Isa: changing the definition of something does not mean it must necessarily have no definition at all.
If anyone will be pressing for the right to legalized polygamy, it will be the fundamentalist Mormons, and they’ll be asking for it under the guise of religious liberty (which I’ve been told should be given the utmost consideration, but apparently that’s not the case).
I don’t think anyone’s insisted homosexuality is “common”. It’s not. I think most folks would agree, however, that there’s a substantive difference between consensual adult relationships and the rape of a child. I’m hoping I don’t have to explain to you what those differences are.
]]>“It’s difficult to take arguments like this seriously when the person making them doesn’t believe those standards apply to them.”
Like “same sex couples” redefining marriage denying that it can include polygamy, or homosexuals claiming homosexuality is normal denying normality to pedophiliacs?
I am not suggesting anything. I am stating flat out that marriage is between one man and one woman. All other relationships or arrangements have no ontological grounding and thus no possibility for sacramental completion.
]]>Are you suggesting that a marital union only has merit in the eyes of God when it is procreative or involves child rearing? Is this even an Orthodox belief?
]]>Yes, at bottom this is a revolt against material and non-material hierarchies. The only way to finally overthrow them is to erase the memory of Christ from the cultural memory. That’s why Christians and Christianity are and will increasingly become the target.
]]>We don’t know the reason Buchanan does not have children. Maybe there is a medical condition, maybe not. But it doesn’t matter (nor is it our business) because the state has no interest in private marriages, only natural marriage. Natural marriage ensures the continuation of the human race and society. The sterility of homosexual couplings cannot meet that criteria, Obergefell v. Hodges notwithstanding.
]]>Buchanan has never had children. Given that fact that he was married in 1971, I’d say they’ve had ample opportunity to adopt if there was an issue with infertility, but the’ve chosen not to. What is the State’s interest in their marriage, if any?
It’s difficult to take arguments like this seriously when the person making them doesn’t believe those standards apply to them.
]]>You are missing Buchanan’s point. Homosexual couplings are naturally sterile so the state really has no interest in homosexual unions. Homosexual couplings can never produce children. No future there.
]]>“The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.”
The state provides numerous types of legal arrangements that return no practical benefits. What good do powers-of-attorney or wills have to anyone outside of those directly involved? None. They matter a great deal to the people who make use of them, though. The state simply enforces these arrangements.
The difference between civil marriage and all other legal arrangements is mostly a matter of degree: Social Security benefits, inheritance issues, etc.
As such, it would help to explain which legal benefits in particular should not be extended to non-married couples and why.
]]>Read this for some encouragement:
]]>I’m serious; it leaves me with a very uneasy / creeped out feeling. What will the world be like for my young children when they are adults or for their future children?
I think the logic of the argument is what gives it teeth, or more accurately, fangs.
Lord, have mercy.
]]>