-
History Channel Gets Vikings Precisely Wrong
March 12, 2013 | 52 comments
-
Salvation Alley
October 23, 2012 | 3 comments
-
Political Non-Science
October 2, 2012 | 14 comments
-
Coexisting With Our Forefathers
August 2, 2012 | 25 comments
-
They Don’t Make Hate Like They Used To
July 18, 2012 | 26 comments
A Further Perspective
Marriage: Looking Outward or Inward?
Is the family still a bastion of freedom?
You know the scenario. In a frontier settlement, far from the authority of central government, one man murders another. Then a friend or relative of the victim kills the slayer, and soon a range war sweeps across the land. Men must band together and ride out, to defend their homes and apply rough-and-ready justice.
It could be a western movie, but I was actually thinking of an Icelandic saga. There’s a rumor among saga enthusiasts (I’ve never actually seen it documented) that Hollywood script writers used to comb the sagas for plots, back in the days when the studios were churning out oaters the same way the federal government churns out food stamps today.
But though a saga may resemble a western, there are distinct differences. One of the classic tropes of the western is the appearance of the Mysterious Stranger, who drifts into town and takes up the cause of the side with the pretty girl. Nobody knows his story, but he’s a good man to have with you in a fight.
In a saga, there are no mysterious characters. You know not only who everybody is, but who their parents are, where their farms are, and (often) where their people came from back in Norway. The Icelanders cared intensely about families.
Modern writers, on the other hand (and I speak from experience here), tend to avoid extended families. Relatives just get in the way. In my own novels, several of them based on sagas, I prune the kinfolk back as far as possible, but I still have to add character lists to help the readers keep score.
Which is to say that since saga times, social reality has changed. To the Icelanders, kinship was a vital concern. Every saga was a conflict of families more than of individuals. My cousin’s actions are, by extension, mine. If your cousin killed my cousin, I might just kill you, because one kinsman is pretty much as good (or bad) as another. To us, this seems ridiculous. Not only do we not want to be responsible for our cousins’ actions, we don’t even want to sit next to them at Thanksgiving.
The Viking way seems barbaric to us — and it is. But in studying Viking culture, I’ve come to believe that (to use a formula scrounged from our liberal neighbors) “we have much to learn from our Norse friends.”
The central political value for the Norseman was freedom (at least for himself and his kinsmen). The defense of freedom is an issue that rises again and again in the history of the age, as an old system based on kinship and traditional law resisted a new system based on central monarchy and imported laws. And the central bastion of this freedom — the chief counterweight to the power of the state — was the family. The genealogies in sagas are long because the families were big. The more relatives, the more power and security a man enjoyed, and the more axes he had available to resist oppression.
Marriage was central to that system. Though a Viking woman could not (in theory, anyway) be forced into a marriage, marriages were more the alliance of two families than the union of two loving hearts. The dynamic of marriage was that it looked outward and forward — multiplying kinship ties, multiplying descendents through the generation of children.
One of the reasons Americans nowadays yell at each other so much over marriage is that we fail to understand this (or understand it and don’t care). Those whose idea of marriage looks back to this old model (which is not exclusively Norse, but almost universal in the world in one variation or another) argue with people whose concept of marriage is purely private.
It’s my observation that most of us on the traditional side do hear what the moderns are saying, though we disagree. But the other side doesn’t hear us at all.
The modern idea of marriage makes it purely a private matter. Children are an accessory, and often not an important one. In-laws are not only not an accessory, but (generally) a positive drawback. Where the old idea of marriage looked outward and multiplied relationships, the new model looks inward and isolates people in pairs.
Aside from my religious scruples (which I won’t get into here), my main concern in regard to the definition of marriage is that under the new model, the family is no longer the bastion of freedom. Family no longer looks out for family. Family no longer resists the king. The old kind of marriage was the original, best, and most organic social welfare system. You help a friend because you like him; you help family whether you like them or not.
It’s probably no accident that a certain prominent American liberal politician, who shall remain nameless, has a half-brother living in a third world country for whom he seems to feel no obligation at all. Blood may be thicker than water, but it doesn’t flow through the proper government channels.
For those who are happy to be clients of an all-powerful state, losing the family freehold is not a bug, but a feature.
For those of us who view expanding state power as a threat, the re-definition of marriage would seem to be a sign that the game is essentially over.
About the Author
Lars Walker is a librarian and Norwegian translator, and the author of several published fantasy novels, the latest of which is an e-book called Troll Valley, available for Kindle or Nook.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (106) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Lars Walker
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/09/marriage-looking-outward-or-in
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 8.9.12 @ 6:58AM
I'm not sure I grasp the purpose of this rant; can't locate the topic sentence, for one thing. But if I knew you in person I'd invite you to the next Cousins' Day in Mama's home town which is the rapidly vanishing Fort Deposit, Alabama. This is a day when relatives gather together to spend entire days working out how they are related to each other...where I have no name but am introduced as "Harold and Clarice's Oldest Girl." This appelation will stick to me regardless of age. "Uncle Bud's Girls" are in their 90s. And my sister spends half of every day, at least, adding to the Family Tree now that she can do it from her computer instead of leafing through old handwritten records in faraway places with strange sounding names. Family is alive and well in the Old Confederate South.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.9.12 @ 3:25PM
"where I have no name but am introduced as 'Harold and Clarice's Oldest Girl.' "
They don't mind you're a mischling? Sounds like 'progress' is being made.
Aristocat| 8.9.12 @ 8:01AM
The family is the basic unit of society. By attacking marriage, the Left is attempting to destroy the family and replace it with the all-powerful state...They are succeeding to an extent,
but there could be a backlash.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 9:20AM
The left is not attacking marriage, the left is advocating for gay couples to be given full rights to participate in the institution. I have yet to experience a single negative consequence to my happy marriage emanating from gay people marrying. Nor have I read any convincing account of anything negative happening to others. This is not a societal debate about replacing the family with an "all powerful state." This is a debate about whether or not some are going to be allowed to discriminate against their fellow citizens under the banners of religious values, religious freedom and freedom of speech. My guess is David Boies and Ted Olson will prevail before the Supreme Court.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 9:40AM
Once again the notion that gay "marriage" is okay is based upon the equation of race and behavior (male butt-f-cking for those of you who are clueless). One of the things you defenders of gay "marriage" won't answer is how this would prevent other perverts from demanding marriage "equality." You don't want to answer that question because you can't answer it. Instead, you repeat your mantras about marriage "equality" -- not caring that it invites a universe of moral derangement.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 10:21AM
I don't understand the equation of race and behavior comment. What does race have to do with it?
What about heterosexual butt fucking? The the gender of the recipient make a difference?
I understand the slippery slope argument. I employ it in arguments against putting creationism on an equal plane with real science.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 10:28AM
If you don't understand the equation of race with behavior then you have no answer to pedophiles who also want marriage "equality."
Gender, of course, makes all the difference. Same sex coupling is described as an abomination in the Bible, and is a disordered view of the world. Marriage is an institution ordered to the propagation of children; it has nothing to do with "heterosexual" sexual eccentricities.
Creationism is real science whereas evolution is myth-making.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 1:11PM
C. Vernon Crisler,
You are a man who cares about what is written in scripture. Here are some of the models of marriage in the Bible: Polygamy: Abram and Sarah and Hagar; Jacob had four wives. Levirate Marriage: Deuteronomy 25:5-10 A man is expected to marry his brother's widow. Prisoner of war marriage: Numbers 31:1-18 God orders the Israelites to kill all Midianite men, boys and non virgin and to marry the Midianite virgins.
What about David and Solomon's concubines?
Traditional marriage as defined by relatively recent Western culture is not supported by the Bible if one insists that the Bible is the inerrant truth of God containing no contradiction. Seem like their is some latitude here.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 1:17PM
Mike, you are obviously unware of Jesus's teaching on the subject of marriage.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 1:28PM
I am aware of Jesus' teaching about marriage. So the Old Testament doesn't count?
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 2:22PM
Jesus said the creational standard is one man, one wife. The Old Testament laws on marriage and divorce were an accomodation to man's inability or unwillingness to live up to the ideal. Our country is based on Christian standards of morality, not e.g., Moslem standards, or Mormon standards.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 3:02PM
Or, presumably a Jewish standard.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 4:26PM
Only insofar as those Jewish standards are interpreted in light of the New Testament.
cowgirl| 8.9.12 @ 11:52AM
Okay Mike - evolution is real science. Good, I just found someone to discuss evolution with who seems to be an expert.
Please explained to me - via evolution - how the process of blotting clotting evolved.
I wait in great anticipation for your explanation.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 1:01PM
Congential afibronogenemia is an inherited from a parentally transmitted gene that is abnormal. This is but one of many causes for a deficiency of fibrinogen, but many can be explained genetically. Need I explain the nexus between genetics and evolution?
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 1:18PM
Yes, Mike, please explain how genetics can result in scaler complexity and produce a new order of information complexity.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 1:34PM
I will confess that I'm struggling with the Genetic Algorithm as it relates to scalar complexity. Perhaps you can explain it to me in terms a layman can understand.
cowgirl| 8.10.12 @ 9:39AM
Okay - you just explained how congential afibronogenemia which is a rare blood disorder in which the blood does not clot normally. Good job. Nice dodge.
Explain now HOW Blood Clotting evolved.
Pelleas| 8.9.12 @ 8:40PM
Believe it or not, not ALL Gay folk indulge in anal intercourse..or as you call it for purely prurient effect "Butt-Fucking" (BTW.. how are you such an expert on "what" Gay people do...or don't do?...
AND
How about our Lesbian Sisters..( I doubt they have the equipment to "butt-fuck", no?)?--unless, like Queen Victoria (..and something tells me you know a lot about Queens, first hand..) you don't believe such a thing is even possible??
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 9:52AM
Then perhaps you could answer the questions that I like to put to the liberals here? You didn't even attempt to answer them, last night, in the Does the Left Really Care About Gay Marriage? thread, Mike.
Here they are, again, in case you have forgotten:
Why is it okay for you libs to discriminate against a father/mother who wishes to "marry" his/her adult daughter/son if they are "in love"?
Why is it okay to deny them these so-called "equal rights"?
(And you can't use child deformities, because you liberals are all about contraception and abortion, remember?)
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 10:26AM
As I said in the post above, I understand the slippery slope argument. While the science is not determinative at this point, evidence suggests that homosexual are born with the orientation, that it is not learned or wickedly chosen behavior . If proven, this has enormous implications for theology.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 10:31AM
Pedophiles can use the same reasoning: they were born with a pedophile "orientation" so they should be part of a protected class. Pedophile marriage "equality" is on the horizon, although due to the influence of Moslems in our country, I would guess polygamy is next on the table. You really don't understand the slippery slope problem here.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 11:09AM
Its impossible to make a pro pedophile marriage argument. With gay marriage you have two people that are consenting adults. Without all parties consenting being consenting adults its not defensable.
RCV| 8.9.12 @ 11:37AM
Vern seems obsessed with the silly pedophile marriage shiboleth and simply refuses to acknowledge the crucial difference that children can't consent to sexual exploitation.
And despite Nick's attempted diversion of the issue to contraception and abortion, the reality is that the state has a perfectly legitimate interest in preventing increases in genetic abnormalities by banning incestuous marriage. We don't have forced abortions in the United States, nor condom police, so the state has every right to simply prohibit incestuous relationships.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 12:19PM
It's not a "diversion," RCV. It is a diversion to try to use child deformities as a cop-out not to answer the questions.
Why can't a father "marry" his son? A mother her daughter? What if mom is past menopause? What if junior gets a vasectomy? What if daddy's little princess gets her tubes tied?
On what basis would you deny these "consenting adults" their equal rights, RCV?
Quit obfuscating.
"[...] so the state has every right to simply prohibit incestuous relationships."
And the state has every right to prohibit same-gender relationships. Because of the damage to society.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 12:23PM
RCV, you are indulging in selective morality. Once you let "gay" perverts in the door of marriage "equality," none of the other perverts are going to allow you any moral or philosopical ground to stand on. They will simply call you a hypocrite and a hater.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 12:20PM
Care to provide an argument against child marriages? Moslems are waiting with baited breath. The notion of "consenting adults" presupposes a moral order, which pedophiles do not necessarily accept.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 1:12PM
You are equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Take a time out and do a little research.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 1:19PM
Yes, hello....ever heard of NAMBLA?
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 1:35PM
Yes. What they advocate is illegal and should be.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 2:01PM
Gee, you conveniently didn't address my reply, Mike.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 2:38PM
Nick,
It appears to me you were addressing your remarks to RVC
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 2:23PM
Why Mike? Not long ago, homosexuality was illegal.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 2:39PM
And slavery was legal.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 3:13PM
No, Mike, my reply of 11:04AM, directly below.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 11:04AM
I did not make a slippery slope argument, per se, Mike.
Those who advocate for same-gender counterfeit marriage constantly invoke "equal rights" for two "consenting adults" who "love each other." You, yourself, used the words "given full rights" & "be allowed to discriminate against their fellow citizens" in your reply to Aristocat, remember?
So, by what justification do you deny incest practitioners "full rights to participate in the institution" of marriage?
Why is it okay for you liberals to "discriminate against their fellow citizens," but, it is wrong for conservatives to do so?
There is absolutely NO evidence that homosexuals are born with their disordered inclination, by the way. That's why it's called sexual preference, because humans choose with whom to engage in sexual relations, as well as when.
We do not know what factors contribute to the attributes to which we are attracted. But, the best research suggests that it is largely psychological, occurring during the formative years.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 11:19AM
At what point did you actually choose to be a heterosexual? I dont remember at all. I just know I liked girls. It was something innate not something that I woke up one day and thought Im going to prefer women. Where you ever at any time in doubt about your sexuality? I dont ever remember a time when I was undecided at least thats how it was for me. Im sure it is the same way for most people, gay or straight.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 12:28PM
"At what point did you actually choose to be a heterosexual?"
Straw man, THKrupp. I never claimed that I chose to be hetero. I stated quite clearly that we don't how this happens. Only that, based on the best research, it seems to be psychological.
What about other abhorrent or perverted sexual behavior? Is the bi-sexual born that way? The flasher? The pederast? All the other perversions people engage in, which I wish I didn't know about?
Are they all born that way? Or, did they learn about these disgusting acts from other perverts?
Sexual disorders are not genetic, they are behavioral.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 1:01PM
"That's why it's called sexual preference, because humans choose with whom to engage in sexual relations"
This is what you said.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 1:50PM
Yep, that's what I wrote, THKrupp. So?
Have you not chosen everyone with whom you ever had sexual relations? Did you not prefer to have relations with him/her?
That's what sexual preference means, someone with whom you prefer to have sexual relations. Whether it is the opposite gender, or the same gender.
The word orientation implies that it is in one's nature, which it is not. It is a choice.
Whatever makes you attracted to that person, is what we don't know at this period in time.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 2:11PM
Orientation determines who you prefer
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 2:40PM
No, inclination determines who you prefer, THKrupp.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 3:00PM
whats the difference between inclination and orientation?
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 3:30PM
As I already stated, orientation implies that attraction is part of one's nature, and, therefore, unalterable.
Inclination refers to whom you are attracted, and, therefore, whom you prefer, or choose, to be with. Inclinations can be disordered.
Again, we all choose whether, or not, to engage in sexual relations. It is always a choice. (Rape excluded, of course.)
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 2:28PM
I have never made a conscious decision to like women. Its just the way I am. Every gay person I have ever known said they knew they were different from a very early age.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 2:52PM
"I have never made a conscious decision to like women."
That is what I have been saying. In plain English, I thought. We don't know, for sure, why we are attracted to certain people, and not others. But, as I have stated, it is probably based on psychology.
Also, tastes change over time. Some women I was attracted to at 20, I wouldn't be at 45.
"Every gay person I have ever known said they knew they were different from a very early age."
They wouldn't have an agenda, would they?
Explain college females who "experiment" with homosexual acts? How about males on "Ecstasy" who engage in homosexual acts? Or, rock stars, who can have any woman they want, winding up with other dudes?
Homosexuals choose with whom to have sexual relations, as we all do. Just because their inclinations are disordered is no excuse.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 3:05PM
Sorry I have several homosexual persons in my family. They didnt have an agenda, they just want to have a normal life like everyone else. 2 of them are very religious and struggled with their homosexuality. One has finally accepted it and is very happy with the way he is. He is living with his partner of 20 some odd years. The other leads a life of abstinence, as far as I know. Neither one of them has agenda...both have said that its just the way they are and they cant change it no matter how hard they try.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 4:01PM
I will pray for them, THKrupp.
But, I've heard of studies that show homosexuals are promiscuous, have high rates of suicide, and die much earlier than the rest of us.
What about those who "experiment" with homosexuality? How can they be born that way?
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 4:36PM
Im sure they would appreciate that.
You are bound and determined that I am wrong and I am bound and determined that you are wrong. It really does us no good to keep this up. You will only continue to try to find examples where someone made a choice. You are exhusting. Im just going to agree to disagree
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 1:08PM
Flashers, Pederasts etc etc engage in behavior that includes unwilling participants. The rights of the individual stop where the rights of another begin.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 1:21PM
"The rights of the individual stop where the rights of another begin."
Who says? Based on what morality?
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 1:38PM
Based on thousands of years of human development. The 10 Commandments for instance.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 1:56PM
"Flashers, Pederasts etc etc engage in behavior that includes unwilling participants."
Again, so?
I only asked if they were born that way. And, you ignored bi-sexuals, conveniently. You're nit-picking. Stick to the subject, please.
(Pederasts also frequently find victims who are willing.)
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 2:14PM
Just because a person is born a certain way doesnt mean they can engage someone else against their will to participate.
Bisexuals engage in relations with other consenting adults
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 3:05PM
"Just because a person is born a certain way doesnt mean they can engage someone else against their will to participate."
Again, so what? You are deflecting from my question. I never mentioned pedophilia.
You originally asserted:
"I dont ever remember a time when I was undecided at least thats how it was for me."
If bi-sexuals are "born" that way, aren't they "undecided"?
And, again, what about all the other sexual perversions adults willingly engage in?
Are they ALL born that way? There is no choice involved?
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 3:29PM
I dont see how I am deflecting your questions.
Yes I think that they probably are born that way: Undecided or attracted to both sexes.
You said pederasty, which would be regarded as pedophilia.
I dont understand what you mean by perversions. Do you mean for instance that someone prefers some type of sexual activity over another? or that they are attracted to feet or something?
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 3:51PM
I do not wish to get graphic, THKrupp, but, certain perverted people have sick fetishes. Were they born with them? I don't think so.
I believe it is more like drug use. You start with joint, and if you keep experimenting, you may end up on heroin. But, you weren't born to do drugs.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 4:07PM
If they arent hurting anyone or forcing anyone to do something against their will...why does it matter? When I say "forcing against someones will" that includes getting sex from drug addicted adolescents and going on sex tours to developing countries and take advantage of their comparative wealth.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 5:01PM
"If they arent hurting anyone or forcing anyone to do something against their will...why does it matter?"
Well, THKrupp, as a Catholic, I would say it matters a lot. God created the marital act for a specific purpose: The creation of human life.
It is also an expression of one's love for their spouse and it gives pleasure. But, those are only by-products of its main purpose, participating in God's creation.
Once you say that homosexual behavior is genetic, how do you exclude other behaviors from claiming the same thing?
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 6:38PM
well Im not a Catholic...you should feel free to follow Catholic Doctrine. Many other people are not Catholics and shouldnt have to follow Catholic Doctrine if they dont want to.
Even if they are genetic what does it matter? As long as they are not infringing on the rights of others? Who cares what they do?
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 2:17PM
A child is not above the age of consent they cannot be willing participants. I highly doubt there are many truely willing participants.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 3:11PM
Again, I'm not referring to pedophilia. I'm using pederast in the sense of two males, one pubescent, or a teenager.
Are you not aware that every major city in the country has street hustlers, teenage boys, who trade sexual acts for drugs, willingly.
You can try to argue that it's not willing if they're addicts, but, then you'd have to say the same for the junkie who beats and robs an old lady.
It is still their choice.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 3:35PM
I understood it to mean something different. Sexual relations between a man and young boy.
In that case they are doing it for money and yes they do it willingly because they want money or drugs...that does not equate to them prefering that mode of sexuality.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 3:16PM
Nick,
It is not okay for liberals to discriminate against their fellow citizens.
It is true that no "gay gene"was discovered in the Human Genome Project, however, the question remains, How do we account for homosexuality across numerous species? Several DNA studies are being pursued. While definitive proof for a biological underpinning of homosexuality does not exist, the research has hardly been exhausted. I reserve judgment.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 3:43PM
So, Mike, you want the state to sanction mothers "marrying" sons, fathers "marrying" daughters, sisters "marrying" brothers?
"How do we account for homosexuality across numerous species?"
We don't have to, we're not animals. Humans are unique. Besides, animals eat their own feces and their young. They jump off cliffs, en masse. Are these activities also okay with you, Mike?
You will be reserving judgment forever.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 5:05PM
Don't throw ridiculous straw men into the conversation.
Homosexual behavior has been observed in many species. Humans have unique cognitive skills, but we are animals.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 5:16PM
What straw men, Mike?
"Humans have unique cognitive skills, but we are animals."
Alas, this is the problem with liberals. They have forgotten that God set man apart from the animals. Whenever man tries to act like an animal, instead of the rational being that he is, there will always be trouble.
You keep trying to avoid the questions, Mike, but, I won't forget:
Why is it okay for you libs to discriminate against a father/mother who wishes to "marry" his/her adult daughter/son if they are "in love"?
Why is it okay to deny them these so-called "equal rights"?
PJ| 8.9.12 @ 11:32AM
Absolutely incorrect! Science has yet to discover the genetic makeup that defines one's sexual orientation. If there was a genetic marker, don't you realize that if this information fell into the wrong hands, there would be a whole group of people exterminated before birth. Throughout history those with same-sex attraction have contributed much to civilization, esp in the West.
That said, same-sex attraction is not a freely choosen behavior. It's behavior resulting from childhood aberrations such as sexual abuse.
I have seen & read interviews of men & women who were out-of-the closet homosexuals & had lessened dramatically their same-sex attraction with the help of psychotherapy.
I'm sure Dr O, the psychiatrist posting on this blog, can further explain the individual psychological origins of same-sex attraction.
No one is stopping homosexual couples from loving one another or even "shacking up." It is for a nations's benefit & future to encourage an environment where its future citizens will have the best chance to develop into happy & productive persons. Heteosexual marriage is that environment.------ And good science is leaning in that direction.
cowgirl| 8.9.12 @ 11:48AM
Okay Mike - you are advocating for gay couples to be given full rights in the institution. Great. Then you will be willing for me who loves my car to marry my car and my car and I be given full rights to participate in the institution of marriage. After all gay marriage is about "love" right. I love my car then I should be able to marry it. Your thinking so then hold true for people who "love" their cousins, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, horse, cat, rattle snake, underage girls and boys, teenagers, trees, plants, shoes, house... are you seeing where this is going or are afflicted with the "feelings" syndrome?
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 1:21PM
In effect you are married to your car whether you like it or not. You have a liscense of registration, certifying that you own the car. Its a legal instrument as far as the State is concerned. The Marriage Cert is the same thing. It has no religious or spiritual meaning. The religious and spiritual meaning come from the ceremony itself. Its not about love because there are plenty of people that do not marry for love. Its about a legally binding declaration. With that legally binding declaration there comes some legal benefits and responsibilities. The religious responsibilities come from the ceremony and God.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 2:25PM
TH, you're equating marriage with owning a car?
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 2:33PM
No Cowgirl was the one that brought that up. Im simply saying that a State sactioned marriage liscense is a contract plain and simple. Its not much different than a legal partnership, corporation etc etc. The spiritual responsibilites and benefits come from God. If a person gets a justice of the peace marriage they are not married in the eyes of the church or God. They are only married in the eyes of the state.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 4:30PM
She was using it as a reductio ad absurdum, and you accepted the absurdity.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 4:38PM
LOL perhaps I was just being absurd in return.
cowgirl| 8.10.12 @ 10:30AM
Calm down Krupp - have a Krupp of Coffee - understand that gay marriage is based on the belief that if two people "Love" one another then of course they are entitled to be married. If love is all it takes then I love my car and should be able to marry it. That way my employee would have to give me health benefits (in the form car insurance) for my car and the state would have to recognize my contractual partnership with my car because we "Love" one another. It is all about "Love" and "feelings". Remeber the people in this country pushing all this crap are left overs from the summer of love and drugs in the 60's.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 1:25PM
You have just passed into the realm of the ridiculous.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 1:38PM
My comment was addressed to cowgirl.
cowgirl| 8.10.12 @ 9:44AM
But gay marriage is all about "love". So if that is true, the I "LOVE" my car and should be able to marry it. I should also be able to marry my aunts, uncles, cousins, dogs, cats, etc.
You if Mike want to marry Steve because you love him and deserve the same rights as a married man and woman becuase they love one another then you too are in the realim of ridiculous.
cowgirl| 8.10.12 @ 10:56AM
Understand something Mike in N.C. Leftists like you danced around the Roe V Wade issue in 1973 chanting "O don't worry abortion will be safe and rare now". Right - we are at 53 million abortions (mainly black and hispanic babies - Margaret Sanger's dream come true) . We have surpassed Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, PolPot, etc in the arena of genocide. Back in the 1990's leftists like you were dancing around the "civil union" parable saying "Oh don't worry gay marriage will never happen" Yes right - now we have gay people full of hate wanting people to give up their religious beliefs so that they can marry because they "Love" one another and deserve the same rights as a married man and woman. Making Pac with the left is like making a pac with Hitler, it just means your are next....
Aristocat| 8.9.12 @ 5:21PM
Sodomy is not marriage...Sodomy is anal sex which is condemned in the Bible...Read Genesis 14 for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah...Read the Mosaic law on sodomy...Read the New Testament where St.Paul says that "sodomites will not enter the kingdome of heaven." You are seriously deluded and will follow them to hell if you keep this up....Why? Are you gay too?
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 6:45PM
Whether I go to hell or not is not dependent on you or what you think. They may not enter the kingdom of heaven...I really have no idea. Im going to leave questions like that up to God. Its his job to judge peoples hearts to see if they deserve eternal damnation...not mine....not yours. They will have to answer for their sins just as I will have to answer for my own. Luckily we do not run our country according to Mosaic law. We have many different religions and sects in this nation. I believe in keeping my religious life private. Im not gay, not that it really matters.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 10:06AM
Regardless of what laws are passed or not...its impossible to destroy the family. The only ones who can destroy the family are members of the family themselves.
The state may encourage the situation but the poor who are the target of government "assistance" tend to be the ones that rely on family the most.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 10:28AM
I agree that the people who can destroy the family are the members of the family.
cowgirl| 8.9.12 @ 11:51AM
Mike - the cluelessness here is beyond comprehension. The family is being destroyed by government replacing dad and putting single mon on a pedastal. The outcome - gang bangers. Look around, wake up, smell the roses. The gang is a young teenager's/boy's replacement for dad. The gang disciplince, teaches respect and most of all protects. Hello - are you there?????
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 1:26PM
In the cases you supply its not the state thats doing it. Its the individuals involved. The father and mother made the choice not to be present in the family relationship. The child decides to take up with a gang. The government has encouraged this with their financial support of single motherhood, but the end responsibility lies with the individuals in that family. No one is forcing anyone to get married, have kids, have sex, join gangs etc etc. Government programs make it easier to do all these things but that doesnt make it the Governments fault. The responsibility always lies with the individual.
cowgirl| 8.10.12 @ 10:07AM
Really? The government putting single moms on a pedastal and giving her food, housing and money in order to keep Dad out of the picture is not the government's fault? The government should stay out of family matters and stop using taxpayer money to garner votes from people who no matter what will not engage in personal responsiblity.
Derek Leaberry| 8.9.12 @ 12:40PM
Along with Christianity and Western Civilization, the Left hates the independent family. They love families who are on the dole, however, because state-slaved families are dependent and grow the state. Detroit, where the family and civilization has collapsed, is the glorious dream of the Gramscian Left.
But many conservatives and all libertarians tend to support radical individualism and are often unfriendly towards the family. The historic family is conservative and illiberal and it is not some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy. I would respect political conservatism better if the Right extended their defense against homosexual marriage to defending heterosexual marriage. About half of all marriages end in divorce today. At minimum, end no-fault divorce and make all other divorces laborious and time-consuming to obtain. Or conservatives could end their ideological fetish for absolute free trade and restore high-paying industrial jobs that paid men enough money so that their wives could remain home to raise their children properly. But somehow I think that my suggestions would fall on deaf ears. Radical individualism trumps the family in the eyes of too many on the Right.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 1:32PM
Perhaps instead of making divorce harder to obtain we should be making marriage harder to get.
Seek| 8.9.12 @ 2:18PM
What's caused the collapse of family in Detroit isn't "liberals"; it's blacks. To ignore the factor of race in social decline, whether in Detroit or any other city, is completely disingenuous. Blacks, I might add, are hardly "radical individualists." To the contrary, the worst among them are vicious tribalists who refuse to tolerate a genuine individualist in their midst.
With the U.S. divorce rate having plunged by more than a third since 1981, we ought to be more focused on race than on the "selfishness" of couples who divorce, often out of a desire for survival.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 2:27PM
Ok, Seek, we had enough of Madison Grant and his ilk. No need to resurrect racialism, especially after WW2.
Drunken Sailor| 8.9.12 @ 3:42PM
Seek,
Have to agree with Vernon on this one. I understand what your saying but I think it is the culture of the inner city and not the race that is the problem. The "Hood" life is idolized and rather than face the obvious facts of how damaging it is they glorify it to make them feel better about themselves.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 4:31PM
In a way, tracing immorality or crime to race is just the same thing as tracing it to "orientation." Just a different set of actors.
Derek Leaberry| 8.9.12 @ 5:20PM
None on the Left, white intellectuals or their black dependents are radical individualist when it comes to economics. Both groups are radical individualist when it comes to social issues, however.
My comments about radical individualism was directed at libertarians and libertarian-conservatives and was meant to describe the economic beliefs of both those groups alone.
Petronius| 8.9.12 @ 3:02PM
Radical individuals should not marry and generally don't if they truly understand it. So many people marry with no plans or even sight presumption of what kind of spouse and parent they will become whether they take their vows or not. Those who crash out don't understand what a vow means anyway. The externals of the institution are being fought over as a component of social identity. Normal people refuse to be compared with perverts as is Our Right. The real deal of marrying is the gift of self and all else to the spouse who pledges the same. Do it and your life is no longer your own, with what follows becoming duty as set down in the litany of promises in ceremony witnessed. But one's word has little value without any sanction and force to keep it once given. Rome will fall again in Very Truth.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.9.12 @ 3:50PM
Am I gay? Depends what the guy looks like:
if I find Justin Bieber lying naked on my bed, then I take him. But then if Miley Cyrus is lying there instead, then I do her.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.9.12 @ 6:36PM
...I'm joking; just imitating the redneck chatter I hear all day:
"git me a bit o action to-nite."
Beer, cigarettes, herpes; all of it-- no wonder people get married, the straight rube-life sure beats the way it is at the bottom! They are animals.
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 8:47AM
Totally unconvincing article. Too many gross over generalization such as "family no longer looks out for family." Walker ideal for marriage appears to be the feudal model, arranged marriages for political purposes. This will get people marching to Chick-fil-A. My guess is this article was selected by the editorial staff because of the gratuitous swipe at the President in the third to the last paragraph.
THKrupp| 8.9.12 @ 9:16AM
I agree that the family is the basic unit of society. I will do almost anything for my brothers and their families that they ask. Same sex marriage or any other government program isnt going to change that. What the author is talking about is a clan based system. That was back when your entire extended family lived in fairly close proximity. I know my cousins but theres a lot I wouldnt do for them. I see them maybe 2-3 times a decade and we have a good time but we are more like familiar strangers. They live scattered across the nation. In that respect you cant blame the government just people move to where they have a job or want to live. Im not worried about the status of the family. It has survived every natural and man made disastor ever imagined. He is right we dont have a clan based environment like we used to. People still take care of each other though just not the same way as they used to. Im not sure if its good or bad, it probably depends on your family.
Fredx| 8.9.12 @ 12:02PM
I usually try to avoid reading the comments until I have submitted my own, but I caught the word "rant" as I scolled down. I don't think this was a "rant" at all, but a thoughtful reminder of the importance of the family to our society. As we watch the disintegration of the family through surrogacy, same-sex "marriage" and other non-traditional "family units," can't we see what we are bequeathing to future generations? Families are already difficult enough to maintain. Must we hasten their demise? A person without a solid family backing him up is lost, and subject to influences and weaknesses that he cannot overcome alone. Can't we already see the results of this? Families need to grow stronger, not weaker. Patriarchs and matriarchs need to seize the opportunity to unite their kin. The farther away we get from strong families, the closer we get to lawlessness and anarchy. Good luck with that.
canuckistani| 8.9.12 @ 12:18PM
The "family" started breaking down long before that. It started breaking down - or building up, in some people's minds - when divorce became legal sometime around Hank's last decapitation of a wife.
Women as chattel and miscegenation laws were all underpinned by "family" values. The country is better for providing freedom to women to choose their life partners. The country is better for providing real legal benefits to marriage, and the country will be better for offering these legal benefits to another segment of society that has shown no reason to disallow them.
The Seven Mountains cretins on here would deem their perverse reading of orally transcribed texts of a long dead Hebrew tribe as sufficient justification for their positions.
Thankfully the law departed from these narrow dogmatics long ago.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.9.12 @ 2:30PM
So, canuckistani, do you believe in a morally ordered universe? Or are you a relativist?
Mike in N.C.| 8.9.12 @ 2:42PM
Want to start with quantum mechanics or General Relativity? Assuming there is any connection between either and morality.
Paul McGrath| 8.9.12 @ 4:42PM
I believe Woody Allen said something like: Home is the one place they have to take you in when you have no place else to go. Home, of course, is family.
If your family is two divorced gay men, you have nowhere to go. Except, yes, you guessed it, the government shelter.
Seek| 8.9.12 @ 2:12PM
We raise the bar when it comes to dealing with family, especially when minor children are involved. True enough. But that doesn't obligate us to suffer eternally the whims of sociopaths either. In the end, self-respect isn't selfishness, and a marriage isn't a slave contract.
Nick| 8.9.12 @ 5:17PM
Meanwhile......
Here is concrete proof that San Fran Nan Pelosi is crazier than bag of rabid weasels, or, she suffers from demonic possession:
http://cnsnews.com/news/articl.....hite-house
You democrats must be so PROUD!
Alan| 8.9.12 @ 5:44PM
That broad is bat sh!t crazy.
"And then I realized Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, you name it, they were all in that chair, they were," said Pelosi. "More than I named and I could hear them say: 'At last we have a seat at the table.' And then they were gone."
Nothing more needs to be said!