http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/same-sex-miscarriage/Here's the first part:
SAME-SEX MISCARRIAGE by David Solway
Just about everywhere one looks, countries, states, provinces, and local jurisdictions are falling like dominoes before the same-sex marriage campaign. Yesterday it was Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. Today it’s Maine. New York State, Vermont, and New Hampshire are preparing the walk down the aisle tomorrow or the day after. Despite the occasional setback, as in California, the movement appears to be spreading. In Canada, the province of Ontario initiated proceedings in 2001 and the rest of the country followed suit, Bill C-38 receiving royal assent in 2005. The Netherlands opened the dikes in Europe and soon Belgium, Spain, and Norway were flooded. South Africa has taken reconciliation beyond the mandate of its original commission.
The UN’s Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing in September 1995 adopted as its mission the obligation “to break down persistent gender stereotypes.” It has met with great success, extending its reach to take in both sexes. As Alexandra Colen, a member of the Belgian House of Representatives, ruefully commented, “The Beijing agenda has permeated the way our society thinks. … There is no doubt that a planned agenda is being implemented.” While many people, especially on the Left, consider this to be an infallible sign of social progressivism, it more likely than not signifies the opposite, the downward spiral of a civilization in decay.
There is a pungent irony at work in the ostensibly enlightened project of regendering our understanding of conjugality. While “advanced” societies are in the midst of legitimizing same-sex marriages, heterosexual unions are drying up. The corollary is that such societies stand little chance of long-term survival. As for same-sex unions, these have been a fact of mutual existence from earliest times. But same-sex marriages breach the premise of the institution of matrimony, which is propagation and child-rearing, reinforced by contractual security and meant to ensure existential continuance. This is a position that has been eloquently defended by internationally renowned ethicist Margaret Somerville, author of The Ethical Canary and The Ethical Imagination, who has no problem with gay unions but vigorously opposes gay marriage. This she does on the grounds that children require both a mother and a father for optimal development, which includes not only full psychological and emotional growth but responsible citizenship and heed for the future. The alternative is what we can see happening all around us: escalating violence, the onset of communal anomie, and the collapse of standards of personal civility and public decorum, a condition which the damaged institution of matrimony can only exacerbate.
Homoeroticism may or may not be contra naturam — the concept is inherently ambiguous, and, after all, human beings have taken to the skies and the seas though nature has not provided them with wings and fins — but same-sex marriage is plainly contra societam. As such it is not only a contributor to the ongoing debacle but, no less significantly, a disturbing portent of a civilization in free fall, an index of what is coming down the pike. Could we take a step back and refocus our cultural-historical perception of, say, imperial Rome in one of its most depraved periods, we would see that this is exactly the pattern of debasement and excess we associate with a civilization inevitably approaching its end. Certainly, the practice of same-sex marriage is no less a mockery of the social dimension of our existence than Caligula vesting his horse with a consulship is a caricature of the political.
***********
My friend Chris has sent me the following email:
"I do not agree with this. I think, too, this one might become a battle royale, so please add your voices. Please give your best arguments and please try to refrain from name-calling, even though you will probably want to – I want this because I feel the urge to call names in response to this particular piece.
Please bear in mind that the usual readers and commenters on this site are mostly open minded, thoughtful and respectful, mostly. This one will bring out some nasty stuff, I predict, so please don't aggravate it; further, please don't take it as the norm. I believe you will have constructive comments and will help to bring understanding to the majority of readers. (I believe that in this case the act of commenting is more to help educate the lurkers as it is to refute or argue with other commenters.)
Thanks in advance."
***********
Well, I just don't know where to start. The blog is a compendium of every lame argument the nasties have come up with, all dressed up in big, fancy words to make the ugliness sound pretty.
Chris is "chrisintoronto" in the comments. So, what ammunition can you give him? Be pithy. Personally, I don't know why he wastes his time with these people, but...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
