Monday, April 7, 2014

Ancient Concepts, Tortured Definitions, and the Rotting Roots of Marriage

" Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.” -Hillary Clinton
Thank You Andrew Sullivan, but Hilary is incorrect because marriage hasn't always been a man and a woman. (Yeah, that's another post)

The Ideal of Married Mother and Father -Ken Palmer
"It is natural for a man and a woman to get together and produce children. That is how we all got here. Many people who identify as gay or lesbian, even ones who want state-recognized "marriages", will agree, especially in private, with the opening statement."
It's a long text, but a great post.

Ken is from the Opine Editorals. Thanks for sticking it out with our ancient concepts.

Tortured Definitions by cyrus83 over at Althouse
The premise that supporting the traditional understanding of marriage is "anti-gay" by definition is a problem in itself. It all goes back to what one thinks the purpose of marriage is.
The purpose of traditional marriage is pro-child. I don't think it's irrational for society to support wanting children to be raised in a stable home by their natural parents. Since raising a kid takes a good 18-25 years these days, society would want to develop a structure that would keep the father and mother together, discourage having children outside of that structure, and possibly incentivize people to enter into that structure. In other words, something a lot like what marriage was before the age of easy divorce....
Many nowadays seem to have forgotten this, which is why we have often seen tortured definitions these last 10 or so years that have focused solely on the genders involved rather than on the purpose of marriage.
If you are a visitor of this blog, you know very well from my post "Marriage from a Child's Point of View" written in 2007, was based on my experienced in the mid-1990s. The 1990s might as well be 50,000 years ago in they way we now speak. My defense of marriage has no roots in the current tortured definition, but from a time when the youngest Millennial were born.

I get it, marriage was broken on arrival. Millennials have every right to consider it obsolete. Yet, I have no reason to back down or change my views on the subject, it feels like now more then ever I have every reason to preserve such an idea if we would like to return back to it.

Do I worry about social backlash?

Yes and No.

I grew up discussing politics at the dining room table with the evening news on. I could express my ideas (AND LISTEN TO OTHERS) in the classroom as a political science major and with friends and family. I went to law school and passed the Bar. Currently I'm an active voter and engage with others at a local level. In all of these situations, I used my real name I never hid my identity from my thoughts. I'm not going to hide now.

My biggest fear is the inability to listen to others, but I'm finding people are having less and less to say.

No comments:

Post a Comment