Posted on 05/11/2015 11:31:21 AM PDT by servo1969
It is a matter of fact that marriage and the family have been around longer than any human law.
There is something called natural law. Philosophers, including philosophers of law, have heard of it. It is not necessary that every marriage be fertile; it is enough to observe that man and woman are ordered to each other, that the union of man and woman is ordered to childbearing, and that childbearing among human beings is ordered to a stable family in which man and woman remain together for the good of the child. This is how human life was passed on before there was any such thing as law. Without this observance of natural law — of man attracted to woman, of their having sexual union and subsequently remaining together as a domestic unit — the human species could not have survived. Comments about old age and are irrelevant, as the parents still need each other in old age after the children are on their own, and inter-generational bonds ensure that the elderly are not discarded like yesterday’s trash. Comments about infertility are irrelevant. Infertility is a disorder, in the same way that a medical disorder that causes blindness does not somehow cause the eye to be ordered not to sight but to walking or digestion. Man and woman are ordered to each other even if they can’t make babies together: in both body and mind they fit together and complete each other.
Infertility deliberately chosen through the self-mutilation of chemical “castration” or otherwise is an abuse of nature. That is why it’s wrong for Obamacare to cover contraception: because human fertility is a sign of good health, not a disease needing to be cured.
Marriage’s definition argued from natural law, and the facts of our existence as evidence of a supernatural act of creation outside the competence of natural science to explain, are obvious to any reasonable person willing to egage in systematic thought.
Rush’s disordered view of marriage is well within the American mainstream
Uh, no Romulus; you are wrong. Rush's view, and the view that is still of most American's, is the classical view of marriage - that of one woman and one man in a monogamous arrangement. the classical definition has been the definition for centuries; and that is why homosexual marriage has and always will be wrong.
What most Americans believe about marriage is irrelevant. Unless you want to pretend marriage is an American invention.
The classic definition of marriage is that it’s for life — which right there disqualifies Rush, both as commentator and personally.
You’re out of your depth. Go back to the kiddie end of the pool.
Then why bring up what the "American mainstream" thinks as you did? This statement only proves your opinion is irrelevant; and hypocritical.
The classic definition of marriage is that it’s for life — which right there disqualifies Rush, both as commentator and personally.
You’re out of your depth. Go back to the kiddie end of the pool.
It does not disqualify him stating the truth; the truth is the truth - even if that person is being hypocritical. Unfortunately, you are the kiddie who hides from the truth at the wrong end of the pool - you are under water and don't know it. Crawl along the bottom of the pool your drowning in and find a liberal rag to read; it' obiously more to you line of thinking. Good luck!
The hypocrisy of the Left never fails to stun me.
Because it has warped American understanding of marriage and thus had a bearing on the public conversation and legal developments.
find a liberal rag to read
I am the one arguing for an understanding of marriage that's life-long, fruitful, and heterosexual. This is real marriage, God-given, revealed in nature, and honored by the Judeo-Christian tradition. You do realize that you're the liberal in this conversation?
I'm not arguing with you on that, and you know it. You argued that, "Rush’s disordered view of marriage is well within the American mainstream, which makes it inevitable that this country will not — cannot — see anything wrong with same sex marriage.
This is where you take a liberal bent, you know well that this holds true ONLY in a minority of states that are liberal. The majority of states do NOT approve of same sex marriage - it is only passing by judicial fiat in any conservative state. If the majority of states approved of same sex marriage, then the people of those states would have passed legislation to make it so.
Your position that truth cannot come from a hypocrite is also a liberal position. We are all with shortcomings and no one can speak truth without admitting they have faults of their own. Therefore, taking the position that a hypocrite cannot speak the truth is a red herring in the argument for the truth; a typical liberal ploy.
Your lack of faith in the American public only serves the cause of liberalism. Grow a spine and fight for what the truth is and what is right instead of ragging on the US.
You really are not getting it. My problem isn’t that Rush is a hypocrite; it’s that — like most of America — he can’t recognize marriage when he sees it. Most of America accepts that marriage is for the satisfaction of the principals, to the exclusion of anything else. If it’s intentionally childless, it’s still marriage (to those folks). If it ceases to be mutually satisfying, it isn’t marriage (to those folks). In short, we have bought a spurious, romantic definition of marriage as an intensely private, relational affair between two persons. That the law should take notice of such relationships at all is merely a survival from the now-forgotten time when decent people did not use contraception or have recourse to abortionists, and divorce was for movie stars and disgusting people like that. But now everything I’ve decried is mainstream and Perfectly All Right. The broad culture in this country has happily redefined marriage to the point where it can find no reason in its impoverished understanding that such a thing should be denied to two people of the same sex.
My lack of faith in the American public is founded in the sorry truth that America has liberalism in its DNA, so that what’s playing out now before our horrified eyes seems perfectly fine to almost all. Trust me; your great grandchildren will never understand what the fuss was all about. They will be sure you were a terrible bigot.
anybody got the rainbow gun cartoon to the baker’s head
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.