Really kind of a weird read, honestly. Saying something can't exist (gay marriage) which clearly does exist is kind of pointless, isn't it?
First and foremost, "
Sometime between the divorce rate skyrocketing and out-of-wedlock births reaching 40 percent nationwide, it became obvious that our society has very little energy for preserving, defending, respecting, or even participating in marriage."
The divorce rate has been slowing since the 80's and is at it's lowest point since 1970. Lots of factors in that, but chief among them - people are waiting longer to get married and making smarter life choices by doing so.
Next problem...
Tying gay marriage to abortion in order to demonize the idea as a holy cow of liberals is also faulty. Many liberty minded independents support gay marriage and oppose abortion. I am one of these. Just ask
@syskatine if I am a good liberal.
Next problem...
His two pieces of evidence that gay marriage is different than the regular kind...
1) One involves people of the same sex, the other does not.
2) In one there is never any possibility of procreation, whereas in the other there is.
The problem is that #1 is obvious and undisputed. It actually makes the point for the pro-gay marriage crowd by reducing it to the obvious. The problem with #2 is obviously the follow up question, so should straight couples who are too old or infertile to produce children get married? If a couple simply chooses not to have children, does that lessen the validity of their marriage to each other?
He awkwardly addresses this paradox by calling infertile couples' inability to produce children a "
defect," and says "
Fertile, healthy married couples have not only the ability to procreate, but often the responsibility."
Procreation isn't a responsibility. Nor is it the reason people get married. Maybe it once was, but thankfully in the first world that is no longer the case. Is procreation why you married your wife? Be honest when you met your wife, did you fantasize about the babies she could deliver for you? Of course not. It started with basic physical attraction and was followed up by an intellectual and spiritual connection. How is that unique to a straight couple? And if it's not, what was the point again? Very confusing.
He then says, "
But in the old days (whenever those were)
people had kids because they wanted to and because they felt it was their vocation. I think that’s a beautiful mentality, and a rare one in these ‘me first’ times."
That's one vague and patronizing way to look at it. Another is to recognize that we are in an unprecedented time of technological growth, high population and relative world peace. Isn't advancement of mankind an honorable goal? If so, I think some intellectual honesty is in order. Can we really demand the next iPhone every six months while also demanding that we cling to the "good old days" in social ways that make us personally (individually) feel comfortable?
Do any of us want to live in a time of infant mortality, short life spans and back breaking labor like our ancestors where producing mewling filthy offspring was actually anything like a vocation? Or did all of you selfish me-first college educated elitists pick your own major and choose your own path like I did? No? You all work in the dirt and have 16 kids?
Next problem....
He fails at
@syskatine levels of ineptitude to recognize the irony in this statement:
"We cry discrimination and persecution if we find out that our coworker makes slightly more than us, or has a slightly bigger office, or a slightly more comfortable chair. We purchase TVs for a slightly clearer picture. In other words, we find immense, world-shattering connotations in the faintest little cosmetic changes and deviations, yet we struggle to appreciate the difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples"
Yes... and we also struggle to appreciate the basic premise of living in a free country and minding your own damned business because we think the queer army is going to force us all to live in homo land if we let a couple of people who love each other say they are married. We find "immense, world-shattering connotations" in the slightest societal change as we type away on this shiny new message board, embracing other - more convenient changes at a mind boggling pace.
He predicts something called gay marriage will be legal in every state, but spends an entire article parsing the semantics of the word "marriage" and tripping over himself the whole way to the climactic faith-based end statement: "
No matter what the State does, the essence of marriage cannot be changed, and marriage will still be a sacrament bestowed by God through a husband onto his wife and a wife onto her husband," which is a perfectly valid point of view. I wish that had just been his point from the beginning instead of trying to justify it through so many mental gymnastics.
