I doubt that women are better off in some marriages in the Catholic cultures. If women are so well off in Roman Catholic marriages, why are they applying for annulments at the rate of up to 50,000 per year in the USA alone?
Having the freedom to choose doesn’t mean you always make the right choice the first time around. It also doesn’t mean you have to live with that mistake for the rest of your life and suffer for it. The point is that people marry because they are in love and women aren’t chattels in the West.
Not true. Some people will get married on the advice of their parents and in many cases the marriage will work out quite well.
Not true. Some people will get married on the advice of their parents and in many cases the marriage will work out quite well. The fact that a marriage is arranged by the parents does not mean that the women are chattel. In the case of an arranged marriage, both the husband and wife go along with the wishes of the parents.
How is it intellectually dishonest? It’s a fact that is easily verifiable, that demonstrates the point. It might be emotionally charged, but it certainly is factual. There’s no dishonesty involved. But God forbid anyone cite factual examples to prove a point out of fear of evoking someone else’s emotions. This emphasis on emotion, and that somehow a valid argument cannot be made if somebody might have their feelings hurt, has brought down the level of intellectual discourse. If anything Godwin’s law speaks not to the one making the point, but to the one hearing it.
Hardly. First, Kinder, Küche, Kirche was a product of Wilhelm II, not Nazi Germany. And neither Küche nor Kirche were common elements of traditional marriage in all cultures at all times, though certainly Kinder was.
The problem with tradition is that it can be used to justify all sorts of heinous injustices. Slavery, segregation, the subjugation of women, institutionalized socio-economic stratification, etc. The Supreme Court has long understood that where there is conflict the law must be understood in terms favorable to those who must live under them rather than those who turned to dust centuries ago. 5,000 years brought many changes to the institution of marriage and what people were doing 5,000 years ago has no role play in a decision that impacts people today. Besides, monogamy is a comparatively recent development in the history of marriage. Tradition would dictate that polygamy should be legal. Is that the path you wish to take?
The SC had to come up with a new meaning for “liberty” to find something in the law to justify a fundamental change to a long standing institution. It fixed what you view as a conflict by changing the definitions. This is nominalism at its worst. It’s not grounded in reality, but in the mental vision of five black robed figures.
That’s not what I said. I didn’t say “what people were doing 5,000 years ago.” I said what people have been doing for the last 5,000 years. It isn’t a single point in time event. It is a 5,000 year continuum.
Compared to what? Gay “marriage”? Please.
Tradition says that monogamy has been the norm for five millenia, especially in western society. The quote, “exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis” comes to mind. The general rule is that marriage is monogamous. So, no, I don’t agree that “[t]radition would dictate that polygamy should be legal.”
Oh, please, St. Patrick’s day is a national holiday in Ireland (and was recognized there first as a religious holiday/feast), and although it has lost its religious roots (as Christmas and Easter have to some degree), that does not mean that St. Patrick’s day can be extorted into something that it is not, i.e., a day to celebrate one’s sexuality or endorse one’s sexuality. End of story.
Is the government aware of this, because they need to be notified?
There’s no such thing as a gay “wedding”, period.
Nonsense. The State has a vested interest in the next generation of society and making sure they are raised in the best possible situation. Recognizing marriage is a vested interest of the State to protect the rights of wives and children. Since there are no children from homosexual unions, there is no such thing as gay “marriage” and the State is under no requirement to recognize such.
The left does not like it when people bring up their past.
How is the presence of gays in a Saint Patrick Day parade any worse than using the commemoration of the birth of Christ as an excuse for rampant materialism and commerce? Compared to that, the a gay-pride float is the most minor of transgressions.
Of course they are; thus the massive increase in police presence around such events.Is the government aware of this, because they need to be notified?
Apart from the Macys Thanksgiving Parade, which is more or less a strictly-regimented giant advertisement, there are *no *family-friendly parades. All inevitably degenerate into drunkenness and violence.p.s. I wonder what your thoughts are about Gay Pride parades (are they family friendly)?
The battle of semantics is one that probably won’t be easily won. Phrases and words get their meanings from their usage. So long as people use a phrase to be representational of a certain concept and others interpret it as that concept then the phrase has acquired that meaning. Much to my lament that’s why the definition of “literally” now list “virtually” as one of it’s synonyms.
“Ammon Shea said:
Some states recognized same sex marriage before it was recognized on a federal level. It’s recognition on a federal level would seem to constitute a requirement to recognize marriage between same sex individuals. That would seem reason to ammend your previous statement to replace the phrase “under no requirement” to “under one requirement” to be consistent with the current state of things in the USA.
You’re talking about gay marriage like it’s a tangible thing that’s inherently mythical, like Santa Claus or the Loch Ness Monster. “Gay marriage” is a concept; concepts exist when enough people believe in them, and do not cease to exist when one person stops believing in them. Thus, it’s all very well to say there’s no such thing as a gay wedding, or that gay marriage doesn’t exist, but words like these are irrelevant next to the wedding licenses, ceremonies, et. al. You can also pretend that gravity doesn’t exist, or argue about the semantics of gravity, but doing so will not make you fall into the sky.
And one can call a dog a cat but that doesn’t make it a cat.
You can dream of the concept of a square circle. But now matter how much you dream of it or believe one exists, it never will. Same with homosexual “marriage”. There can be entire ceremonies celebrating this fiction, but that won’t make it real.
You never seem to stick to what I’ve actually said, i.e., I don’t mind the presence of gays in the parade, I don’t see why, however, this has to be an occasion wherein a gay-pride float has to be on display, i.e., a St. Patrick’s parade has nothing to do with sexuality, and that’s the point you’re not getting. Moreover, I do not like the commercializing of Christmas (not to the extent that it has; it’s true meaning has been usurped).
There are always police on hand at parades, however, the majority of spectators at a St. Patrick’s parade are not drunks or thugs, i.e., many families partake in the revelry and spectacle. Moreover, If there were major issues of thuggish behaviour and/or drunkenness and/or lewdness at the many St. Patrick’s parades throughout N.A then I’m certain like the authorities in Hoboken did, they would cancel said parade.
I’m not sure where you come from, but during our St. Patrick’s parade (the biggest of it’s kind in N.A.), there have been no major issues of drunkenness or violence, and it is very family friendly.
The implication given is that its association to Naziism makes it invalid. Rather than explaining why it’s invalid, merely dropping Hitler into the mix saves one from having to do the heavy lifting of actually explaining why it was bad. It’s the epitome of intellectual laziness.
So Wickard v. Filburn allowed the government to regulate economic activity. But, as marriage has the character of an economic activity, complete with tax benefits, etc., Obergefell v. Hodges in many ways put more economic power into the hands of the people by allowing more couples to take advantage of these benefits.
The ideal has been the norm since classical antiquity. Men would go off to war, business, etc., and women would keep the home fires burning, so to speak.
The problems with the argument from tradition are twofold: One, no one has as of yet explained how this decision *negates *the history of the marriage institution, and two, there is no set, universally-recognized arbiter of the traditional definition of marriage.