Obama: Fight the Polls!

Obama: Fight the Polls! May 15, 2012

In a brilliant move, the Obama Administration is making war on the electorate for failing to grasp that he is the Wave of the Future.

Obama campaign: New York Times poll is ‘biased’

Yes.  That darn NY Times poll finding 67% of Americans think the gay “marriage” statement was pure politics is the result of a news organ that is biased against Obama.

Speaking of waves of the future, vanguards of history and people who don’t seem to grasp how they sound to normal people, here is a staunch advocate of gay “marriage” from my comboxes responding to the fact that all the current arguments for gay “marriage” work equally well as arguments for incestuous “marriage”:

I never said I categorically object to incestuous marriage. I’m saying it’s virtually a non-issue and appears to have a number of legitimate secular considerations weighing against it. You’re basically asking me to issue a ruling on a hypothetical, how to regulate the supply of something for which there is virtually no demand and unlikely to be any in the foreseeable future. To the extent most incestuous relationships are criminal child abuse, I just don’t see where marriage even comes onto the radar screen. I will, however, take the bait and give you the answer you seem to be fishing for. IF there were truly instances of adult siblings who came into a romantic relationship of truly consensual accord and IF their coupling would not pose a greater public health risk (genetic or psychological health risk to offspring), than we can tolerate as a society, then no, I would not see any legitimate basis upon which to deny them the protections of civil union/marriage.

Comforting to hear that the track is already being laid by Advanced Thinkers and Cultured Despisers of the hoi polloi so that Granny can bravely defy a “taboo”. So can this persecuted brother and sister whose love dare not speak its name.  Or this valuable contributor to progressive thought whose voice was brutally silenced by superstititious theocrats with their out of date taboos.  Tragically, society does not yet understand this particular advance for Freedom.  It will take many more news articles and puff pieces to move the public from “ewww” to “heh, heh!  That’s kinky and risque!” to “Who’s to say what’s right and wrong?” to “God bless their courageous defiance of stifling convention” to “Equal rights for Intra-Familial Lovers!”  But grant the logic of postmodernity and there is nothing whatever to stop it.  And my reader already discerns the bright promise of The Future[TM] being with incest as he is sure it is with gay “marriage”.

I hate being right all the time.  Not that I don’t think our civilization will attempt to head this direction.  I think it will.  Titanic could also not be stopped from moving full speed ahead to New York.  Nonetheless, it did not arrive.  Hubris has that effect on things.

"What makes it "denigrating" or a "non-response"? Jesus didn't write the gospels. There is an ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
""Disingenuous? No. Sarcastic, yes."No, disingenuous. In a discussion about what the Catholic Church actually believes ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Disingenuous? No. Sarcastic, yes.I don't want to get into a discussion about the reliability of ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"That's a disingenuous response. If you want to argue the reliability of the Gospels in ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

    Why the fascination, the obsession?
    A ship in all the confidence of its construction
    Sinks to blackness and destruction.

    Titanic is our vanity
    Our rudderless and vain

    This world an artifice relying on deception
    Self-deception and deceit
    A one-ship world, a one-ship fleet

    The ballroom on the upper deck alight with glassy diamonds
    And the bar stuffed full of drinkers
    Too drunk to be deep thinkers

    A passage through the cold, blind sea
    While from the north
    Giants of the frost come large, come forth

    Lights go blazing in the darkness
    Not far, deep seas, black seas
    And the vastness of inhuman mysteries

    In the window port-holes in the light
    There is only tedious reflection
    Image without the hope of introspection

    Banished from the flying bridge
    There is no wonder-captain
    And the book of safe procedure is despised, unwritten

    This is the foolish ark, the world Titanic
    Great ship without a discipline
    Helpless in the sharp deceiving wind

    To see one ship go down
    Is to preserve a calming and distorted sanity
    As white and huge unseen approaches our calamity

    May 1, 2012

  • Even natural law aside, prohibitions against certain behavior are there for an adaptive reason. Societies that permit people to behave this way will not survive.

  • Paul

    The interesting thing is that the commentator grants that public concerns might legitimately trump private desires. The commentator mentions “genetic or psychological risks to offspring” as an example.

    I think that Catholics and other people of good will who oppose gay “marriage” should focus more on the effects for society and, in particular, for children affected. It’s one thing to say, “my religion teaches that it’s wrong”, and another to say, “it’s wrong because it hurts people.” People need to hear that the concern is about what’s good for people, not about imposing religious beliefs on others.

    • It’s not that “my religion” teaches that it’s wrong. It’s wrong, period.

      People can always contest someone’s assertion that people are hurt. Right and wrong are a different matter.

      Get some backbone.

  • the “virtually no demand” aspect of his argument is interesting too because as statistics have shown, the actual numerical demand for gay marriage is trivial at best, particularly when one takes into account the backlog effect of those who have been waiting for a long time to get “married”. Once we get to steady state, projections suggests a fraction of 1% of marriages.

    • Telemachus

      Tru’ dat: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02#edn6. Scroll down to “LEVEL OF COMMITMENT IN HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS.” SSA folks don’t even want “marriage” or “civil unions.” I’m not sure what they want. Acceptance… forced by the state?

      And notice that the poster is using economic terminology, as if marriage was an economic good. “There’s a demand for gay marriage. Therefore, we must supply!” There are economic goods attached to marriage, but in itself it is not an economic good. It’s a moral, social, cultural, and religious good.

      The United States is a community of frogs slowly being boiled in a pot of death.

      God bless,

    • kenneth

      The actual demand for hetero marriage is also rapidly approaching “trivial” . Right now it stands at clear ambivalence, at about 50 percent and considerably less for some groups. About half of those will not last long. If demand doesn’t meet some arbitrary goal, should we just strike the process from the books? It would save a lot of taxpayer money…. It’s a silly argument in any case. We both know that even if every gay and lesbian in America sought a 1950s June and Ward Cleaver traditional marriage for life, you’d still oppose it…

      • Are you “married” to someone of the same gender as yourself?

        • kenneth

          In fact I’m not. Married to a woman, and women are perhaps my greatest weakness. I briefly considered going gay, but the man at the recruiting office tore up my application. He said my clothes and home decoration made the set of “Swamp People” look like Greenwich Village…whatever that meant!

          • It’s none of my business who lives with whom and what they may do or not do when the front door is closed. If they are of the same sex and think of themselves as married I say that it is impossible for them to be in a state of marriage. They can call it whatever else they please, as far as I am concerned.

          • Rachel K

            Heh. I wish the new blog still had a “like” button for comments like this.

  • kenneth

    Nobody is “laying a track” to celebrate incest. I was the commenter who made that remark, and it was in response to ceaseless goading to find out what standard I would apply to the (non-existent) question of incestuous marriage. I did him the respect of giving an honest response, and one that is largely rooted in libertarian ideals, a school of thought held by even many corners of the conservative movement in this country.

    This incest issue is raised for the simple reason that the anti-SSM crowd has nothing persuasive to say about the real issue at hand, gay marriage. They have no cogent argument against it that does not derive from their own theologies and personal religious beliefs, no evidence-based secular arguments whatsoever that can stand on their own two feet in the light of day and persuade anyone who does not already share their sectarian religious views. They know this, we know this, and they know we know this (sorry, Mr. Rumsfeld). It’s telling that they rarely even attempt to engage the gay marriage issue on its own merits, because they have nothing left to say.

    Rather, they play the straw man/slippery slope game, raising scary scenarios which have no relation to the issue at hand. It’s a smoke and noise strategy, but there’s no “there” there when it all settles. I’m also becoming curious as to why the conservative Christian imagination is aflame, obsessed with lurid images of incestuous coupling. Nobody I’ve ever come across fixates on this as much as this demographic, outside of perhaps an underground fetish community in Japan. Seriously, I know people in virtually every corner of the various kink communities, and not a one I’ve ever come across is the least bit interested in “family relations.” The only thing I’ve ever read of it outside of police reports has to do with this one German couple and then the subset of Christians who feel driven to write about it on an almost daily basis somewhere in blogland. For what they term an unthinkable and unspeakable act, they dedicate a hell of a lot of neural pathways and a hell of a lot of time speaking about it. With no proof or logic to do so, they’re alleging gay Americans generally and same sex marriage proponents to be fighting a wedge action for the greater cause of incest. They’re doing so is a billboard-sized admission that they got no game left on the real issue at hand.

    • Mark Shea

      You really seem to be remarkably un-self-aware. That’s good. Normal people can see the problems in your Vanguard of History schtick, even if you can’t.

      • kenneth

        I’m fully aware that I might be wrong. I’m infamous in math circles for deriving cost function equations that yield complex number zero solutions. I’m fully aware that many won’t agree with my views on gay marriage or anything else. I also know that all of the best ideas in history were also seen by “normal” people as absurd. The theory that germs caused infectious disease was a Vanguard of History schtick, as was democracy, as was black emancipation and civil rights. Nothing was seen as a bigger liberal/anarchist scam, at the time, than the idea that black people could live as responsible free citizens. It was absurd, and everyone knew it was absurd, and those advocating it were eggheaded libertines who had no regard for the fabric of society they were recklessly tearing….

        All forward thinkers and inventors and revolutionaries are misfits. Of course, not all misfits are any of those things. Some are just misfits. History will settle that judgement on this account, as it always does. Right or wrong, I’ve at least engaged the core issue. You guys talk around it, over it, sideways and keep the pea moving under the walnut shells with any distraction you can find to avoid coming face to face with the issue at hand.

        If the debate about gay marriage is just down to a puppet show of unrelated issues, at least change it up now and then. I mean if gay marriage is just really the primrose path to incestuous marriage, why not also marriage to Bladerunner-style cyborgs? Or vampires? Or Ted Williams’ cryonically frozen body, or the human-animal chimera created on the Island of Dr. Moreau? And let’s not forget Star-Trek holodeck simulations. The lobby to legitimize those freaks of nature can’t be far behind…. And if the state forces us to celebrate gay marriage, how long can it really be before they mandate human sacrifice at each solstice and serve soylent green in school lunches? We’re talking weeks, at the outside! And really, shouldn’t people be made aware of the concentration camps that Obama and the U.N. are preparing at this very minute for every Christian who expresses a contrary opinion once gay marriage is the law of the land? You should get on all this, while there’s still time!

        • Tim

          The core issue is “what is marriage”. Apparently you believe that it is a creation of the state and is whatever the state says it is (I don’t know how else you can defend gay “marriage”). Supposedly sexual intercourse is important to such an arrangement, though it isn’t clear why. Plus, the number of individuals is important (only two: no more, no less), but if gender isn’t important (as Judge Walker found), why should number be.

          You would have to be naive to think that marriage won’t undergo further changes once “the inevitable” happens, and that there are people out there who will exploit the incoherent arguments for this new “marriage”.

          All it takes is one plaintiff to convince a judge that the government’s refusal to recognize his or her relationship violates some sense of “equality”. And a judge, realizing that marriage is nothing more than a vehicle for adult pleasure, will be hard-pressed to deny this plaintiff’s request.

          So these are serious issues, even if you don’t care about them.

          • kenneth

            I do believe that civil marriage/civil union is a creation of the state. It is nothing more and nothing less than a body of contract law governing the rights and obligations of the parties involved. That is where we are probably talking past each other to a large degree. I acknowledge that various religions attach an overarching “vision for mankind” sort of significance to marriage. That’s fine, for those people who belong to those religions and believe in them. The state has no place, in my view, to act as the enforcement division for that doctrine upon society generally.

            Civil marriage exists to define an equitable and predictable body of law recognizing the unique sort of life partnership that marriage represents, which is different than any of the casual or commercial relationships people enter. It also helps define the obligations relative to offspring and the distribution of property and other goods in the unfortunate event the arrangement is ended. That’s all it’s about. The state doesn’t sanctify anything before God or police Humae Vitae or anything else. It is a body of law that addresses important practical matters, but which has no deeper “ontological” implications than rules governing interstate transport of produce. And I’ll throw some free meat to the “Ken will go in for anything” alligators: I think multiple partner marriages should be legalized to give children proper protection and to ensure the equitable treatment of all parties involved.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Thank you for this exegesis. You’re just cocooned. I’m really sorry for being so short with you in the past. I honestly was expecting far too much from you, and that was not fair. I need to learn to meet you where you are.

    • There is no such thing as same sex marriage. It isn’t marriage. Calling it “marriage” doesn’t make it what you call it.

      • kenneth

        There’s no such thing as hetero sex marriage either, at least not in the legal compact and license issued by the state. That’s no more than a civil union. It is not a sacrament of any kind. Marriage is a religious sacrament which should be conducted for any couples, gay or straight, according to the rules of their religions. Under Catholic and most Christian doctrine, you’re right, calling a same sex union “marriage” will not make it so. By the same token, calling the civil union document you receive outside of the Church “marriage” does not make it what you call it.

        • Marriage is a relationship between persons of the opposite gender. Perhaps you’re not being deliberately obtuse. I’ll assume it.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          What about people who’s religions have no sacraments?

          • Their marriages are recognized as such by the Catholic Church, for example, marriage within Judaism. I can’t speak about every cult and sect in the world. But that would be a quibble, would it not?

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              I’m not asking you, Pavel. Though you are right.

              Ben the Bunnyman asserted that “Marriage is a religious sacrament which should be conducted for any couples, gay or straight, according to the rules of their religions.”

              The problem is that the majority of the world’s religions don’t have sacraments, or even a sacramental theology. And yet these religions still have an expression of marriage, even if they deny sacraments even exist.

              Its just such a shockingly close-minded view to this Catholic.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                Not Ben, Kenneth.

                Bad Hez! Bad Hez!

              • I’m aware that there are other religions besides Catholicism. Most of them, according to Catholic teaching, contain some elements of truth about salvation and right conduct. To think otherwise is, so far as I know, a heresy.

                • Hezekiah Garrett

                  Sure, but that’s far beside the point.

                  He’s a pagan. He wants to discuss marriage as a religious phenomenon. He wants to do it in the most respectful and inclusive way for all the world’s religions. All noble impulses.

                  But how does he do it? By borrowing heavily from Catholic theology. By declaring marriage a religious sacrament rather than a ritual or ceremony, he does us great honor. I just want him to realise it.

                  • kenneth

                    The discussion has to take place within a Catholic theological framework for the simple reason that that is who I am debating in a Catholic forum. It is also the case the the entire controversy exists within Catholic, and mainstream protestant/evangelical Christianity. There would be little purpose in trying to debate the matter within a pagan theological framework as it is a non-issue among most contemporary pagan religions. Yes, Catholic marriage is a sacrament to Catholics and ought to be respected as such. Civil marriage is not a sacrament and never will be. Millions of people, including myself, are married in ways that will never be recognized as sacramentally valid within the Catholic tradition, yet we still have the right to get the legal protections of civil marriage. That’s all it’s about for me. All the various religious trads do their own thing and everyone stays out of everyone’s business. Good fences make good neighbors, and where church and state are concerned, mountain ranges make better neighbors…

                    • Of which pagan religion are you an adherent?

                      And of any of them, in which of them is same sex marriage a non-issue?

          • kenneth

            They can still avail themselves of civil marriage. Atheists do so all the time. I just think “marriage” as a civil process has been wrongly conflated with marriage the sacrament. Religious people have no right to define that civil process for others under their own religious beliefs and the state has no business telling churches who or how to administer the sacrament they call marriage.

            • I say that anyone, religious or not, has the right to insist that fundamental social institutions are defined correctly and definitively. Marriage is one such institution. You may even find that some atheists are in agreement with that.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              Boy, for a pagan you sure do use our theological framework in discussing this.

              • kenneth

                How so? All I’m doing is acknowledging that Catholics view marriage as a sacrament that is governed by certain rules about who can take part and under what circumstances. They have every right to do so, but I’m a big believer of separation of church and state, and I think both parties stand to benefit from that.

                • Hezekiah Garrett

                  Oh, thats even better then!

                  Because you repeatedly used “religious” rather than “catholic” and “religious people” rather than “Catholics”.

                  Maybe you’ll get farther than Lenny Bruce’s mere observation to action. I’ll hope and pray.

                • Some may take that bait. Most will not.

    • Are you willing to state here and now that you oppose incestuous relationships, and to state your reason?

    • Alma Peregrina





  • antigon

    Dear Mr. Kenneth:

    I understand your note above is the talking point your propaganda folk have been trained to, well, burp, despite the contradictory evidence even in Mr. Shea’s blog alone, right before your eyes.

    In addition, of course, it remains that dogs overall have but four legs, no matter what you call their tails.

  • *I also know that all of the best ideas in history were also seen by “normal” people as absurd. *

    Are you telling us that same sex marriage is one of the best ideas in history? Or that you’re a forward thinker and revolutionary miscast as a misfit? It sounds a bit grandiose.

    Could we please start with fire, agriculture and the wheel?

    • kenneth

      I think in a generation from now, gay marriage or at least civil unions will be a largely settled issue in this country and that everyone much younger than ourselves will truly wonder what all the wailing and gnashing of teeth was about.

      • antigon

        Unless they’re serving mint tea to their masters in the harem.

      • As Nabokov wrote in one of his lesser known novels: One is forbidden to ransack the future.

  • The devaluation of values will end in disintegration, and then in a full-blown dystopia. That’s my version of ransacking a possible future, in which whatever the social arrangements may be, you will do what you’re told, and maybe even like it.

  • Ciao. Which was too short to be posted. Do skorovo vidanya. Poka. Outa here.

  • A Philosopher

    For what it’s worth, I think it’s actually much easier to construct “natural law” arguments against same-sex marriage than it is to construct them against incestuous marriages. I think the natural law arguments against same-sex marriage are all unsuccessful, but at least there’s a reasonably clear argument. I don’t really even see where to start constructing analogous arguments against incestuous marriages.

    That’s not to say that I approve of incestuous marriages, but I think the considerations are more delicate. My admittedly amateur’s read is that intra-familial intimate relations are typically psychologically unhealthy. That’s a contingent fact, and a broad generalization, but I don’t object to founding public policy on contingent generalizations – policy is a blunt instrument. But if I’m given a hypothetical of a brother and sister raised in separate families (for example, via adoption), who form a romantic relation and marry, I’m not sure that they have even a pro tanto reason to separate were they to discover their genetic relation.

    • That’s insane.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        You think its insane that the argument against same-sex ‘marriage’ is easier to make, and stronger, than the argument against a man and wife who later learn they are actually siblings continuing on in their matrimony??

        • I think that any argument that sanctions incest is crazy.

          • Bill

            But he’s not sanctioning incest. He’s showing how less tangible and tactile the argument for same sex marriage is compared to even incest. At least brother and sister are complementary from a sexual perspective, even if it is debased. It’s “illicit” but it’s not “invalid” like same sex unions are.


    This century a Scythian prince
    Interred with horses and their silver trappings
    Servants holding silver stirrups
    Soldiers and his concubines
    Gorgets of his gold around their necks
    Inside a kurgan of the dead beneath the steppe

    The scientists of future places
    Draw tunnels to these frozen depths
    Reveal the brown cadavers clutching at infinity
    The bones of horses galloping in silver traces
    Static, lifeless prince in rapture
    Staring at his own dead image, earth a mirror

    They find as well that living men and women
    Stay here too, wait patiently to be exhumed

    May 2, 2012

  • Do some of us here believe that common social relationships were gratuitously arrived at through thousands of years and therefor can be altered at will? Even in a Darwinian sense they are adaptive. as we may discover.

  • I note that Kenneth has not renounced incest as a possible social form.

    • kenneth

      Why is it incumbent on me to make some sort of sweeping loyalty oath on incest? I’ve never expressed an interest in any sort of intimate relations with any blood relatives of any sort. I have damn few to begin with. I’m not an elected official or judge or anyone who will likely ever be in a position to make legislation or rulings on the matter. I don’t even have the ear of any who do. So far as I know, there are no cases before any U.S. jurisdiction seeking decriminalization of incestuous relationships, let alone marriage. No one here has articulated any reason why incest is in any way comparable to homosexuality, except that you find both “icky” in some way.

      I’ve already addressed the issue at some length in an earlier post, which Mark used as a launching point for this one. That pretty well lays out where I stand on this. I don’t favor incest as a “social form”. Neither do the overwhemling majority of people on Earth, save for royalty and certain very isolated populations. So far as I’ve ever read or been told, incest is virtually always a situation involving child abuse. There are situations where adult siblings become involved out of ignorance. Again, so far as I know, the vast majority of them, once discovering that, are traumatized and seek to extricate themselves from that sort of intimacy. There is no social movement afoot anywhere that I am aware of which is seeking to normalize or popularize incest.

      It is conceivable that someday, somewhere, an adult sibling couple may press the matter for legal recognition. I have already stated that my approach to the problem would utilize the generally libertarian principles which I apply to all other considerations of criminal and civil law. A thing is permitted unless and until the state can show demonstrable secular and scientific reasons why that action is sufficiently harmful to warrant outlawing. I can’t tell you what that test would yield as an answer in this matter because no facts have been weighed yet. I suspect the state might be able to meet that burden as I construe it to outlaw it. Incest is fundamentally different as a public policy matter than is gay marriage, and it is potentially problematic in ways that are unique to incest. However, I concede the possibility that my criteria for proper lawmaking, if applied as I would favor, may not furnish a sufficient reason to ban incestuous marriages in all instances. I’m not hoping that happens, and it would make me personally uncomfortable to see such unions legally sanctioned, but that’s a risk you run when you favor the minimalist approach to state intervention.

      • I thought I would derive an insight into your thinking if you stated your position. It isn’t incumbent on you to write anything here, or answer any question.

  • B.E. Ward

    Of course, CNN is doing its part to help. All sorts of crazy shizzle going on in the world, but this “opinion” piece gets to take up the most space on their front page:


  • Faith

    It really is not so far fetched to think that incestuous marriages could become acceptable. Unlike gay marriage, which does not seem to have existed in societies (the scholarship on this stuff is really shaky), there have, indeed, been approved, incestuous marriages in the past. Egypt and the native culture of Hawaii are two that readily come to mind. If the idea that offspring resulting from the union might be sickly or deformed is what makes such a marriage undesirable, the couple can just abort or they can sterilize themselves. It’ll be covered under our national health care. I think it is funny how those who think nothing of SSM, cringe at the idea of incest. Once you start making marriage have nothing to with bearing children and everything to do with consent, there really are only cultural barriers that are relative.

    • kenneth

      The thing is, we don’t condition legal marriage in any way upon children beyond the barest biological compatibility to do so. We don’t outlaw marriage for infertile couples, nor even for those who render themselves infertile or state an intent to never have children. We don’t ban marriage for people who marry for money, or political reasons, or for swingers or porn stars or people who carry on in all sorts of ways that make others cringe. We don’t ban marriage to people who are just doing it to get a green card or health insurance (if it’s not a flagrant scam). There is no move afoot to ban remarriage of persons who are divorced without benefit of annulment. That’s right folks, the state as we speak sanctions marriages that are nothing more than adulterous cohabitation in the eyes of the Church. We’ve even had someone state here that incest under natural law is probably not that bad, because at least the parts match. It is only gays that we seek to enforce “natural law” and fertility prerequisites upon.

      • This red herring is worn away from being trailed before us.

        Even sterile people of opposite sexes can be married. It is not possible for people of the same sex to marry, even if they call their relationship a “marriage”, or if the state through some perversion of morality defines them as “married.” People who marry for opportunistic reasons are still married if they are of the opposite sex. Motive has nothing to do with the fact of marriage. A bad marriage is still a marriage.
        The issue is this, despite all diversions: Marriage can only exist between persons of the opposite sex.

        Another question, Kenneth: Why do you post here?

        • S. Murphy

          Instructing the ignoran, Pavel – showing us how it’s possible to argue energetically for what most of us, here, following the Church’s magisterium, think is wrong, without at the same time behaving like a spittle-flecked Koshole. It’s kind of refreshing.

          • S. Murphy

            …instructing the ignorant. Could of sworn I typed that t. But then, in my part of the world, of = ‘ve, and n is usually enough of a dennal consonant ta gedda point across witoud’a t at da end. And, we let dead people vote.

      • Faith

        Kenneth, you are proving my point about why incest is not impossible in the modern day concept of marriage! It is not about having a child anymore. It is only about consent. If we allow all these other unworthies to marry, why not incest? In a post somewhere you called this reasoning a red herring or strawman or something, but it really isn’t. It is a logical deduction from your definition of marriage. Marriage started to deteriorate (not that it was ever perfect, we live in a fallen world) when contraception became legalized. It changed the very nature of marriage. Of course not every one has children when they marry. Reproductive organs don’t alway work right, but the essence of marriage still remained the same. Contraception radically changed that. Catholics have always held that contraception is wrong even within marriage because it cuts to the very reason marriage exists. Here’s a metaphor: suppose I define an acorn by whether it grows into an oak. I say: acorns are seeds that grow into oaks. But you say, that’s wrong! Some acorns just rot! Some acorns get eaten by squirrels! Some acorns get gathered up and used for Thanksgiving wreaths! So all acorns do not grow into oak trees, therefore, if I want to call this maple seed an acorn, I may do so! It is perfectly legitimate. And everyone else has to call it an acorn too! Okay, probably a silly example but hopefully you get the point.
        No matter how much you call that maple seed an acorn, it is still materially different from an acorn and will never be an acorn. Marriage is biologically about a man and woman. It is the process by which we as humans have children and raise them up in the most optimum way we can muster in this fallen world. This is the way we evolved. We evolved to have a father and mother both biologically and for the best development emotionally, intellectually, etc. Science tells us this! Marriage is based on natural law. The law that anybody with any common sense can derive from experiencing life. Contraception and no fault divorce are two of the things that have dealt such deadly blows to marriage. Same sex marriage is the nail in the coffin. It utterly undoes what marriage is about. By legalizing it we essentially tell our children that sex is not about what it is meant to be about. It’s like saying food isn’t for nutrition, but it is all about what you take pleasure in eating.

  • Without a firm grasp of the principles of natural law, societies inevitably fall back on power relationships as a means of adjusting social tensions. If you don’t believe in the existence of natural law you will discover that it believes in you, metaphorically speaking.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      If you don’t believe in the existence of natural law you will discover that it believes in you,

      Excellent observation, and one I hope we as a society don’t have to learn first hand.

  • I can only think that you conceive of yourself as some sort of secular missionary, or derive some personal satisfaction from the thought that you are clever and articulate, or feel the need to test your powers of expression and persuasion, or to put it crudely, to show that you are the smart guy and we are the dumb guys.

    It’s very curious.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      If it were that last one, Pavel, I doubt he’d have stuck around long after claiming “civil rights are not properly subject to a vote.”

      I couldn’t begin to tell you why he’s here in light of that.

  • Well, I’m out of here. Best wishes to all. Anyone who wants to write me personally is welcome to, as long as you don’t use very long words.


    • Faith

      LOL! Good night!