On the Idiocy of Arguing Traditional Marriage from a Lockian Liberal Point of View, and the Family
There is no element more important to society than the family. A strong family is necessary to teach children morals, moderation, virtue, and care for their fellow man. The strongest familial education is one that includes religion, which is the ultimate arbiter of perspective; that is, we are each but a small part of the whole, and our greatest good comes from outside the self.
The family must be strong for a nation to have longevity, because there must be a structure in place to educate people to be good citizens, to place value on something other than the individual.
Many might say, there was not such a strong emphasis on the family in early American writings, and I would respond that it was because the family was extraordinarily strong. They did not speak of the necessity to strengthen the family because it was a non-issue.
There is no question in antiquity of the need for strong families. Augustus primary reforms and laws were aimed at restoring and strengthening the family and Gods to a position of reverence after all of the damage done to them in the chaos of the late republic.
The family is the basic building block of society. It is the fundamental unit through which citizens are produced and educated. It is necessary to have a full and traditional family, made up of a parental role model of each sex, and a larger extended family.
You cannot make such an argument from a purely Lockean perspective. If marriage is merely a contract for mutual advantage and pleasure; then there should be no real problem if those two ends are not being achieved. Further, if a contract is all it is, why not marriage between two women, or even three men? What grounds have you for garnishing their contract rights? As long as they are not transgressing another man in their contract; their is no sound argument from this perspective.
Much though it might pain many people who wanted to be sophisticated, have their cake and eat it too, as it were, a strong argument can only be made from an older conservative, largely religious, tradition.
The family must be strong to teach virtue, moderation, and how men and women ought to behave toward one another (I have no patience for those who want to pretend that men and women are basically the same outside of societal pressures; that doesn't jive with the chemistry, let alone with the possibility of the soul). The family is there to teach love and traditional values, without which, you wind up with materialism, greed, hedonism, Warren Buffet and his billion dollars in back taxes, and this occupy infestation, not bathing and despoiling parks.
The family must be strong for a nation to have longevity, because there must be a structure in place to educate people to be good citizens, to place value on something other than the individual.
Many might say, there was not such a strong emphasis on the family in early American writings, and I would respond that it was because the family was extraordinarily strong. They did not speak of the necessity to strengthen the family because it was a non-issue.
There is no question in antiquity of the need for strong families. Augustus primary reforms and laws were aimed at restoring and strengthening the family and Gods to a position of reverence after all of the damage done to them in the chaos of the late republic.
The family is the basic building block of society. It is the fundamental unit through which citizens are produced and educated. It is necessary to have a full and traditional family, made up of a parental role model of each sex, and a larger extended family.
You cannot make such an argument from a purely Lockean perspective. If marriage is merely a contract for mutual advantage and pleasure; then there should be no real problem if those two ends are not being achieved. Further, if a contract is all it is, why not marriage between two women, or even three men? What grounds have you for garnishing their contract rights? As long as they are not transgressing another man in their contract; their is no sound argument from this perspective.
Much though it might pain many people who wanted to be sophisticated, have their cake and eat it too, as it were, a strong argument can only be made from an older conservative, largely religious, tradition.
The family must be strong to teach virtue, moderation, and how men and women ought to behave toward one another (I have no patience for those who want to pretend that men and women are basically the same outside of societal pressures; that doesn't jive with the chemistry, let alone with the possibility of the soul). The family is there to teach love and traditional values, without which, you wind up with materialism, greed, hedonism, Warren Buffet and his billion dollars in back taxes, and this occupy infestation, not bathing and despoiling parks.
Comments
Post a Comment