December 13, 2010

The Proper Frame of Traditionalist Mind

Justin Katz

Advocates or same-sex marriage do everything they can to paint supporters of traditional marriage as motivated by animus and hatred. They strive to obscure the very basic difference between biological pairs that, by their nature, can create children and those that cannot. It's all too easy, under that fire, to back into a small range of argument that does little to contradict their more outlandish and offensive assertions.

Ron Sider reminds traditionalists — specifically evangelicals, in his case — that we should fight back against such attacks by making them manifestly implausible:

Tragically, because of our own mistakes and sin, we evangelicals have almost no credibility on this topic. We have tolerated genuine hatred of gays; we should have taken the lead in condemning gay bashing but were largely silent; we have neglected to act in gentle love with people among us struggling with their sexual identity; and we have used the gay community as a foil to raise funds for political campaigns. We have made it easy for the media to suggest that the fanatics who carry signs announcing “God hates fags” actually speak for large numbers of evangelicals.

Worst of all, we have failed to deal honestly with the major threat to marriage and the family: heterosexual adultery and divorce. Evangelicals divorce at the same rate as the rest of the population. Many evangelical leaders have failed to speak against cheap divorce because they and their people were getting divorced just like everyone else. And yet we have had the gall to use the tiny (5 percent or less) gay community as a whipping boy that we labeled as the great threat to marriage.

The difficulty, on the latter count, is that the same-sex marriage movement has pushed the front line of the marriage debate away from divorce, because the nature of the couples is logically prior to the appropriate rules of their relationships. Sider is correct, when he writes:

... we should seek to change the divorce laws, especially no-fault divorce. When children are involved, the law should deny no-fault divorce and in other ways make divorce more difficult. This, not gay marriage, is the area of marriage law that affects the vast majority of our children. We should be spending the overwhelming majority of the time we devote to marriage law to changing the law that permits cheap divorce for heterosexuals.

But if society's concept of marriage as a relationship is such that it explicitly excludes the capacity for shared biological children as its sine qua non, then the argument for tightened divorce laws loses much of its punch. SSM presents marriage as an emotional and legal arrangement between two consenting adults; on what grounds does the government disallow them from divorcing? Having discarded the notion that the marriage is written into our biology and deserves support as a cultural institution above government, there would seem to be little basis for forcing unhappy couples to take a broader societal good into consideration as they order their affairs.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

I thought of you today when I read that story the story in the Projo about the gay couple that adopted the baby. What a beautiful family.


Posted by: Swazool at December 13, 2010 2:18 PM

Some advocates or same-sex marriage do everything they can to paint those whom oppose as motivated by animus and hatred. Just as some anti-abortion advocates paint those who oppose them as murderers. There's a whole lotta painting and outlandish assertions from both sides on most issues.

SSM supporters should acknowledge a significant change in the definition of marriage and that current marriage law is not unconstitutional.

I also agree that focusing on other aspects such as living together and divorce adds to the credibility of that cause.

Posted by: msteven at December 13, 2010 2:27 PM

The "freedom of divorce" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 1940's, many sttes had relatively strict rules about. Some states permitted it only for reasons of infidelity. The concept of "no fault divorce" was instituted in Mass. in 1973.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at December 13, 2010 7:25 PM

Another "beautiful family" consisted of sodomites Sedonio Rodrigues, Raymond Grenier and the 4 little boys DCYF turned over to them to be raped. Gee, boys sodomized by known sodomites-no way DCYF could have ever seen that one coming.
After being arrested for raping the 4 little boys apparently the "gay" community, outraged over the persecution of 2 of their most well known members, lobbied Lefty Lynch to "fix" the case and release these "beautiful" men. At least that's what I heard. In any event, these "beautiful" men were freed with probation only-Superior Court case number P1-2008-1606.
Gives a new meaning to the Left's favorite phrase "it's all about the kids".
Progressives-such "beautiful" people.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at December 13, 2010 7:25 PM

I wonder, what would DCYF would say if a single man attempted to adopt several itttle girls?

Posted by: Warrington Faust at December 13, 2010 7:50 PM

Tommy, that sort of thing is going to happen (and does happen) with straight foster parents, too. Instead of isolated incidents, we should be collecting real numbers.

Posted by: mangeek at December 13, 2010 9:45 PM

I'm a Republican because Republicans are for less gov't intrusion into our lives.
Banning same sex marriage and abortions is actually more gov't intrusion.
I'm very conflicted!

Posted by: Bob at December 14, 2010 1:10 AM

No one is "banning" any marriages. People can marry dogs or trees if they want to.
But that doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced to spend BILLIONS in pension, health care and tax benefits recognizing civil "marriages" by freaks who in large parts of the world are imprisoned and even executed as sex offenders and were considered sex offenders in half the states until the Supreme Court "discovered" a right to sodomy in the Constitution just a few years ago.
Please note that not even the last remaining Atheist Left countries on the planet-Cuba, Vietnam, China, Laos and N. Korea give benefits to these "marriages". Nor did any of the now collapsed Soviet Bloc.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at December 14, 2010 9:25 AM

Hate to admit it, but a part of me would love to live in Tommy Cranston World, where hetero sex offenders don't exist.

Posted by: bella at December 14, 2010 10:34 AM

"not even the last remaining Atheist Left countries on the planet"

You're confusing 'liberals' with 'authoritarians'. That's not really fair play. I'm a 'liberal' in that the less government intrusion there is, the more free we all are. If I had it my way, taxes and benefits would be totally blind to whatever configuration you want to set your family up as. Tax on income, not social values.

There are 'authoritarians' running the parties on both the American left and right.

Homosexuality isn't accepted in authoritarian leftist nations like the Soviet Union -or- authoritarian right nations, like most of the Muslim world.

Posted by: mangeek at December 14, 2010 12:13 PM

Attn: Tommy Cranston

Source: Associated Press

PIERRE, S.D. - A former Republican state lawmaker was convicted of raping his two foster daughters .

The jury on Tuesday found Ted Klaudt guilty of all four counts of rape after deliberating for three hours.

Posted by: Sammy at December 14, 2010 3:14 PM

Posted by bella "Hate to admit it, but a part of me would love to live in Tommy Cranston World, where hetero sex offenders don't exist."

Wouldn't we all. Still, for the same reasons that it is dubious that a single man could adopt a little girl, handing over young boys to known homosexuals is "asking for it".

Posted by: Warrington Faust at December 14, 2010 6:17 PM

for the same reasons that it is dubious that a single man could adopt a little girl, handing over young boys to known homosexuals is "asking for it".
Posted by Warrington Faust at December 14, 2010 6:17 PM

Don't confuse the "progressives" with sane arguments.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at December 14, 2010 7:54 PM

F**k the gay-straight argument-anyone who wants to get off sexually with a kid needs to be mutilated and killed.End of story.What goes on between consenting adults is no one's business at all.
Victims of pedophiles get a life sentence.They never get over it.
I was non-sexually abused by an assistant principal when I was seven and it stayed with me a long time.This guy literally waterboarded me with the addition of a mouthful of Boraxo.I never mentioned it to anyone till I was in my 40's.
I guess that's why Parris Island never bothered me much.They couldn't touch the late Paul Silverstein as a sadist.
And I didn't do anything to deserve it-I refused to admit to something I didn't do-that was it.

Posted by: joe bernstein at December 15, 2010 4:57 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.