The
last four of Anthony Esolen's ten arguments for traditional marriage "solely on common sense, history, and logic." I realize that common sense, history, and logic are a bit difficult for those of my readers who whined in the comments section of
Part I of this post, but if we keep coming at them with these things, they might start to appreciate them.
Social science has finally come round to showing just a bit of what we all ought to have known anyway: Divorce is deeply damaging to the family and to the community. Boys who grow up apart from their fathers are many times more likely to fall prey to drugs and crime; girls are more likely to seek male affirmation elsewhere and bear children out of wedlock. Spend a little time getting to know the destroyed lives of a few of the millions of young men in prison, and then try to defend divorce—or the habit in some communities of never forming a marriage in the first place.
Read the article
here.
What a load. First, as I pointed out before, stopping marriage equality has very little to do with repealing no fault divorce; there isn't the slightest reason to think you will ever be able to do so, so marriage equality is irrelevant to that issue. In fact, it may be that to achieve his goal of turning the clock back six decades, enacting marriage equality would actually help. Obviously, the "disaster" of no-fault divorce hasn't been sufficient to convince anywhere near enough voters that it should be repealed; if marriage equality is as bad for society as Esolen believes, that might be enough to trigger a major movement back to traditional morality. The rest of his article, meanwhile, is just the typical stereotyping drivel we see from bigots.
ReplyDelete> First, as I pointed out before, stopping marriage equality has very little to do with repealing no fault divorce;
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying blowing up the Empire State Building with a planted TNT charge has little to do with hitting it with a ballistic missile. The destruction comes from a different direction, is all.
> Obviously, the "disaster" of no-fault divorce hasn't been sufficient to convince anywhere near enough voters that it should be repealed
Therefore, something cannot be a bad thing so long as voters don't repeal it. Nice reasoning here.
> he rest of his article, meanwhile, is just the typical stereotyping drivel we see from bigots.
Well, we knew this one was coming, didn't we?
Lee,
ReplyDelete"Therefore, something cannot be a bad thing so long as voters don't repeal it. Nice reasoning here."
Its an inherent problem in a democracy, Lee. If you can't convince a majority of voters that no-fault divorce is a disaster and should be repealed, its not going to get repealed. I mean, its not even on the radar screen; we all know the GOP opposes abortion, but if anyone has run on repealing no-fault divorce recently I haven't heard of it.
"Well, we knew this one was coming, didn't we?"
As well you should. His message that society needs to oppress homosexuals for their own good is very reminiscent of when racists said negroes are better off when they know their place and stay there. Conservatives claim they are all about liberty, except on the most personal issues of people's private lives. Then their message is that you have to quit thinking for yourself and just do what we tell you.
> Its an inherent problem in a democracy, Lee.
ReplyDeleteIt's more like an inherent problem with your logic, Ky.
> If you can't convince a majority of voters that no-fault divorce is a disaster and should be repealed, its not going to get repealed.
The question I raised wasn't whether it can be repealed, but with whether it's a good thing. You implied in your first post (e.g., scare-quotes around "disaster") that if it really were a bad thing, it would have necessarily been repealed.
That implies the voters always have a clear idea of cause and effect.
Or it implies that voters may recognize that if voters recognize it as bad for society, they will necessarily support repealing it even if what's bad for society happens to be good for them individually.
Or that the voters who are concerned will necessary conjure the energy to do something about.
I'm sure there are other scenarios as well. These three will suffice to show that just because something is bad policy does not mean it is doomed policy.
> As well you should.
ReplyDeleteI like your subtle touch. Like a blowtorch on the Fruit o'the Looms.
Physician, heal thyself.
As I've said, I'm all for tolerance. It's where tolerance becomes a demand for approval that I draw the line.
Lee,
ReplyDeleteI do question the argument that no-fault divorce has been a disaster. If it actually was, even if you couldn't get a majority of voters to support repeal, one would think you could get social conservatives behind the issue. Instead, only a handful of states even give residents the option of entering into a "covenant" marriage requiring cause for divorce, much less repeal no-fault in its entirety.
But of course that wasn't my main point. My main point was that Esolen's argument that enactment of marriage equality will make it harder to repeal no-fault divorce is ludicrous. The movement to repeal no-fault divorce is nonexistent and opposing marriage equality will not make any difference in that regard one way or the other.
Ten arguments in defense of marriage? After giving the kids a legal name, my head starts hurting trying to come up with number two.
ReplyDelete