Posted on 10/16/2015 5:29:17 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The law professor might want to take a look at Genesis 2.24, which predates the rise of the bourgeoisie.
“Self-Destruction” is the god of the Left.
You are a very ignorant person, who while having the right to comment also have the consequences of others respect or lack thereof for what you blindly write. I seriously doubt if you have the intellectual capability of fully understanding what I wrote here...but others will.
Marriage (and the family) is a natural institution as well as a sacramental one, and the State has a duty to defend it.
Sodomite "marriage" isn't about civil rights but about the right of children to be raised by their natural parents, and in extremis, to be adopted by a married man and woman.
The phenomenon of separating the marital act from procreation through induced sterility (a.k.a., "birth control") has served to obscure one of the two defining principles of marriage, procreation and the mutual care of the spouses.
Fire Ethan J. Leib, and emphasize that traditional marriage can NOT be redefined.
You’re wrong!
Only God knows what would happen then.
Prove it.
He’s never said he supports it.
So, until you can show us otherwise,
YOU ARE WRONG.
Leftists have never figured out, nor seem capable of figuring out, that marriage has profound biological utility. It is incredibly important to the success of the human species, and efforts to undermine it are having horrific and devastating consequences to vast numbers of people.
Yet leftists still think it is a “social contrivance”.
At the time leftism was first getting its philosophical legs, *corruptions* of marriage, mostly the dowry and arranged marriages, often of the old and young, were starting to collapse as failures. But leftists were convinced that it was marriage itself that was to blame.
They sought justification in the animal world, and still do, with such things as promiscuity, “cheating”, homosexuality and pedophilism. But they ignored the serious and deadly consequences of these things, emphasizing that “animals do it, so it must be okay for humans to do it.”
The utility in marriage comes from the different sexual prerogatives of males and females. The male prerogative is for their DNA to be in as many offspring as possible. The female prerogative is both to have the best male DNA for her offspring, *and* the unique provision and support of the best male provider to help her raise her offspring.
When there are more than a few males, the best DNA and the best provider are rarely the same male.
So monogamous marriage offers both the male and the female, and their offspring the best outcome. The male is far more likely to produce a child or children with his DNA. The female is far more likely to have good DNA but also a good provider for just her offspring. And their children are inclined to grow up on a success track of life, instead of a mere survival track.
But for monogamous marriage to work, it must be *respected* by others. This means that efforts to engage in adultery with either parent must be met with profound resistance, both by the couple and by society as a whole.
Importantly, there are far more people that *want* to breed than there are people who *should* breed. So there are biological mechanisms to keep those that shouldn’t breed from interfering with breeding pairs.
Things such as homosexuality, prostitution, post menopausal sex, abortion, self destructive behavior, and many forms of sexual deviation, are likely biological mechanisms to prevent non-breeders from breeding.
But the biggest threat to marriage and the species, by far, is leftism, because it is a direct assault on the success of the species itself.
in that regard I agree. Marriage is a religious institution, not a state institution.
“DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.”
What do you expect from a Jesuit University? The Jesuits have been sullied by the likes of the Berrigans. The ascribe to being an intellectual order, but are, more and more proving that they are the opposite.
Letting this law professor come out with garbage like this can only downgrade the order all that more. Everything I see of the Jesuits makes me more convinced that they are about finished.
Bill of Rights? Bourgeois. Pro-life? Bourgeois. Democracy? Bourgeois. Donald Trump? Bourgeois.
There are schools that definitely hold themselves aloof from the zeitgeist, but colleges and faculties that want prestige in the academic world generally go with the flow -- whatever their nominal religious affiliation.
The idea of separating government from the (religious) institution of marriage is one that libertarians have been talking about for some time. Some opponents of gay marriage have suggested that if government is going to authorize same sex marriage, maybe the state would be better off getting out of the marriage business entirely.
Abstract: This essay on the Obergefell decision highlights the opportunity it presents to get states to retreat from the moralistic conception of marriage that the Supreme Court reinforced when it extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. The paper identifies and discusses what some states were considering in the lead-up to Obergefell -- and exposes how marriage-skeptics and those engaged in "massive resistance" to same-sex marriage rights can work together for a future of marriage, cleansed of its religious, gendered, and bourgeois history and manifestation.
A crazy idea, I know, but note that he does make room for opponents of same sex marriage in his scheme. I doubt there will be any takers, though.
Ethan J. Leib - what a loser...
Yes the professor does realize that. That is in fact what that bastard is working for .
Why do they want to get rid of marriage?
Yep, he’s a Jesuit, and this priest wrote a paper on all the homosexual priests (called Homoheresy, or close to it), and he said Jesuits are like 30% homosexual: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/fr-dariusz-okos-major-article-with-pope.html
You put post-menopausal sex in that list?
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.