How will you feel in 20 Years?
Contrary to the new Washington Post writer on the “conservative beat,” I am confident that I will continue to be proud of my involvement in the movement for natural marriage. Oh, you hadn’t heard about this? It seems that the Washington Post chose one David Weigel to be their correspondent to cover the conservative movement. He tweeted this statement.
“I can empathize with everyone I cover except for the anti-gay marriage bigots. In 20 years no one will admit they were part of that.”
Well, Dave, let me explain it to you.
Same sex marriage will undermine these principles:
1. biology is the basic way we assign parentage, with adoption as an important child-centered exception.
2. children are ordinarily entitled to a relationship with their moms and their dads.
3. the state recognizes parenthood as a natural reality. the state does not assign parenthood.
4. mothers and fathers are not completely and perfectly interchangeable.
I actually believe that in 20 or 30 years, the advocates of same sex marriage will be ashamed of themselves. they will have a lot to answer for. right now, virtually no one is viewing this issue from the child’s point of view, or from a systemic point of view. The advocates are just looking at how the adults are going to feel, in the short term. pro-gay marriage bloggers even ask questions like, “how has same sex marriage hurt anyone in Iowa.” Listen: no one expects the full effects of redefining marriage to reveal themselves in 12 months. how short-sighted can you be? This is the kind of seismic change that takes time to play itself out. But when it does, the results won’t be good.
But this has been pretty much the story of the sexual revolution from the beginning.
The advocates for no-fault divorce have refused to take responsibility for the harms they unleashed on society: the lonely husbands living in apartments by themselves, seeing their children every other weekend, the abandoned wives, struggling to make ends meet, the children who have family shrubs rather than family trees.
The ideologues promoting the contraceptive ideology have claimed reponsibility for every woman who has gone to college since 1965, but have not taken the slightest responsibility for the fatherless children, the abandoned women, child poverty, STD’s and all the other direct line consequences of their ideology.
And don’t get me started on the pro-abortion advocates: the data they ignore; the predators they have covered for; the women hurting from post-abortion trauma, never mind the millions of dead babies.
Redefining marriage as the union of any two persons will set forces in motion that no one on the same sex marriage side is even considering. They are too busy calling people names, to take our arguments seriously. I’m sick of it, frankly.
Loading ...
It has appalled me for years now, that good sensible progressives are suddenly of the opinion that when it comes to men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers — separate IS equal after all!
I mean, who knew? Kid’s DON’T need diversity after all! All they need is any 2 people, regardless of whatever bias and baggage they come with.
When exactly did progressives start celebrating gender bias?
This reminds me of Helen Keller’s famous answer to an interviewers question, “What would be worse than being born blind?” She replied, “to have sight without vision.” It’s amazing that my generation, the boomers, so pride themselves in all they set in motion in the 60′s and Jen’s grand slam answer above points to it’s rotten fruit and yet they refuse to see. It’s a fascinating quandry.
I’m also reminded of James Dobson’s comment on the sexual revolution. He points out that the sexual revolution didn’t free women, it freed men. It freed them to be completely autonomous which someone has said is the ultimate psychosis.
A good friend just put this on facebook, with no idea how COMPLETELY relevant it is to this conversation:
In the Louvre (France’s magnificent museum), there are over 3 miles of science books, all of them obsolete. A reminder that we must never adapt our theology to the current understanding of science. All truth is God’s truth, no matter the particular field.
Amen.
The problem isn’t with no fault divorce or contraception, (I’m not even touching abortion for this) the problem is people not thinking. The problem is with people not thinking about long term problems before they get married, the problem is people not learning to communicate through problems. The problem is people being told two extremes “Everyone should have sex now!” “Everyone who has sex get’s AID’s and goes to hell!” through a transitional period while having parents who may or may not bother to talk to you about it, or who scream the same thing. The problem is not teaching kids how to responsibly use what they have access too (guess what kiddies, antibiotics negate the effects of oral contraception and you really do need to take it at the same time each day) ((Oh and a guy who doesn’t want to wear a condom for whatever reason, isn’t worth sleeping with and you should kick him to the curb, how about a health ed class that encourages that?)) The problem is people getting to cushy blaming other things and people for their problems. No fault divorce didn’t make anyone divorce, contraception didn’t make anyone have sex. Condoms and STD’s have been around long before the pill. Chaucer mentions them in Canterbury Tales. Poor knowledge of STD’s is what led to the rise in infections over the past 50-60 years. Condoms were not popular and thus not used until AID’s came around and people started realizing that STD’s can kill you. There are far too many people in the world who benefit from no fault divorce ( My mother’s divorce was the best decision for her, myself and my sister) and contraception ( Sister is happily married to her high school sweetheart and holds a PHD, religious cousin who didn’t use it or get that talk, two babies two daddies, she’s married and happy now, but man did that cause drama back in the day.) Anecdotal yes. You are blaming the easy target. The problem is a lack of responsibility. And that lack of responsibility knows no gender, party, orientation or religious lines. Getting rid of the no-fault divorce or contraception wouldn’t solve anything, adultery would rise, abuse would rise, poor relationships would get more terse. And the children are the ones who would suffer.
@Marty
Rest assured, there are NO “three miles of science books” at the Louvre, an art museum. Been there. Seen it.
@nerdygirl
Good post! No, actually, GREAT post.
Dr. Morse, I am proud of you, and I am so glad that you are effectively engaging with these campus debates in front of the students. They don’t realize how their dreams of marriage and love are being undermined by their own refusal to judge – moral relativism. They are so anxious to escape from moral obligations themselves that they are ignorant of how their high-minded tolerance undermines the whole notion of love and marriage, which require a sense of duty. It’s not about adults feeling happy.
you use a lot of words with vague meanings. how exactly is tolerance high-minded? surely being tolerant is a quality you either have or do not have, which is not subject to any other conditions? and what are these moral obligations that students are apparently so anxious to avoid? I feel sorry for you if you think marriage is not about feeling happy, because it can be for some people. well done to paterfamilia for pointing out Marty’s blatant error. and Marty, “science books”, really? did that not tip you off that it was a fact invented in sunday school?
@Wintery Knight
@Paterfamilias