David Blakenhorn states the obvious (to much acclaim) in his new book “The Future of Marriage.” In his interviews Blankenhorn continues to present his central thesis but advocates of neutered marriage continue to ignore it.
As we at Opine like to say: Marriage combines the integration of the two sexes and responsible procreation, for the good of the men & women, their children & the whole of society.
Well for those who have yet to read his book (myself included) The New York Post has an interview here.
QUESTION: What is your central thesis?
ANSWER: The primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that the male and female, whose physical union made the child, are the social parents for the child, are there for the child and there for each other. In every case of children in same-sex couples, that child is by definition missing either a mother or a father. Gay marriage would require us to move away from that birthright - not just for the children in gay and lesbian households, but for all children.
Gay marriage moves away from marriage as a coherent institution that has public purposes. Marriage becomes a word that we give a private committed relationship - sex doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with it, or procreation or bridging the male-female divide.
How many different ways are there to say the same thing?
And how many different ways have the opposition come up with for saying “WE DON’T CARE ABOUT MARRIAGE – WE ONLY CARE ABOUT OURSELVES”?
What male/female divide?
ReplyDeleteThere is no male/female divide.
Ok, I'm being sarcastic here, but that is how many people would respond to Blankenhorn's comment on the two sexes. Even if you represent man and woman as complementary, still many people are offended to even consider that the differences between male and female having anything to do with biology.
Renee
ReplyDeleteJust give them statistics like this (presented like this) and have them deny that bringing men & women together is #1. Not a unique & difficult challenge #2. Is not something we are failing at.
http://center.americanvalues.org/?p=54
“Just as asking how many people attend church is one measure of a church’s institutional strength, knowing the proportion of adults who are in marriages — especially committed, long-term marriages — sheds light on the strength of that institution. On these measures the data are clear: Between 1970 and 2000, the percentage of married adults and first marriages that were still intact declined from about 72 percent to about 60 percent.”
“Throughout history, one of the main purposes of marriage, if not the main purpose, has been to link children and parents together. In the U.S. Marriage Index, 1970-2000 we also find some important changes in recent decades. Between 1970 and 2000, the percentage of births to married parents dropped substantially, from 89 percent to 67 percent. The proportion of children living with two married parents — biological, adoptive, or step — also declined.”
“What do these statistics tell us? The institution of marriage has clearly become weaker in recent decades in the U.S. All of the indicators point in this direction. Nevertheless, the majority of adults and children are still united by marriage. Marriage remains the norm in our society. The institution is fragile, but it is not broken.”
Or ask them how a woman is supposed to be an example of what a good man is to her son? How can she be a Father and present that unique archetype in manhood and responsibility.
Or how a Father is supposed to talk to his daughter about menstruation, or boys and how they can be. Or a Mother talking about girls to her son.
As you know people are bitten by 40 years of feminist propaganda into thinking men and women are somehow the same. Yet we all know its so much a lie. At the biological level and the everyday social level.