MN Plays Pretend With Marriage - The Right Side of History surely can’t be found on the Wrong Side of Reality

  • Thread starter Thread starter westNwewaxation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I lol’ed when I read this.

I believe that the government needs to get out of marriage, so I respect a homosexual couple’s right to be married, and even to adopt (for economic reasons, better than a government foster home).

But despite that, it’s funny that progressives talk about gay marriage as being “progressive”, (as in the forward moving of a species) when by default, (for humans, plants and animals) homosexual relationships cannot procreate.
 
westNwewaxation said:
“One of the clearest things about Minnesota’s new gay-marriage law is that it requires Minnesotans to “play pretend” — to embrace obvious fictions as reality.”

startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/209736121.html
Click to expand...
Worse than that, really. It is based on the fundamentally different worldview that each of us creates his or her own reality and that nobody has the right to impose “his” worldview on somebody else. Actual reality is a moot point. They don’t believe such a thing exists anymore. We’re a society of Pontious Pilates (“Truth? What is truth?” … And you know what came next!)
 
Thank you very much for this!!

It allowed me to look at the issue of same-sex unions from a new perspective. The gay rights community wants to achieve (their definition of) equal rights for gays and lesbians, but really, shouldn’t a couple who is raising their own biological children receive special treatment? Isn’t that the most important activity two people could undertake?

I think this is a good point to present to the secularist who wants to redefine marriage.
 
ActingCatholic said:
Thank you very much for this!!

It allowed me to look at the issue of same-sex unions from a new perspective. The gay rights community wants to achieve (their definition of) equal rights for gays and lesbians, but really, shouldn’t a couple who is raising their own biological children receive special treatment? Isn’t that the most important activity two people could undertake?

I think this is a good point to present to the secularist who wants to redefine marriage.
Click to expand...
The ready counterpoint from their side is that if this is what marriage is all about then marriage must be banned for those seeking to marry after menopause or other condition resulting in sterility.

What they miss in making that argument is that what makes it marriage is not necessarily the fact of there being kids, but that the nature of the relationship is one that is oriented towards making and raising kids. You just can’t say that about two gay men. But you CAN say that about a 55 year old couple unless you are prepared to argue that a woman isn’t really a woman anymore after menopause. Or that a man isn’t a man anymore if he has low sperm count. Few to no people are willing to make that argument.

The difference is that it is incidental issues that preclude the marriage from resulting in parenthood in those cases, not the nature of the relationship itself. A normal marriage is oriented towards parenthood unless something extraordinary intervenes. Homosexual relationships, on the contrary, are NOT oriented towards parenthood unless something extraordinary intervenes (adoption, artificial insemination etc). Big difference.
 
My argument is that with same-sex marriage being legal, should we not lift up child raising marriages somehow? Isn’t there something more significant about these unions?

It forces them to defend the position that a same-sex union is just as valuable to the state as a child raising union, which I think is a difficult position to defend.
 
ActingCatholic said:
My argument is that with same-sex marriage being legal, should we not lift up child raising marriages somehow? Isn’t there something more significant about these unions?

It forces them to defend the position that a same-sex union is just as valuable to the state as a child raising union, which I think is a difficult position to defend.
Click to expand...
Yes - and one thing I have heard and like to relay is that even a man-woman couple past their prime and unable to conceive children together can still reinforce by their example the societal norm of monogamy within marriage.

Monogamy is already being discussed as the next attribute of marriage that we should discard as a culture. “Open relationships” make sense, in a way, for homosexual relationships in a way that does not translate well to heterosexual relationships. There are already articles out there starting to suggest heterosexuals should get in on the fun which homosexuals enjoy by bending the rules of monogamy. But it doesn’t quite work the same way in the heterosexual world.

For example, two homosexual men who have an open relationship will never conceive a child accidentally as long as they stick with other men. But a 50-yr-old man who tries to do likewise because he sees it on Oprah or something and cheats on his wife may possibly conceive a child with a younger mistress. The rules are different because we are talking about two categorically different types of relationship, man-woman versus same-sex.

Marriage is not just some individual right, it is also a societal standard and that is where a lot of its importance lies, and where a lot of damage could be done in future generations if the societal standard is altered and a sort of genderless procreationless idea about marriage becomes the new normal, because that idea does not really match up with the reality of man-woman unions. Man-woman unions are by nature procreative, whereas same-sex unions are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top