Freegards
This is what happens when marriage is divorced from religion.
Marriage is not properly a function of the state.
The word “marriage” should always be accompanied by a declaration of the faith under which the marriage was consecrated.
States do not consecrate.
Failure to acknowledge this has led to catastrophe.
Marriage by definition is a mutual oath between a man and a woman to conceive a family and children. Any other contract is another contract with a different name.
To relativise marriage as any other contract is like relativising 1st degree murder as any form of homicide.
However the antigun liberals woud have it that guns are evil and for murder implicitly.
This digusting head in the sand deaf and blind condemnation and implicit judgmentalism tells you how evil and deceptive liberal judges are. German Nazis had exact same hea in sand behavior in their bigotries and condemnation of jews.
They wont come out the closet saying self defense is murder or that marriage is worse than independent prostitution contracts keeping the man and woman to their privacies.
No, we are ruled by sophisicated prostitutes who do not admit their private shames and jealousies and attack us. Leftism is the embodiment of this cult of prostitution.
“Irrational Liberal Judges”
There’s no such thing.
Liberal judges are brilliant, intellectual, genetically advanced geniuses compared to those knuckle-dragging, moronic, gun-loving, bible-thumping, idiotic Christians.
/Sarc/
IMHO
It's actually the spearhead of complete totalitarianism. It is political correctness in full bloom, with all of the necessary oppression that comes with it, not only of behavior, but of thought itself.
good point.
The communists used homosexuality to try and destroy the west and the USA decades ago.
Now the left in this country have promoted what our enemy was using to destroy us.
Those ignorant types who think homosexual sham marriage is what ever are only backing what the communists wanted to use to destroy us and the dumb fools need to wake up about it as their is a bigger picture and agenda.
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.