« Foyle's War | Main | GodBlogCon: Podcasts »

September 23, 2008

Comments

Anyone else seen the commercial which says, "What if you couldn't marry the person you loved?"

Since when has marriage been about love? People in most cultures, at most times, in most places have not thought the most important factor to marriage has been love. Instead they have married for all kinds of reasons, i.e. economic, betroval, social, etc. The common assumption has been you choose to love, and since you choose to love, you can grow to love your spouse.

Love is wanting and fighting for what is best for the other person. In this traditional definition you cannot fall in love, or out of love... you choose to love. Love is not a feeling. Feelings can be associated with love, but they are not love.

In the instance of Prop 8 true love would be doing what is best for children. Fighting for what is best for the next generation.

Being here in California this fall is giving me deja vu. Unfortunately, against better advice, we in Canada decided not to overturn the court's decision to legalize same-sex marriages. I think Parliament may have been thinking of the potential cross-border tourism.

Canadian ethics prof Margaret Somerville reasonably extended the progeny argument to include
the polygamy argument as well.

link:

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/specials/story.html?id=ea6a5cdd-203e-4817-8b8b-dc8ccf0340e9

Hopefully some of the careful thinking that was ignored in Canada might get a second hearing in your case.

Apparently not all of the particulars I think are the case are necessary to make a successful defense of man/woman marriage, if this article is anything to go on.

The particular in this case being the marriage is a static thing. Shall we grant that marriage evolves for the sake of argument to get to the real point? Or do we first have to make the case that marriage is a static thing before we can successfully argue that marriage is primarily about children?

The comments to this entry are closed.