Tag Archive: Same-sex marriage

transSome of the points from the article I found interesting:

It is very hard for me to understand how a transgendered person can claim they should become the other sex because they feel like the other sex; for how can they know what it is like to feel like the other sex if they have never been the other sex?

Similarly, if I understand correctly, it is impossible for males to understand the experiences of women, which is why we men must ever check our privilege; but if it is therefore impossible for men to know what it is like to be a woman, how can one who claims to be transgender know what it is like to be a woman and therefore know he feels like a woman?

It is also said that to be transgendered means to have a male brain in a female body, or a female brain in a male body; yet are not we told the minds of men and women are equal and identical, and that to argue biological differences between the minds of men and women is a particularly devious trick of the patriarchy to marginalize women’s thoughts?

I wonder how is it possible that to be gendered is a social construction, but to be transgendered is a biological necessity.

Also I wonder how gender is fluid, yet if one is transgendered, it is set in stone. For them, the body is fluid, and must be brought into line with an unchanging gender. Yet to me very little seems fluid about my body, as I am often reminded when I bump my head.


I daresay that marriage would not be in the state of redefinition that it is today if the earlier problem had been addressed. Matt Walsh, on his blog, writes in his characteristically direct and precise style:

I sat down to tell the world that gay marriage is the greatest threat to the sanctity of marriage.

But then I remembered this:

That’s a sign I saw on the side of the road a little while back. Divorce for sale! Only 129 dollars! Get ’em while they’re hot!

And then I remembered an article I read last week about the new phenomenon of “divorce parties.”Divorced is the new single, the divorce party planner tells us.

And then I remembered another article claiming that the divorce rate is climbing because the economy is recovering. Now that things are getting a little better, we can finally splurge on that divorce we’ve always wanted!

And then I remembered that — ebbs and flows notwithstanding — there is one divorce every 13 seconds, or over 46,000 divorces a week in this country. And then I remembered that, although the “50 percent of marriages end in divorce” statistic can be misleading, we’re still in a situation where there are half as many divorces as there are marriages in a single year.


And then I remembered how many Christian churches gave up on marriage long ago, allowing their flock to divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry, and each time permitting the charade of “vows” to take place on their altars. And then I remembered that churches CAN lower the divorce rate simply by taking a consistent position on it — which is why practicing Catholics are significantly less likely to break up — but many refuse because they are cowards begging for the world’s approval.

And then I remembered that over 40 percent of America’s children are growing up without a father in the home. And then I remembered that close to half of all children will witness the breakdown of their parent’s marriage. Half of that half will also have the pleasure of watching a second marriage fall apart.

And then I remembered that more and more young people are opting out of marriage because the previous generation was so bad at it that they’ve scared their kids away from the institution entirely.

I remembered all of these things, and I decided to instead write about the most urgent threat to the sanctity of marriage.


So whose fault is it that the institution of marriage is beaten and broken? I don’t think we want to contemplate that question, for fear that we might see ourselves in the answer.

Read more here: http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/04/ive-been-divorced-four-times-but-homosexuals-are-the-ones-destroying-marriage/

Concerning Kim Davis and her recent stint in the news (and the slammer), I am undecided about the legality of her incarceration as well as the appropriateness of her refusal to issue marriage kim-davis-muglicenses to same-sex couples. My thinking at this point is that probably she should either perform her job or resign it, if she cannot do it in good conscience.

However, this post is not about clarifying my convictions about this.

Instead, I’d rather hear from my left-leaning friends who believe that it was criminal for her to refuse to follow the law, instead following her conscience and religious beliefs. The question I would appreciate your feedback on is this, in the same way that you now demand that Kim Davis do her job and obey the law, did you also protest the same circumstance when it went the other way? In particular, I’m thinking of the following instances:

2004 – San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of California law.

2014 – US Attorney General Eric Holder told states to ignore their own laws which defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman

2015 – US President Barack Obama refused to do his job of defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

If you did not protest these similar acts of defiance against the law, or do not now see any double standard of justice, how do you justify that? Why have these three men (just to name a few) not served any jail time or been called out for law-breaking, even though they hold much higher ranking positions, and should be held to an even higher standard of legal accountability?

Please know, this is not a whining rant, and I’m not looking to start a fight. But this seems like an inconsistency. What am I missing, friends?

(h/t Frank Turek: Should You Do Your Job or Obey Your Conscience?)

Reblog from the STR blog:

“Ryan Anderson, co-author of What Is Marriage? is possibly the most clear and well-reasoned spokesman for man/woman marriage out there. His recent speech at Stanford (given amidst much controversy) covered three questions:

1. What is marriage?

2. Why does marriage matter?

3. What are the consequences of redefining it?

Here’s how he opened his remarks:

I’m not going to say anything about morality, anything about theology, or anything about tradition…. I’ll be making a philosophical argument, with some appeal to social science, largely to get at a public policy purpose of marriage. The question that I want to ask and then answer is, what is marriage from a policy perspective? What is the state’s interest in marriage? How does the state define marriage? How should the state define marriage, and why?

Below is the full speech, followed by a Q&A that was both challenging and refreshingly respectful. If you know someone who doesn’t understand the reasons for opposing a change in the definition of marriage, this is the lecture to share

Read the rest HERE.

From the transcript of testimony delivered on Monday, January 13, 2014 to the Indiana House Judiciary Committee.

Everyone in this room is in favor of marriage equality. We all want the law to treat all marriages equally. But the only way we can know whether any state law is treating marriages equally is if we know what a marriage is. Every state law will draw lines between what is a marriage and what isn’t a marriage. If those lines are to be drawn on principle, if those lines are to reflect the truth, we have to know what sort of relationship is marital, as contrasted with other forms of consenting adult relationships.

So, in the time I have today, I’ll answer three questions: what is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what are the consequences of redefining marriage?

What do you think?  Does he make a good point?  Does he miss any important points?

Thoughts on marriage

1. I think you have to go into it mutually looking to the long term, and keep “divorce” out of your vocabulary. I think it would make a big difference in marriage statistics if the partners agreed that divorce was not an option; this would cause each to realize that they were going to be with this person for the rest of their lives, so they better work it out! Naturally this requires humility and self-sacrifice at times.
2. What is the institution of marriage? The answer to this question for you will decide the parameters of “success in marriage” for you. If it is only a legal contract for shared liability and property ownership or a symbol of status, it will be dissolved as soon as these benefits cease to outweigh the costs.
3. Marriage is under attack in modern entertainment. How many television shows or movies aired/released in the last 5-10 years have had any couples with a healthy marriage in it, even as supporting characters? I struggle to think of any. I find it humorously ironic that the only time marriage seems to be mentioned in a favorable light is as regarding same-sex marriage.