And then there were three!!
Stanley Kurtz is an editorial writer who has been all over the Dutch triple cohabitation contract recently passed. It seems to have slipped through the mainstream media’s viewfinder. Can’t imagine why that would be.
His article in the weekly standard [Here Come the Brides]was criticized by The New Republic’s Rob Anderson.[The Weekly Standard's absurd case against gay marriage].
This of course required a rebuttal since it was factually incorrect and misleading. Kurtz then posted his rebuttal on National Review Online. [Stanley Kurtz on Same-Sex Marriage on National Review Online]
Both sides certainly put their own spin on the information, but I believe Kurtz is on target with his views on polyamorists. The articles are worth reading as they do point out the problems that we will eventually see in the United States if we redefine marriage.
The mainstream media has trivialized the details and coverage because they know it doesn’t fit their agenda and could actually cause more harm to their plight.
His article in the weekly standard [Here Come the Brides]was criticized by The New Republic’s Rob Anderson.[The Weekly Standard's absurd case against gay marriage].
This of course required a rebuttal since it was factually incorrect and misleading. Kurtz then posted his rebuttal on National Review Online. [Stanley Kurtz on Same-Sex Marriage on National Review Online]
Both sides certainly put their own spin on the information, but I believe Kurtz is on target with his views on polyamorists. The articles are worth reading as they do point out the problems that we will eventually see in the United States if we redefine marriage.
The mainstream media has trivialized the details and coverage because they know it doesn’t fit their agenda and could actually cause more harm to their plight.
posted by Anonymous at 6:22 AM
4 Comments:
I promised myself not to answer but
Just exactly what problems are you worried about? After reading the rather lengthy first article, the only problem I really saw was a legal one. All they need to do is change the legal recognition laws. Problem solved. Everything else was the equivalent of "the Russians are coming" except in a liberal, gay, bisexual, atheist way.
I am serious. What other than a legal problem did he point out? I saw nothing about how the children of such relationships are doing. Very little even about how the relationships are doing.
I did find the "ick" factor interesting. I sometimes find myself adding too much "ick" factor to the conservative side. He seems to think it is not that many and I think it is more but it is a valid point. I will attempt to keep that in mind.
Marriage is an institution that has always been in every culture a way to propagate the well being of children and sustaining the society, all while trying to control the natural desires of men and women in their sexual interests.
Communities in all societies governed by laws or standards of conduct, in which marriage is established as an institution, need both legal and social support. These same societies have laws and established norms that maintains an economic system that is both a reality and functional to the society. These societies also have rules that govern private property, intellectual property and business entities all for the benefit of the society and not necessarily for the individual directly. Government did not create these properties and entities nor did it create marriage. It did however establish the norms that people use to respect, acknowledge and maintain them. Laws define each of these things in order to reach a shared understanding of their meaning and purpose. Every society requires a system of laws in order to function and provide for the future needs of its citizens and to maximize their opportunities. Societies cannot allow individuals to define for themselves what these institutions should be; otherwise anarchy will develop.
Eloquent and I agree with most everything you have written above. My educational background has provided me with a fair understanding of different governments and systems plus the history behind them. Pretty obvious that I was not an English major.
My problem lies with your first paragraph. It is not that your statement of fact is necessarily incorrect although I usually have a hard time with "always" and "every". I don't want to nit pick.
To some extent we are having a problem with definitions. Marriage to me is a civil act. Others will add a religous element.
Monogamy can be an element or stand alone or absent. Sexual relations can be a part or not.
I get the feeling that the "conservative" side is saying that society will come crashing down if we allow same sex members to have the same civil rights.
Maybe I have an incorrect assumption.
Happy New Year
Post a Comment
<< Home