Posted on 02/08/2012 4:10:11 AM PST by Kaslin
The more often liberals speak on the topic of same-sex marriage, the more illogical their arguments become. Of course, the worst arguments come from liberal professors because they talk about the subject to the point of obsession. And the worst of the worst come from English professors steeped in postmodern orthodoxy. A recent letter to the editor by North Carolina English professor Dick Veit is illustrative. Dick writes the following (in italics). I respond intermittently. Students considering a major in English at a secular university should read his words carefully:
If you can’t claim that your own marriage would be hurt by a gay couple getting married (and you can’t), and if you can’t point to anyone at all whose marriage would be harmed (and you can’t), then you can’t claim that marriage would be harmed.
Dick Veit shows the narrow-mindedness of same-sex marriage proponents in three ways. First, he falsely asserts that there are only two arguments against same-sex marriage. Next, he asserts that the burden of proof is on his opponents. Finally, he asserts that the arguments he selects cannot possibly be proved. He omits the best arguments against same-sex marriage. Fortunately, in the next line of his letter, he opens the door for one of those arguments:
If you would deny a right to others that you claim for yourself, you cannot say that you believe in liberty.
I hope this means that Dick will now support a man’s right to determine whether his child will be aborted. But that is not what he means. He means that proponents of traditional marriage must extend marriage rights to same-sex couples or, alternately, forfeit their right to say they believe in liberty. The argument is problematic because it knows no limitations. It falsely equates liberty with absolute liberty. Consider some extensions of Veit’s argument:
*If you support marriage between a man and another man, you must also support marriage between a man and another man and a woman or, alternately, forfeit the right to say you believe in liberty.
*If you support marriage between a man and another man and a woman, you must also support marriage between a man and another man and two women or, alternately, forfeit the right to say you believe in liberty.
The possibilities are endless. Eventually, one ends up supporting a marital union between two twin sisters, a dog, and a four-year old – just so he can say “I believe in liberty!”
The trouble all begins with Veit making the obvious error of asking “Is it free?” without asking the follow-up question “Is it good?” That is precisely how he winds up in the untenable position of promoting equality among unequal entities. In the final analysis, Veit is left with the dubious honor of joining a very small club I call the We Can Say We Believe in Equality So We Must Be Morally Superior Society.
Unfortunately, Dick has left the rest of society with an all-encompassing definition of family that simply does not work. For example, there can be no workable body of family law if there are no restrictions on what we call “family.” That it is unworkable is not an issue for Dick. He lives in a world of ideas, not in a world of reality. All ideas have consequences. But the worst ideas usually have consequences for someone else. That is why the worst ideas usually come from tenured professors who are shielded from consequences altogether. Keep reading:
If you would insist that others must be bound by the precepts of your religion, then you do not believe in religious freedom.
Christianity does not mandate marriage among its own adherents. It certainly does not mandate the practice among non-Christians. Of course, under the current definition of marriage, no one is forced to follow a religious practice. But some are choosing to follow a secular practice and call it a religious practice. They are also trying to force followers of a religious practice to call a secular practice a religious practice against their will.
The government seizure and redefinition of a religious practice – one that actually predates the government - cannot be seen as a step towards religious freedom. But that is Dick’s position. He thinks the government – by judicial fiat - can redefine a religious institution that predates its existence. If you disagree, “then you do not believe in religious freedom.” Does any of this make sense? Read on:
If you say that you oppose Sharia law because it forces religious rules on nonbelievers, then why are you doing the very same thing?
Translation: If you think the voters of North Carolina can retain the traditional definition of marriage by a vote you are wrong. This would block the judiciary from imposing same-sex marriage on the general population against its will. And that would destroy religious freedom.
Marriage is an institution that predates every constitution, every judicial body, and every legislative body in the world. Nonetheless, Veit thinks the government has a right to seize and redefine religious institutions such as marriage at will. If you disagree with Dick then he claims that you are just like Muslim extremists who want to set up a theocracy in America.
That is how the tenured Dick thinks. That is why the people of North Carolina must vote to preserve traditional marriage via constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we really will start looking like a Muslim theocracy. And prophets will be marrying six year olds in the name of sexual equality.
This is the money phrase. Never forget that they need to explain you you why marraige should be re-defined. You don't need to explain why it shouldn't. Whenever I argue this with people, they always try to manuver the discussion to put me into a position where I need to try to convince them. I never let them do this, and so they never win.
Saw a bunch of perverts on TV with signs saying Gay marriage (they meant homosexual)is a CIVIL RIGHT.
What utter bullshit. Marriage is not a Civil Right. Civil Rights belong to EVERYONE. But not everyone can get married. Children can not get married. Brothers and sisters can not get married. A man a 3 women can not get married and on and on.
This destrruction of our society has got to stop.
You cannot debate someone that can change the very definitions of words as you speak them. They may believe “truth is relative” but like He told Pilate there is ONE truth and He is it.
"...One very obvious way that Christianity corrects and "cures" pre-Christian religion is in its emphasis on the sanctity and supreme worth of the individual. It cannot be overemphasized the extent to which the emergence of the individual marks an unprecedented and shocking Cosmic Fact -- the most important "fact" in all of creation. ....
Liberty and equality are inverse variables, and in critical ways define the distinction between contemporary conservative liberals and illiberal leftists.
Ever since the French Revolution, the cosmically reactionary left has vaunted égalité over liberté, while the conservative revolution of America was fought for our freedom.
Our founders were freedom fighters, not feudal fighters struggling to make everyone equally beholden to the state master. And they were passionate about the relationship between hierarchy and liberty, for nothing destroys liberty like egalitarianism...."
However, to the extent that MARRIAGE is a religious institution and homosexuality an abomination to Christianity, compelling believers to accept a secular union as a marriage is a tyrannical usurpation of religious liberty and cannot be tolerated.
Let Caesar redefine "marriage" any way he wants. To the Christian community, it must remain solely a union between man and woman. That is what God has ordained, despite what Man chooses to modify.
Nice pun .... and nice rebuttal.
Exactly. Any attempt to deprive individuals of their God-given "Right of Conscience" is PURE EVIL.
“Man’s personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man’s progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom.”
Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings.
Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since ‘it is right to obey God rather than men.’”
Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
And the time has come to decide which master you will serve. The Church must stand fast on this and the Obamabortion issue. And by "the Church" I don't just mean bishops and pastors. I mean the body of Christ's community. It can be done without hatred in one's heart or judgment of anyone's soul, but with a firm resolve toward living the Word of God as nearly as a flawed human can.
I’ve used his tactic before.
Leftists are either too dumb to follow the logic, or they are intentionally obtuse.
If you believe “two people” should be able to get married, then you are anti-liberty, because you are excluding from marriage all other arrangements besides just “two people”.
Three, four, four hundred - all should be able to be married.
And why restrict it to “people”?
BTTT Absolutely! But those who previously voted for Obamamessiah who are now "standing firm", must face the fact that if he backs down on this now, it will only be a temporary backdown.
B.O. will double down on his UNCHANGING agenda with a vengence, if they are dumb enough to vote for him again and he gets a second term where he doesn't have to worry about another election.
Marriage is historically an obligation two people undertook before engaging in behavior that could reasonably be expected to yield children, in order to promote a structure that maximizes the likelihood of those children surviving to adulthood.
Since a homosexual couple, by definition, cannot produce children, there is no need for them to undertake that obligation.
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.