Why people need to put more thought into the gay marriage issue

[UVACoug]

I find this blog post to be pretty interesting with respect to thinking about the gay marriage issue. I don't agree with everything the author says, but I agree with his conclusion ... people need to think about this issue a lot more than they do, rather than immediately jumping to conclusions and then calling their opponents names:

http://fireflydove.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/a-libertarian-view-of-gay-marriage/

I found this quote from GK Chesterton particularly apt:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

[Mormon Red Death]

Naw I will stick to not caring.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[wuapinmon]

Chesterton was a genius. His Fence is famous, up there with Occam's Razor in usefulness in dialectics. Borges loved him. I love Borges, so Chesterton holds a special place in my literary heart.

However, I do not feel like people have not reasoned out the reasonableness of hetero-only marriage. The issue has been discussed, and at some point, if you hold to Chesterton's fence, juxtaposed with the 14th Amendment, one of two things must happen.

The gate will be torn down

or

The gate will be torn down and rebuilt further down the path

If you tear down the gate, you hold that the 14th applies to all, and marriage is a civil right.

If you move the gate, then you see that the State now only recognizes civil unions, with marriage now the province of institutions that wish to provide their own rites, services, or sealings.

Personally, I hope we allow marriage between consenting adults, but I wouldn't be shocked if civil unions become the law of the land.

Instead of Chesterton, though, I like one of the inscriptions in the Jefferson Memorial:

[Pelado]

For those of us unfamiliar with Chesteron's fence:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

[il Padrino Ute]

Chesterton was a genius. His Fence is famous, up there with Occam's Razor in usefulness in dialectics. Borges loved him. I love Borges, so Chesterton holds a special place in my literary heart.

However, I do not feel like people have not reasoned out the reasonableness of hetero-only marriage. The issue has been discussed, and at some point, if you hold to Chesterton's fence, juxtaposed with the 14th Amendment, one of two things must happen.

The gate will be torn down

or

The gate will be torn down and rebuilt further down the path

If you tear down the gate, you hold that the 14th applies to all, and marriage is a civil right.

If you move the gate, then you see that the State now only recognizes civil unions, with marriage now the province of institutions that wish to provide their own rites, services, or sealings.

Personally, I hope we allow marriage between consenting adults, but I wouldn't be shocked if civil unions become the law of the land.

Instead of Chesterton, though, I like one of the inscriptions in the Jefferson Memorial:

The 2nd Amendment is what keeps us free from the barbarous regimes. Let's not allow anyone to limit our ability to defend ourselves and stop with the {redacted} gun grabbing. (Different topic, I know, but wuap's posting of this is fitting).

Sorry about the threadjack, va. I'll delete it if you'd like me to do so.

[ewth8tr]

Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2