1 - 10 Next
In response to:

15 Examples Of "Liberal Privilege"

Hugh Oxford Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 10:42 AM
The irony for me is that I've never seen more cultural and racial diversity represented than at pro-life and pro-marriage events, and never seen less at pro-abortion and anti-marriage events. Conservatism is far more racially, culturally and religiously diverse than liberalism.
In response to:

Bert & Ernie Celebrate Gay Marriage

Hugh Oxford Wrote: Jul 01, 2013 8:51 AM
Only a mad or evil person would consider the defacement of marriage by legislators and judges progressive.
If people are offended by such things that aren't objectively offensive by any reasonable standard, they shouldn't be in the military. And if they are, and they can't handle the offence, they probably shouldn't be in the military.
I spent my twenties living with gay people, quite happily. But I know what marriage is and does, and why it is important.
And of course there have always been children in history unfortunate enough to have been deprived a mother or a father. The fact that there are people who deprive children of mothers and fathers is not a reason to institutionalise the practise. It might be a reason to pass laws making it more difficult to do so, but certainly not a reason to abolish marriage for the whole of society.
And the "right" that's being claimed here is the right to have something that isn't something recognised as something else. It's absurd. If I have the right to have my non-marital union recognised as a marital one, do I have a right to have my SUV recognised as a bicycle, or my mansion recognised as an apartment, or my swimming certificate recognised as doctorate?
And indeed, how would they be married? The sinister implication in all this - one sinister implication among many - is that the government actually marries people by issuing them with bureaucratic documents. Of course that isn't true: men and women marry one another by entering into publicly recognised permanent and exclusive sexual unions. The concepts of annulment - incompletion - and adultery tell us that marriage is a physical reality.
Why does legal marriage between two men make any more sense than marriage between ten? If legal marriage is to be "gender blind", why shouldn't it be "number blind"? When legal marriage is divorced from physical, biological, anthropological marriage, what are its rational and binding principles?
No, it isn't. You paint it as a simple thing, but you do that to mask the reality. Assuming that the inherently non-sexual unions of pairs of men or women were in any meaningful sense "equal" to the sexual unions of men and women upon which our society depends, equal rights and responsibilities could be conferred without the deconstruction of the normative statement conveyed in marriage, which is the human and pre-political institution that asserts human reality as male and female.
1 - 10 Next