Found on the web:
- No big surprises here: cohabiting couples aren’t likely to marry, and “gay marriage” weakens marriage. If there’s something special about sex and the sexes that’s basic to how the world works, so there are rights and wrongs about it, then marriage makes sense. If it’s all idiosyncracy and personal feeling, then it can’t be a serious institution and why bother?
- The current state of multicultural discourse: a statement in an interview by actor John Rhys-Davies that it would be a catastrophe for Europeans to be outnumbered in Europe by Muslim immigrants constitutes “racial hate,” while Howard Dean’s cry (in response to a question about abortion) that “We’re going to tell all those white boys who run the a Republican Party to stay out of our bedrooms” gets a huge ovation. (Incidentally, why do people think that abortion happens in bedrooms, or that rejecting traditional sexual understandings gets the government out of sex?
- People make fun of Canada—“Worthwhile Canadian Initiative” once won a contest for “most boring conceivable newspaper headline.” I’ve found fault with the place too, even though I love Quebec in the summer. So it’s only right to mention David Warren, a Canadian newspaper columnist (and recent Catholic convert) who’s well worth reading. [UPDATE: Kevin Michael Grace should be added to the ranks of Worthwhile Canadian Columnists—see the comments to this entry.]
- And in connection with discussion of the New Urbanism and nonmodernist art generally I ran into a couple of interesting sites, The Institute of Classical Architecture and The Art Renewal Center.
Another Canadian
Another Canadian traditionalist conservative, Roman Catholic whom readers might find interesting is Kevin Michael Grace:
http://www.theambler.com/
So the only reason that
So the only reason that these countries are having out-of-wedlock births is because of gay marriage? Kurtz says that it will “further” undermine marriage. I would think that individuals are responsible for their own marriages. The gay couple next-door does not make me love my wife any less.
The first sentence of
The first sentence of ttam117’s comment isn’t relevant to the entry or to what Kurtz says. The second sentence is correct. The rest is consistent with the entry—ttam117 apparently believes “marriage” is purely a matter of personal feeling, and so (it seems) not a social institution at all. His attitude toward homosexual unions follows quite naturally.
That article by Prof. Kurtz
That article by Prof. Kurtz is a tour de force (linked under ” ‘gay marriage’ weakens marriage” in the log entry). A first-rate piece of scholarship, it should be read by everyone who is concerned about the push for homosexual marriage. (The piece also gives valuable insights into topics related to the West’s extremely grave birthrate collapse, a collapse incidentally which only a lack of political will keeps from being speedily rectified, IMHO, by means of the simple institution of ordinary common-sense measures—at least some of this “Decline of the West” stuff isn’t rocket science, folks.) (The reader’s comment which ttam117 posted only shows how carelessly that individual must have read the Kurtz piece.)
The “Art Renewal Center” site (last item in the entry) is a must-see for all who were taught—as I certainly was—in their college “required humanities” and “history of art” survey courses that what was scorned by the prof as “the academic art” of the last half of the 19th century and first couple of decades of the 20th was artistically worthless and just appallingly bad. As Fred Ross of the fabulous ARC site shows, the exact opposite is true. I especially liked the speech Ross gave at the Met, posted on the site under the link that reads, “Special Feature: ARC Chairman speaks at Met to 700 people: Blasts Modernism to standing ovation” (scroll down the Home Page til you come to it—but before scrolling, wait first for all those dazzling art reproductions to “load,” and you’ll be in for an incredible feast for the eyes as you scroll down the page).
Will S., I agree that Kevin
Will S., I agree that Kevin Michael Grace’s site, “The Ambler,” is absolutely first-rate.
In reflecting to ttam117’s
In reflecting to ttam117’s knee-jerk assupmtion that marriage is no more that a private agreement lacking signficant social purpose, I can see a large difference between the traditional meaning of marriage and the hedonistic modern interpretation.
ttam117 says that the behavior of “the gay couple next door” won’t affect the relationship between himself and his wife. In a direct sense he may be correct that his behavior may not change, but he ignores the institutional value of marriage. To those who have no objection to the current state of the marriage institution, there can be little wrong with “gay marriage.” If marriage is merely private, the grounds for deploring the decay of family in Scandanavia don’t exist. On the other hand, to those who wish to bolster marriage, halt and reverse the decline of the family, “gay marriage” is a significant threat. The justification for it is that marriage has only private meaning. There cannot be a vigorous assertion of the social value of marriage as an institution with a “gay marriage” law on the books.
One of the confusing aspects of the debate is that there is good reason to project that the marriage institution may continue to decline even though “gay marriage” is not instituted. The data in Kurtz’s article seems to indicate this. Even if the “gay marriage” agitators are correct that it won’t increase the rate of decay in the institution – though I think they are incorrect – there is still significant reason to oppose the “gay marriage” laws. Going back to a marriage institution built upon a reinforced foundation is impossible once “gay marriage” is allowed.
I’ll gladly echo Will S. and
I’ll gladly echo Will S. and Unadorned in praising Kevin Michael Grace’s website The Ambler. You’ll also see from some recent entries that he’s been down on his luck and could, I imagine, use some messages of support.
cks nails it from every
cks nails it from every single angle he approaches it from: very nice post. Of COURSE society changes, depending on what its rules are. Of COURSE having up to four wives per husband affects the character of whole Moslem societies, not just the particular couples in question whereof the husband decides to avail himself of this right. Of COURSE the behavior of the person “living next door” to a homosexual “couple” will be changed, but not because of the immediate proximity to the aberration; rather, through living in the same country, the same society where the aberration has been *officially* sanctioned. For the person living next door to not be affected, it would do no good for him to move a few blocks away—he’d have to quit that country, that society, altogether and get himself to one that still preserved normalness.
Those on the other side who are dupes are not aware that many among the homosexual leaders of, and heterosexual sympathisers with, this movement wish precisely that effect to be brought about—the harming and weakening of our society and ultimately its destruction. In their minds they’re building something better (where have we heard THAT before … hmmmmmm … couldn’t have been somewhere in the 20th century, could it? … let’s see …).
When they advocated for
When they advocated for No-Fault Divorce Laws in the 1960’s one of the most common arguments (& a winning one was)
“How does someone down the block getting divorced effect YOUR marriage?”
Remember that – It gets the point across
Thanks
Fitz
Regarding Same Sex
Regarding Same Sex “Marriage”
& the Massachsets Decision
It does not have to be the long defeat.
This months issue of First Things has several articles concerning the prevelance of an understanding concerning “familiy issues” amongst the secular elites.
The breakdown in the family and the importance of the traditional unit is no loger verboten among these elites.
Along with Authors like Kurtz we can stem the tied and prevent a slouching twoard Scandanavia.
Let me tell you what Im doing (by way of inspiration)
Kurtz recent article – along with the follow up articles are going directly in the office mailboxes of every proffesor of law at DCL?MSU college of law- as well as UofD’s law school- Wayne States U. Law school – U of M Law School – and Cooley Law
{I figure Ave Maria dont need it}
We need to target the elites people.
Im also doing other things – getting the Faithfull orgainized to resist.
As the front page along with the Kurtz articles I am including a single Quote (standing in large bold faced type in the center of a blank page)
This is to pique interest & underline the importance. (& I think it does that quite well)
“We sit by and watch the Barbarian, we tolerate him; in the long streches of peace we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence, his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awfulfaces from beyond: and on these faces there is no smile.”
Hilaire Belloc
There is no reason you cannot do the same in the Law Schools in the areas in which you live..
The elites are not neccesarily marching in lock step…
this is far from over…
It will end up at the Supreme Court.
[sure as sh*t]
(and there is the Const. Amedment Battle)
I will not go softly into that goodnight….
Rally Christian Soilders….
We can win this one..
It is now my life’s purpose..
THE FIGHT IS NOT TO THE STRONG ALONE.
Do not despair…
Counter the CounterCulture
Subvert the Subversives..
GOD BLESS…MY FELLOW SOILDERS OF CHRIST.
Fitz
Fitz, thank you for that
Fitz, thank you for that very inspiring message.
What is marriage?
At its
What is marriage?
At its best marriage is a contract between two (maybe more) people in which they agree to form a partnership. A partnership in which to promise to certain conditions, sometimes laid out in a formal contract, most often established by usage and tradition.
A marriage doesn’t have to include children. A marriage doesn’t have to be between persons of different genders. All a marriage needs is the initial agreement to enter into the contract, and the willingness and ability to work out disagreements and misunderstandings when such arise.
The failure of a marriage is the fault of one or more of the partners, not the fault of some piece of legislation or the presence of a despised group in society. All ‘no-fault’ divorce did was remove an obstacle that kept many a bad marriage alive. Unfortunately, it also made it easier for good marriages to fail when the willingness to work things out would’ve saved them.
In short, it is my considered opinion that homosexuals be allowed to make the same formal commitment that heterosexuals can, and receive the same benefits heterosexuals do for making that formal commitment.
It is also my considered opinion that by denying homosexuals that basic right we are promoting the deplorable and anti-social behavior seen all to often in the homosexual community. Where a group is denied the right to enter into binding contracts you will see that group engaging in behavior not seen in groups where people are not only allowed to enter into a binding contract, but are expected to.
As for polygamy, I recall an old Arab saying which goes, “One wife is a necessity. Two is a luxury. Three is insanity.”
I don’t understand why Mr.
I don’t understand why Mr. Kellogg uses the term “marriage” to refer to a contract among two or more persons, apparently with whatever terms the parties choose. Why not just say “partnership”? And why claim that those who are sexually attracted or involved with persons of the same sex can’t establish partnerships?
The term “marriage” is normally used to refer to an institution fundamental to all societies, an enduring union between a man and a woman that is presumptively for the purpose of setting up a household and (since unions between men and woman naturally produce children) having and rearing children. If it’s not between a man and a woman the presumption becomes arbitrary, and if there’s no reason for the presumption I don’t see why the arrangement should be an object of special social support more than any other personal arrangement.
“The gay couple next-door
“The gay couple next-door does not make me love my wife any less.” Interesting. This is the second time I’ve seen this peculiar statement recently. It must be in somebody’s talking points.
“At its best marriage is a contract between two (maybe more) people in which they agree to form a partnership.” Winning an argument by defining terms so you are automatically correct is not winning the argument: it’s avoiding the argument.
“As for polygamy, I recall an old Arab saying which goes, ‘One wife is a necessity. Two is a luxury. Three is insanity.'” I would not have expected such a politically-incorrect conclusion to that post: surely, it is offensive to polygamists, Arabs, and women. Oh… I’m forgetting the rules: only conservatives are not allowed to be politically incorrect.
People may want to check out
People may want to check out this log entry (URL link below) at “The Blog From the Core,” entitled “Marriage’s Deathblow?” As part of the entry, “Turnabout” correspondent “ELC” quotes a comment of Prof. Kurtz’s at NRO in regard to this latest moral and judicial outrage from the Massachusetts Supreme Court which we’ve all seen. Here’s an excerpt from the Kurtz quote in the entry:
“At issue in the gay-marriage controversy is nothing less than the existence of marriage itself. This point is vehemently denied by the proponents of gay marriage, who speak endlessly of marriage’s adaptability and ‘resilience.’ But if there is one thing I think I’ve established in my recent writing on Scandinavia, it is that marriage can die—and is in fact dying—somewhere in the world. In fact, marriage is dying in the very the same place that first recognized gay marriage….”
( http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2004_02/ind_003110.html )
Riveting stuff.
“The gay couple next-door
“The gay couple next-door does not make me love my wife any less.”
The inestimable Daniel Amneus predicted this one a quarter-century ago in “Back to Patriarchy”:
“Moreover, society cannot assure a homosexual couple that their ‘marriage’ has the same kind of validity, dignity, and significance as a heterosexual marriage without at the same time assuring heterosexuals that their marriages have no more validity and significance than sodomitical relationships.”
Can you imagine a pseudoliberal whispering to a bride at her wedding something to this effect? “Now remember, Emily, your relationship with Frank is no better than Adam and Steve’s across the street.”
(Before anyone objects that “heterosexual marriage” is a redundancy, consider that “heterosexual” itself is redundant.)
“Moreover, society cannot
“Moreover, society cannot assure a homosexual couple that their ‘marriage’ has the same kind of validity, dignity, and significance as a heterosexual marriage without at the same time assuring heterosexuals that their marriages have no more validity and significance than sodomitical relationships.”—Daniel Amneus quote posted by Reg Caesar
Mr. Caesar still doesn’t get it. Doesn’t he understand that normalness must always recede before degenerateness in these people’s eyes? That process can never stop until the liberal will to nothingness, the goal of the annihilation of everything including meaning itself—the will to maximum entropy or heat-death of the spiritual universe as the heat-death of the physical universe is already predicted to be inevitable—will have been realized. Now that homosexual marriage is fully accepted by liberal society (including by radical leftists President Bush and Karl Rove), liberals no longer talk about homosexual marriage being as valid and as significant as hetero but as the latter being something shameful unlike the former. The former is now better and has more dignity and validity—i.e., normalness must always be kept on the defensive; must always recede before degenerateness’s onslaught. See this log entry by “roach” (and the VRF reader’s comment it refers to and links to):
http://mansizedtarget.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_mansizedtarget_archive.html#107637930711924897
From a point of view analagous to thermodynamics, liberalism 1) is the conviction that “spiritual heat death” awaits the world of meaning just as physical heat death awaits the world of matter and energy and 2) is furthermore the yearning for a maximum acceleration of that process. Conservatives (what I call normals) disagree of course, believing that the quantity of meaning in the spiritual universe does not decrease, Shannon’s equations which express information in terms of entropy having no bearing since meaning is fundamentally completely different from information.