Posted on 09/12/2022 7:42:58 AM PDT by fwdude
Dr. Iskander wrote this article for ADvindicate in 2013, when same-sex marriage was being hotly debated, before the Obergefell decision invented a “constitutional right” of same-sex marriage and short-circuited the national debate. Kevin Paulson removed it from ADvindicate, but it is well written and argued, and deserves to be re-published, especially given that the conservative SCOTUS may overturn Obergefell (which was based upon the same nebulous concept of “substantive due process” that underlay Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and return the debate to the democratic process, just as it has done with abortion.
For most of history, sexual attraction was not the basis of marriage. Marriage and children were a duty and an expectation arising from religion and culture. People married someone of the opposite sex, and usually had children, regardless of their own sexual orientation. Patriarchal social norms were too strong to be flouted, and the taboos and sanctions against homosexual activity too severe and too strictly enforced. (Female homosexuality is virtually unknown to history.)
Today, however, marriage is viewed not as a religious, cultural or social duty, but as an avenue of self-fulfillment and self-actualization. There is an expectation of finding and marrying someone with shared values, interests, and tastes, and to whom one is sexually attracted.
(Excerpt) Read more at fulcrum7.com ...
bkmk
And why does the author think that is bad?
Because it does not mention children, which is why society gets involved with marriage. If you just wanted to declare someone to be your bestie, and live together for yourselves, you would not require the recognition of the institution of marriage.
plus the bald thing and the tranny and blkdyke, it’s like a quest to fine the most bizarre specimens on earth...
“Because it does not mention children, “
those expectations do not exclude children. They make for a more wholesome environment for raising children.
From Wikipedia: Concupiscence ... is an ardent, usually sensual, longing. In Christianity, particularly in Roman Catholic and Lutheran theology, concupiscence is the tendency of humans to sin.
We are all created as sinners, and men are created different from women. Perhaps you missed that in theology class?
True, but leaving out the most crucial aspect of parenthood (children) makes that definition objectionable. It’s as if raising children is an afterthought to such a marriage.
“True, but leaving out the most crucial aspect of parenthood (children) makes that definition objectionable. It’s as if raising children is an afterthought to such a marriage.”
When God made Eve heis goal was a suitable partner.
Missed what? Men were not created to sin. That came after the fall. If you ate implying that God gave you the right to lust and sin, you are going to hell. Did you miss the part in the Bible where it says to repent?????
” that definition “
It is not a definition. It is a statement of expectations.
An individual having “10s of thousands” of partners?
That would generally be a different partner every day for 40 years.
You might want to rethink that comment.
It is pointless to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples because male homosexuals, who comprise two-thirds of all homosexuals, have demonstrated that they will not accept monogamy or sexual exclusivity. Marriage will have to be redefined not only to include same-sex couples, but also to exclude the element of sexual fidelity.
“Because it does not mention children, which is why society gets involved with marriage.”
Society got involved and the result was the marriage contract which excluded children.
I didn’t get the impression the author necessarily thinks this is bad, but thinks a this new concept of marriage led people to think that hey, why not gay marriage, too?
It’s otherwise a good article, but I disagree with his assertion that marriage went from “duty” to “means of self actualization”.
Across time and cultures, marriage guaranteed a child’s right to both biological parents, and guaranteed both biological parents rights to their children, and with those rights went responsibilities. In addition, it allowed for a healthier and more orderly, prosperous, stable and peaceful society. In societies where faithful monogamous marriage was the norm, even more so.
Enter The Pill and the Sexual Revolution (which would have been impossible without The Pill). Suddenly, sex no longer meant babies. Nearly all women of reproductive age were and are chemically sterilized. But The Pill wasn’t perfect, so we had to legalize abortion as a backup. We came to believe sex should be consequence free, and this was some sort of bizarre right, even a “human right”.
There’s more, but many of us basically began to redefine marriage as something two people who had the hots for each other did for as long as the hots lasted, then no-fault divorce. We’d already decided children don’t need both biological parents and championed single mothers as heroines. Never mind this led to poverty and troubled kids. All that mattered was what adults wanted and their “human right” to pursue sexual happiness. Before long, this “right” extended to the right to do whatever with whomever wherever and whenever and seemed to become the #1 Basic Human Right.
Marriage was already eroded by The Sexual Revolution, the new “human right” and no-fault divorce. Children’s needs and rights had already been discounted. When the gays began to push for their “human right” to marry in an effort to normalize homosexuality, lots of people just went, well, hey, why deny their them their rights?
Here’s the thing, though. Legalization of same sex marriage broke that last link between marriage and biological children. And with it the rights and obligations that went along with it. True, we already had single mothers and irresponsible baby daddies. We already had the commodification of children, with abortion on demand, single women ordering from sperm banks and gay men renting the wombs of Third World women.
But once that “right” has been enshrined in law, turning back and restoring marriage (and the rights and responsibilities of biological parents and children it guarantees and enshrines) to its proper and healthy place as an institution becomes much, much, much harder.
“I didn’t get the impression the author necessarily thinks this is bad,”
Today, however,
What do you think sodomites do at their meth fueled “events”? They rent entire hotels for weekends to go at each other. It is commonly known that Much of the meth produced in the Midwest goes to these events. I don’t have a PHD in mathematics, but my engineering mind tells me they can easily rack up high numbers…
? Did the rest of your post get cut off? Or am I being dense? I am confused.
She should of stuck to today’s facts and avoided philosophy and history.
In one point she mentions that in the past homosexuality was hidden.
The she says female homosexuality was virtually non-existent.
“? Did the rest of your post get cut off? Or am I being dense? I am confused.”
No, but I can be clearer. Those are the lead words to the paragraph under discussion indicating a change for the worse.
“Most of the meth in the Midwest goes to that….”
Either you think there are millions of gay orgies in the Midwest, or you have no clue how much meth is sold in Ohio by itself.
I am going to go with #2.
They parade their evil. Hmmm. So, that is why they have Pride (of Sin) parades.
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.