Posted on 12/17/2010 11:02:52 PM PST by neverdem
Last week we released our Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article, “What is Marriage?” It offers a robust defense of the conjugal view of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and issues specific intellectual challenges to those who propose to redefine civil marriage to accommodate same-sex partnerships.
Kenji Yoshino of NYU Law School, a prominent and influential gay rights legal scholar, has posted on Slate a response to our article under the title “The Best Argument Against Gay Marriage,” proposing to show “why it fails.” Although we are glad that our efforts have attracted the critical attention of an important advocate of redefining marriage, Professor Yoshino’s response is long on rhetoric designed to stigmatize a position he opposes, and short on arguments that might actually cast doubt on its soundness.
Indeed, Yoshino’s posting brings to mind points developed in a recent paper by Yoshino’s colleague at NYU, Professor Jeremy Waldron—one of the world’s most eminent legal philosophers. Waldron observes that it “infuriat[es]” many of his fellow liberals that some intellectuals remain determined, in Waldron’s words, “to actually argue on matters that many secular liberals think should be beyond argument, matters that we think should be determined by shared sentiment or conviction.” In particular, Waldron laments, “many who are convinced by the gay rights position are upset” that others “refuse to take the liberal position for granted.”
The central argument of our article is that equality and justice are indeed crucial to the debate over civil marriage law, but that to settle it—to determine what equality and justice demand—one must answer the question: what is marriage? So this is what the debate is ultimately about. In making our case for conjugal marriage, we consider the nature of human embodiedness; how this makes comprehensive interpersonal union sealed in...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...
They’re going at this all wrong. You have to start with the premise that homosexuality is a perversion and sexual deviancy. The rest then becomes clear and easy to understand.
bump for later reading
“But that’s so....judgmental” (best said in a high-pitched nasal whine)...;-)
Isn't that enough reason?
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever."-- Thomas Jefferson
mrkd
mrkd
Marriage is a contract between man and woman. Homosexuals aren’t barred from that union. If a homosexual man or woman wants to marry someone of the opposite sex, they can. No one is stopping them. If homosexuals want to live together with partners of the same sex, so be it. No one is stopping them. If they want to engage in frequent, dangerous sex with strangers, no one is stopping them, providing it isn’t prostitution. Nothing is ever perfect for anyone, and none of us gets to make and break all the rules.
In so many words, Yoshino’s immaturity trumps his intellect.
My, oh my, however would the lawyers make a living? Common sense has no place in the courtroom of today. What ever happened to “Get a Rope”
The view that marriage is a union of opposites has fallen on hard times - in the courts. In my view, the only thing more dangerous than judges who dismiss tradition with contempt is a society that has no regard for the future. And a society without regard for it is not one long for this world.
Of course, the issue isn’t whether homosexuals are or are not free to do whatever they like. In America today, they are.
By redefining “marriage,” they want to make it illegal for anyone to think that what they do is wrong. They have already made it illegal for adoption agencies to think a child needs a female mother and a male father.
Never heard any reasonable argument suggesting that sexual orientation/same sex attraction is Anything other than a
chosen behavior— and a destructive choice.The principle fallacy in the Harvard position is the assumption that there is no valid distinction between heterosexual and homosexual.
And secondary to that fallacy is the myth that the definition
of “marriage” is as fluid and as individual as sexual orientation.Washington said some about the effect of refined education on peculiar minds—seems to apply .
ping
Providence punishes national sins with national calamities. George Mason
“The Homosexualist community by definition, is incapable of reproducing”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This is true for PRACTICING homosexuals but it is my impression, partly from reading and partly from observing a few I have known, is that most are PRACTICING BIsexuals. I can think of at least two men I have known who learned they had married lesbians. One came home to find her in bed with a woman and the other had grown children when his wife announced that she was a practicing lesbian and wanted a divorce. I can think of one married man who had three children who finally told his wife he was leaving her for a man.
I think the myth of heterosexual AIDS developed because of bisexual men infecting heterosexual women.
I didn’t intend to quibble over the meaning of words I have never heard before. My point is that there would seem to be a lot more who are in reality bisexual as opposed to being exclusively homosexual. Bisexuals can and do reproduce.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.