"Genetics is neither necessary nor sufficient." That's a universalizing statement, and it points to a swollen state apparatus that will deem what is necessary and sufficient for parentage. There's no mystery as to which interest groups will likely hold decisive sway over the government entities empowered to "assign" parentage in a world where parents are no longer the mother and father who produced a child by making love.That's the essence of the matter. By annihilating basic aspects of human identity, we're not merely redefining marriage and family, we're abolishing them, because we are assigning a new definition made up out of whole cloth to an even more basic term: love.
It's as ugly a world as anyone could imagine, and it's what we're rushing headlong into.
But we ain't doin' hetero love that well here either
ReplyDeleteToday, 1 in 3 children – a total of 15 million –are being raised without a father.3 Of that group, nearly half live below the poverty line.
Around 45% of single mothers have never married, around 55% are either divorced, separated or widowed.4 Half have one child, 30% have two.
About two thirds are White, one third Black, one quarter Hispanic. One quarter have a college degree, one sixth have not completed high school.
Read more at http://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs for Steyn who bemoans what he calls judicial activism which he contends overruled the will of the legislature on gay marriage(as expressed by a majority vote back in the 90s, situations can change swiftly in our hyper-connected, advertising-saturated world these days where personal opinions often coalesce into critical masses which share many of the characteristics of mobs), I thought the court was ruling, as is its mission, on the constitutionality of same. Cut to the ruling on Obamacare where, if a single vote had gone the other way, your way, Steyn and the rest of your ilk would have been dancing (modestly, of course, mixed partners only) in the streets. You did get a bone tossed to you which has boomeranged around to all of those in favor of governmental health care reform which has already been successfully accomplished by nearly every other civilized nation on earth (with ongoing modifications necessary as is the case with nearly every human "program") since it further fubars a bill which was already fubarred by allowing states to reject the Medicaid option. This allowed your ilk to continue to toss your monkey wrenches into the wheel of law enacted by the freely elected legislature of the United States less than 2 years prior in a continuation of your century-long effort to wreck the process which is of course your intent because of your self-declared correctness on the issue, which has even cited our creator as your authority. No judicial activism there, right, just simple unconstitutionality found, no?
ReplyDeleteSuccessfully? You're quite the jokester.
ReplyDeleteAre you aware of any mass efforts to repeal in any of the 140 countries where it has already been implemented in one form or another?
ReplyDeleteAs John Derbyshire inquired in a 2009 NR piece I found while googling 'tyranny of minority' (aka minoritarianism): "Why, to put it bluntly, should the 97 percent of the population who are not homosexual permit themselves to be jerked around by the three percent who are? Why should they permit themselves to be insulted, to be told that their feelings, which are honestly held and harm no one, are bigoted, reactionary, and Neanderthal? Why should an institution thousands of years old, and revered by tens of millions of people, be turned inside out to placate a few thousand — or even a few million — noisy activists?"
ReplyDeleteread more at http://old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire012902.shtml
Derb nailed it, I'd say.
ReplyDeleteI was hoping for an answer not an affirmation. A majority was decidedly against gay marriage when DOMA was enacted in '96. By the time Derb was writing in '09 that majority was significantly slimmer. When SCOTUS narrowly ruled DOMA unconstitutional, if that indeed what they did, I dunno, you tell me, a majority were in favor of it. All minorities should take succor, no? There's something going on here. Could it be, could it be? Social media?
ReplyDeleteCould it be that the rampant hatred of God-authored normalcy has reached critical mass?
ReplyDeleteI had been saving this link for over a week waiting for the appropriate moment which I knew would come. Upon rereading the article I see that the author uses your term "critical mass" but neither in the atomic or biblical sense. Social media is evil?
ReplyDeleteAs people came to support gay rights, their friends saw it happen in real time. And when they converted, their friends saw it, and so on. In time, a critical mass was reached and it just became the thing to do—either because it’s right or because it’s popular. It doesn’t matter. Everyone wants to be associated with the winners, but we also want to make sure everyone else knows that we're with the winners.
In that light, changing your profile picture to an equal sign, for example, may have felt like classic bandwagon-hopping—it is the least you can do, short of nothing—but aggregate a few million of those together and the message is amplified like the roar of a crowd in a stadium. Like all social movements, this one was started by a few people doing a lot, and finished by a lot of people doing a little, but social media made it happen at an extraordinarily accelerated rate.
In Early June Equality California released polling info showing that 55 percent of Californians supported marriage equality, along with a meme-style image on their Facebook. That reached 100,000 of their own followers, but, perhaps more significantly, got over 1,000 shares. “For us what that means is folks who shared it, we're reaching their entire audience, their parents, uncles, aunts, people who might not necessarily support our issues, but are seeing, not only that the majority support it, but folks that they know support it as well, hence them sharing it, says Jesse Melgar, communications director of Equality California.
Read more: Social Media and Civil Rights - How Facebook Friended Gay Marriage - Esquire
Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook
Visit us at Esquire.com
This is exactly what I mean by "nation of neutered cattle." To use the example of the mainstreaming of homosexuality, no one stops to consider the nature of manhood, womanhood, the history of marriage and the distillation of the notion that it consists of the union of one man and one woman, the core role of the family unit in building civilizations, and the traits that are needed to defend those civilizations from their enemies. As you say, they just see the equal sign on their friends' FB profiles, or see the announcement about the diversity council or the pride alliance on the university bulletin board, and, presto, they incorporate mainstreaming into their worldview.
ReplyDeleteMadison Avenue gets to us long before government does. Yes, we are a quite malleable species, but that is not government's fault, although all governments capitalize on it as does the corporate monolith.
ReplyDelete