Media critic. Invader of
SJW safe spaces.
wow brave https://t.co/oQMa6fIc1K
That's not creepy at all or anything. twitter.com/SternFanJustin…
Laughing so hard right now. --> Oxford University sorry for eye contact racism claim bbc.com/news/uk-englan…
First, my thoughts on gay marriage, for those who are new to the ST blog. The definition of marriage has been defined throughout the ages as a union between a man and a woman. Whether over the centuries men were marrying little girls, or at the times when it was only whites who could get married, even then it was still man and woman. The man/woman criteria has been one that has *not* changed, until recently (thanks to the Massachusetts SC).
So here we are now, trying to change the definition of it. Let me ask this: in marriage, can there be no absolutes in how it is defined? Seeing as that marriage has traditionally been defined throughout history the union between a man and a woman, who’s to say that once gay marriage is legal in this country everywhere that the definition won’t change soon there after for couples who want more than one wife or husband? That’s one of the problems with the idea of changing the definition of anything, especially something like marriage. Once you start changing the definition, there’s no way for you to stop it and on down the road the term “marriage” as we know it is essentially diluted to where it has no traditional meaning outside of “two people together in a committed partnership” or “multiple people who care for each other in a loving relationship” both of which could encompass many things.
Words have meanings. Why even define something if you’re going to keep changing the definition of it? Once you start, you really can’t stop.
The child population of San Francisco is dwindling. I think the numbers are down to around 15%, where as the national average is over 20% in each state (going off the top of my head here). Here’s an article that discusses the dwindling child population there. It mentions economic factors as part of the reason but said SF’s gay population is also considered to be a factor, considering that expensive cities like New York aren’t experiencing this problem to the degree that SF is. Worry about how the population could decrease is another worry that anti-gay marriage people have and I’m hoping that pro-gay marriage advocates understand why a decreasing population (over time) could be considered alarming.
These are just some of the reasons people like me argue against gay marriage. The worry is that once you start changing the definition of marriage, you wont be able to stop it and also that over time the population will cease to flourish (i.e. it would significantly be reduced). Now a counter argument could be “well how do you know until you try” but frankly, changing the definition of marriage is something I don’t really think we should experiment with. We’ve engaged in too much ‘social experimentation’ over the last 40 years or so with regards to marriage and relationships; among the ideas were the feminist idea that a man was meaningless (a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle – remember that?), that you didn’t have to get married to have a family, you didn’t have to worry about the consequences of sex outside of marriage because if you slipped up and got pregnant, the govt would take care of the baby for you, etc etc – social experimentations that have had disastrous results both socially and economically by de-emphasizing the traditional family unit. I’m not willing to experiment with redefining the institution of marriage because frankly I don’t have the faith in the perceived outcome of changing it that some of my friends on the other side of the argument have. If history is any indicator as to how social experimentation in this country has fared over the years (with the exception of the welcomed Civil Rights movement) then I think I’m on the right side of things.
In a piece I read today at Townhall.com, Kathleen Parker discusses the situation going on in Massachusetts, where gay couples and Gov. Mitt Romney are at odds on how to classify the mother and father on birth certificates. Here’s a bit of what she had to say regarding the slippery slope:
In one case Romney recently had to entertain, two men – one a sperm donor and the other his boyfriend – became “parents” when a woman gave birth to the donor’s child. The two men wanted their names on the birth certificate, with the boyfriend replacing the birth mother. In a bold act of increasingly rare sanity, Romney said “no.”
No doubt the gentlemen-parents were distressed by this negative intrusion into their familial fantasy, but Romney appears to understand that effectively codifying the “family” of two men and a newborn birthed by a uterobot has extensive implications. Meanwhile, one can’t help but feel sorry for the infant – Baby C, or Thing Three?
“Thing” is used here neither dismissively nor derisively, but as a term of stunning accuracy. Throughout our culture, children have become objectified, “thingified,” created or acquired for the fulfillment of our selves – decor options, accessories, cute little bundles for our entertainment and amusement.
Unless, of course, we’re not in the mood, in which case we hit the “abort” button, the ultimate expression of “thingification.”
As long as children are viewed as mere extensions of our selves, put here to satisfy some narcissistic need for self-actualization, it is easy to suppose that our needs and their needs are complementary. If same-sex marriage is what “I” need, then two same-sex parents are what “my” child needs.
What we know but the courts apparently choose to ignore is that identity and selfhood are rooted, in part, in our biological origins. Adopted children seek out biological parents in their quest for identity. Genealogical organizations do a brisk business as families try to reconstruct their lineage. “Who am I?” keeps psychotherapists in new Volvos.
Obviously, narcissism isn’t limited to the gay community, but it is surely at the root of the current skirmish in Massachusetts. What’s really behind the push for biology-neutral birth certificates isn’t fairness, or equal rights, but the elimination of any biological/procreative connection to parenthood.
Same-sex couples need this and, therefore goes the Seussian Logic, it is good for the children as well as civilization. Once the idea of a biological mother and father is expunged from the culture, there is one less logical impediment to normalizing same-sex marriage, which is, of course, the point.
Bang on. The slippery slope is not just a figment of conservative imagination. It is alive and well and breathing in the state of Massachusetts and if leftist militant gay rights adovacates have their way, it will be in your state, too.