I don't remember the comparisons to Jesus and Socrates. I do recall thinking that he was a bit too enthusiastic about Churchill's role in the creation of the welfare state though.
GKC: As for the Great Courses, how anyone has yet to mention the entire catalog of J. Rufus Fears' lectures is beyond me? He is a Master Storyteller, and his courses on Famous Romans, Famous Greeks, the Great Books, etc. are wonderfully entertaining and informative. He passed away this past year, I believe, unfortunately.
Noble also has a great course on the Papacy that is equally stimulating and clarifying, for those whose mind is riddled with misconceptions. · 23 minutes ago
I've only listened to one Great Courses selction and it was by Prof. Fears on Winston Churchill. He was a fantastic storyteller whose passion for history was evident in his lectures. You are correct that he recently passed.
A key feature of a functional marriage culture is that a given marriage is always recognized by the entire society.
Well, despite the governments best efforts to recognize and incentivize marriage, our functional marriage culture seems to be heading in the wrong direction.
One of the key features of the SSM debate is that the country is split on what they wish to recognize as a marriage. We are nowhere near agreement on the definition of marriage societally.
I'm more sympathetic to arguments against NFD than I am to arguments against SSM. NFD definitely had an impact on divorce rates over the past 40 years. SSM is an issue that affects a very small minority. A minority of which, only a minority will want children. The issue is so small that it astounds me that it is such an issue.
Considering all of the major problems with our modern marriage culture, focusing on such a small aspect of marriage seems odd to me. A focus on the 50% divorce rate and out of wedlock births would have a far greater impact on a far greater number of children. We should focus our collective efforts there.
Don't forget that the instant background check at the time of purchase was closer to 16 business days earlier this year. My understanding is that there are two women who sit in an office in Trenton and handle all NICS checks. Even if volume outpaces their productivity, no additional staff is ever added. They just work until their backlog of "instant background checks" becomes current again.
At $15 an hour, some of these activists would find that they now have actual tax liability and would become ineligible for some of the welfare subsidies they receive.
That would be fun to watch.
My argument (across a few of your threads) is that no natural right to be raised by a biological mother and father exists. Marriageis a social construct meant to encourage men to take care of women they've impregnated. My position is that I disagree with the existence of the natural rights/natural law you repeatedly cite as a foundation of your argument.
At no point have I said, "We don't need marriage because children don't have a right to be with their mom and dad." I think marriage as an institution has immense value. You're arguing with a straw man of your own choosing rather than what I actually wrote.
Natural law might dictate that every person's genetic origin includes a man and a woman, but fathers have been running out on their families for millennia. There is no natural "right" to a father beyond their involvement as a sperm donor. The weakening of the family has been an issue since long before SSM became the issue du jour. Societal norms and financial arrangements throughout history have incentivized men to stick around. I think a valid argument can be made that marriage exists solely because of a man's natural tendency to run off unless compelled not to.
There may be a "natural right" to being the product of a man and a woman, but there is no guarantee you'll be raised by them...even in a world where SSM doesn't exist.
My family and I aren't big gift givers, so the financial strain of Christmas is minimal. Being single around the holidays can be difficult, but the festivities and pleasant atmosphere of the holidays always outweigh the emotional drain of going it alone. I've found that whiskey makes a good companion if a woman isn't available.
Red Feline Comment #108
Obviously you are not a Roman Catholic, Bob. The Church of Rome has it all worked out in great detail. I don't think they have actually spelt out that children have a "natural right" to their own Mom and Dad, but as they only recognize as "natural" marriage between a man and a woman, I think that is implicit in their position. · November 22, 2013 at 9:03am
Obviously you frequently make incorrect assumptions. My willingness to keep separate my own beliefs from what I think should fall within the jurisdiction of the state should not disqualify me from being a member of the Catholic Church. A very pro-life, anti-IVF Catholic, I should add...Just one that doesn't believe that the state gives sanction to (true) marriage, nor should it withhold economic advantages from those it doesn't agree with.
It's also worth mentioning that marriage is not a prerequisite for having children...It isn't as if gay couples won't have children prior to SSM becoming law.
Why was it that the media wasn't able to portray JP2 as a leftist? Oh, that's right, he helped destroy the Soviet Union. JP2 (who'll most likely be the finest pope of my lifetime) left nothing open to interpretation. He always made it pretty clear where he stood. Why can't Pope Francis do the same?
My position here stems from the idea that I believe the private sector can produce a more efficient form of asset sharing/child-rearing arrangements than the government. That, long before SSM was even an issue, by giving the government any jurisdiction in defining marriage at all, the seeds were sown for the destruction of traditional marriage as a legal framework. Continuing to argue within the government about what is and what isn't a valid marriage only means that if you lose (and no offense, but polls suggest it) that you will have no recourse. And once legal marriage is redefined, have no doubt that the left will come after religious marriage. I for one, wouldn't necessarily trust a future supreme court to make the correct decision.
Lastly, If any of you were in a committed homosexual relationship, would you not be pushing for the extension of health benefits, right to make medical decisions for your partner, and tax advantages?
Marriage of course existed prior to the law that was approved to reward it. At that time... I don't believe there was any intent in the law of regulating, denying, even rewarding people as you say. That marriage comes with its own burdens, frequently the rearing of children, is a known. You seem to be engaged in a bit of rewriting of history yourself, as if those people who approved the law back then were premeditating to deny something to a class that didn't exist then. · 7 hours ago
I'm not accusing any one of premeditating. What I'm saying is that the fact of the matter exists that there are economic advantages available to heterosexual couples that aren't available to others. By others I mean, homosexuals AND singles. A dual income, no kid household has significant tax advantages over me and I don't think it makes much sense. Maybe it's just sour grapes.
I am a firm believer in the sanctity of religious marriage. I am not, personally, a supporter of SSM or their desire to have children (other than via adoption, but that would require an entire post).
Is there a collection of all these natural rights in a book somewhere? This is the first I've ever heard of the natural right of "Kids are entitled to their own Mom and Dad." I don't mean to sound harsh in my criticism, but this "natural right" seems entirely made up to advance your ends.
The true, libertarian position is a complete removal of the government from regulating, denying, and rewarding marriages. Marriage should exist in private contract law and should confer no tax benefits on those involved. In the meantime, I see no reason to deny gay couples tax advantages.
Worrying about the gays while 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers just seems foolish to me. The social, moral, and economic benefits of focusing on more cohesive family strucutre in our inner cities far outweighs the occasional child with two moms.
I'm not sure I understand the thesis of the argument being made by Jennifer or how she's making the leap from implied natural law to a clearly-defined amendment to the Constitution.
86 the Philly Cheesesteak. They're overrated. Head to Reading Terminal Market and get a Pork Sandwich from Di Nic's. If you must have a cheesesteak, get one from Geno's. It's one of the two most famous Cheesesteak places in Philly, and its long time owner (Joe Vento) was an active Republican. Other than that distinction, all philly cheesesteaks are just cheap cheese on cheap meat on a cheap roll.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In