Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; wagglebee

George is definitely right and Morrissey’s rebuttal that the state has no interest in marriage because the state and society has handled it badly.

That’s like saying baseball teams have no interest in pitching because they’ve drafted poorly.

Some philosophy whiz kid please give me the name of the logical fallacy employed here by Morrissey. I would call it “throwing out the baby with the bath water.”


6 posted on 05/28/2009 5:26:47 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; wagglebee

Kmiec’s absurd idea is nothing more than a new tactic by the left to LEGITIMIZE homosexual “marriage”.

If the states were to no longer recognize the validity of marriage and leave it to religious groups, there is little doubt what would happen:

Leftist “churches” (and I use that term very lightly as they would probably be nothing more than social clubs where leftists go to talk about “judge not lest ye be judged” and sing “Kumbaya”) would start “marrying” homosexuals and giving them marriage certificates. These certificates, signed by an “ordained” minister/community organizer would be every bit as legitimate in the government’s eyes as a true marriage certificate signed by a Bible-believing minister, priest or rabbi.


10 posted on 05/28/2009 5:39:28 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; Dr. Eckleburg; wagglebee

One last thought, unless the government is prepared to remove marriage penalties from the tax system this whole notion is pointless.


15 posted on 05/28/2009 5:42:34 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
George is definitely right and Morrissey’s rebuttal that the state has no interest in marriage because the state and society has handled it badly. That’s like saying baseball teams have no interest in pitching because they’ve drafted poorly. Some philosophy whiz kid please give me the name of the logical fallacy employed here by Morrissey. I would call it “throwing out the baby with the bath water.”

It's the same logical fallacy used by those who wanted to cut-n-run from Iraq. "We screwed up and things arent perfect, so lets not care about the consequences, lets just go."

It's a reverse slippery slope argument - 'ah, we are halfway to Hell in a bucket, lets go the distance' A form of perfectionism - 'it aint perfect, so lets break it fully.'

Government has mucked things up - BUT - Ed Morrisey forgets that while goodly numbers of marriages break up, 50% stay intact. Children in intact marriage are far less likely to be victims of abuse and have better life outcomes - less juvenile delinquency, more likely to graduate HS and College, etc.

The outcome of this policy is to simply destroy the last vestiges of an institution that is vital to civilization.

Maybe there are people coming up with such horrible, dreadful ideas so the still-bad-but-less-dreadful idea of gay marriage becomes more acceptable. I dunno, but its beyond bad to end the definition of marriage in law.

16 posted on 05/28/2009 5:45:36 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson