But that is what we preach.
Did you read the Douthat article? Look at the sorts of behavior that our liberal cultural elites are modeling for the American citizenry in our media-- sexual promiscuity, unreflective consumption of movies, TV, video games, the normalization of having children out of wedlock, etc. And the American underclass has dutifully taken these lessons to heart, and are modeling their own behavior on it, with disasterous consequences. Conversely, despite our upper classes supposedly supporting such libertine norms, they shield their own children from much of it, because they know that's not the path to stability or prosperity. That's hypocrisy.
Safe sex, sexual education, family planning, and finding someone you'll be compatible with are all part of the liberal vision for building long lasting, happy families.
Individualism and libertine sexual norms severely impede the ability of people to form lasting relationships with one another, to which the post-60s collapse of marriage among the American underclass testifies.
That's why liberals care so much about gay marriage. We're not looking to destroy the institution, we're looking to strengthen it.
Liberals have been ascendant for the last 400 years. How has the institution of marriage fared during that period? Just look at the last century... during the Great Depression, the poorest Americans faced far worse economic hardship than our own underclass faces today, but they still largely managed to avoid unwed pregnancy and to stay married. That fact alone both: (1) illustrates the power of culture; and (2) torpedoes the Marxist argument that marriage among the poor is so weak today simply due to economic inequality.
Recognizing the value of marriage in our society, we want to open the institution up to people who are ready to seriously commit to each other.
It just doesn't have much value in its current form. It's only open to everyone now because it's been defined down to a voidable contract of romantic interest which may or may not involve children (depending on whether it fits your lifestyle).
The form is not important- man-man, she-man- he-man, she-he, whatever..., the important part is allowing people to form a bond that they'll be happy with for life.
"For life"? You're aware that roughly half of all American marriages end in divorce, right? And as I mention below, happiness isn't the point.
Because there is undeniable value in that bond: economic, legal, and social value. Promoting an ideology of individualism does not erode the importance of that bond, it simply encourages people to enter into it on their own volition and not through social pressure.
Can't disagree more strongly with the bolded. You can't have it both ways. You either prioritize the autonomy of adults or you prioritize the good of children, society, etc. Liberal political orders have opted for the former, which has been reliably undermining community, promoting greed/ selfishness, and allowing the powerful to run roughshod over the weak, etc.
Really? I know lots of married couples with no kids and to plans for any. Is their marriage incomplete? They seem pretty happy.
Happiness isn't the point. From a Christian perspective, it's a vocation that makes you a better person by forcing you to put the needs others before your own. From a societal perspective, it ensures that the next generation is raised in the stability of a two-parent home.
Even without children, marriage confers benefits because it encourages altruism and creates support networks. But I'd suggest that the marriages of those unable to conceive would be more productive if they adopted.
I disagree. One of the happiest married couples I've ever met couldn't have kids. They adopted, because it was important to them, but they're marriage wasn't any less real due to an accident of biology.
I think wizards meant that marriage should be
primarily ordered toward procreation and/or the raising of children in a stable two-parent household. No one seriously suggests that the infertile should be barred from the institution. The couple you reference is a perfect example, because they fulfilled both the Christian and the societal goals of marriage,
and they provided a loving home for at least one orphan. Such couples are even more virtuous (in theory at least) than couples that reproduce on their own.
When did marriage become about procreation. Up until the 20th century, it was a property transfer. Once the 20th century hit, it became about "love." If I didn't know better, I'd guess that people added to the procreative element to some mythical quasi-historical version of marriage that they invented to protest gay marriage.
Procreation was a fundamental feature of Western marriage from the Edict of Milan until the idea of "courtly love" appeared in the late Middle Ages; the latter really took off in Victorian England, and the idea of "romantic marriage" has mostly replaced the older Christian conception through most of the West. And if that's all marriage really is, there's no logical reason to bar same sex couples from it. But it hasn't always been that way, and there's a strong argument to be made that such a degraded version of "marriage" isn't good for society either.
In the eyes of the early Church, contraception and abortion were two of the most heinous crimes, and they were prosecuted vigorously. The vulgar Marxist view that marriage was nothing more than an arrangement for the transfer of property between generations is feminist bullshit.
:awesomewo
