Liberal Writer Richard Kim: "I Want to Scramble" Marriage
Liberal writer Richard Kim of The Nation welcomes David Blankenhorn's defection on marriage as an opportunity to argue for further destabilizing marriage. For anti-marriage activists like Kim, nothing will ever be enough:
"...The primary difference, of course, is that Blankenhorn and I fundamentally disagree about what marriage should mean—for gays and straights alike. As the founder of the Institute for American Values, Blakenhorn has attacked single mothers, championed federal marriage promotion as welfare policy, railed against cohabitation and no-fault divorce and opposed access to new reproductive technologies. One of his institute’s latest crusades has been against anonymous sperm donors because it leads to “fatherless” children, an abiding preoccupation of his. Suffice to say, I don’t agree with any of this. I think divorce can be a great thing—as anyone leaving an abusive marriage might confirm. And I think all the debates over which type of family produces the best outcomes for children ought to be meaningless as a matter of state policy. Gay or straight, single or married, let’s try to create the conditions in which all families can succeed. Blankenhorn sees an inner circle of honor and benefits that should be attached to marriage, and he’s now extended that circle to include gays and lesbians. I want to scramble that circle."
14 Comments
Richard Kim echoes the voice of what most of the intellectual leadership behind same-sex "marriage" believe when it comes to traditional marriage.
Watch how not a single leader will actually sign on to Davids new "plan". Just because he submits to gay "marriage" dosent mean they will submit to any agenda that posits family formation as important.
They are "subverting the dominate paridigm", NOT creating a new more enclusive "brand" of marriage were "children having two parents" will now be suddenly important.
Wow. Blankenhorn just came out in favor of ssm, and already you have self-described "queer radicals" reaffirming their desire to deinstitutionalize marriage!
I mean, folks have been advocating for the deinstitutionalization of marriage for a long-time, as copiously documented in Blankenhorn's 2007 book, The Future of Marriage. But it's always nice to get another reminder.
As I expected, and other commenters predicted, Blankenhorn has not gained any friends among the radicals who want to destroy marriage. If he wants to do that, he must totally abandon *all* of his beliefs on the matter. He cannot seek to strengthen marriage as an institution while pandering to people like Kim.
Richard Kim forgets natural law. Just because the state endorses all different kinds of family constructs, not all of them will succeed, because proven, long-term success can only really happen under a limited set of circumstances, with or without the state's blessing: for a family to truly thrive, not just survive, on a macro level, the family needs a married husband and wife, as the basis on which to procreate and/or raise children. That is the standard which the state should uphold. Sure, ideals and standards can be challenging to meet, but not impossible, and they should be the ideal to be held up, especially to successive generations. The loosy goosy approach simply has no longevity for stability in an enduring civilization.
I think you're kind of putting words in Kim's mouth. He didn't say he wanted to "scramble marriage." What he said was he wanted to scramble "the inner circle of honor and benefits" that's attached to marriage. Perhaps you'll read this as the same thing. I don't. But you could have at least given him a reasonable doubt and put his actual words in there instead of a misleading edit as the headline.
Garrett.
How do you reconcile someone wanting to "scramble the inner circle of honor and benefits" associated with "marrriage" (a term Kim has already said he thinks needs redifining) with actuall marriage.
There is nothing misleading in this NOM headline. You may fail to realize how radical the cultural left really is. Until you can demonstrate that you know how far sexual revolutionaries are willing to go; it seems ubsurd to admonish the NOM headline for being misleading.
Whatever multiple combinations and dis-combinations of relationships and families and children bearing and children raising there might be in a future society. The man-woman life long committed union (biological family and or symbol of) will be one among them. And its uniqueness, originality, authenticity possibilities demands that it has a unique name to distinguish it (honor or place of stature has nothing to do with it). Refusing to name this union will always remain a form of open oppression on the people by the powers that be. The one thing that can compete with them, the one thing that needs nothing from them – marriage (and the healthy biological family). The best they can do is outlaw it; who knows, maybe that day will come. I mean today you have lesbian priests marrying gay men at the alter of a Christian church – who would of thought...?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/lesbian-teen-couple-shot-texas-park/story?id=16652447
This is what your continued hate and arrogance against gays supports. Nom's rhetoric fuels the flames of hate that give sickos like this who shot these young girls permission to act. Deny it, but it's true.
Richard:
What, are you insane?
How, please, is NOM in any way at all responsible for this crime?
Dear God, you really are completely insane.
Richard use of "permission to act" is classic leftist "wave-the bloddy-shirt" boilerplate.
No doubt he actually believes that once we pass some imaginary point and accept things like same-sex "marriage" people will no longer shoot innocent girls.
Richards use of "permission to act" is classic leftist "wave-the bloddy-shirt" boilerplate.
No doubt he actually believes that once we pass some imaginary point and accept things like same-sex "marriage" people will no longer shoot innocent girls.
I am perfectly content with my view of the world and what history teaches us in these things. I have read your posts and think that maybe you are the one a bit off. You use terms such as marriage corruption and homosexual depravity. Those terms amd more help to give license to those in society who wish to erradicate the percieved depravity. Yours and nom's contribution to this reinforce that mindset and contribute to the violence and hate towards gays and lesbians. You cannot deny your personal avarice. No you and nom are not directly responsible, but you do indirectly support the hate.
@Richard
I would make a comment on the lines of Rick's and Fitz's. But since you are “perfectly content with [your] view of the world and what history teaches us in these things” I guess I have nothing to say.
Except that while holding us down with one hand you are giving with the other hand free license to the commercial world the authority to manipulate the 80 to 97 percent of our children who are not born that way to try that way. And you are encouraging many of our children who would of never even thought of that way, to have a go (and develop a habit) in that way. I know for some that might only evoke the reaction of “so what”? But for many, it can be felt as child abuse. And in this case, sexual child abuse by the powers that be and those who encourage this cultural change (as yourself I'm assuming).
Who do you think you are to think that you are perfectly correct to take out of our hands the education of our own children? And to do so on the most important subject in life, the subject of what creates life itself (sexual desire and the sexual act that satisfies that desire; as well as the raising of ones own biological family)! And the subject that is directly related to the eventual completion of the growing process of a human being; that of our children eventually growing into, and becoming, the human species in its completed form, with all its organs chromosomes, possibilities, complexities and independence – growing into becoming married.
Who do you think you are to be playing with such a sacred (no religious connotation here) thing as our children and their sexual education and their future capacity to engender their own off spring with their opposite sex spouse through the thing that they might have become “the ONE human-species in its completed form” (married). And doing so free of any medical or government intervention? In total independence – that's independence and freedom!
If it is not worth fighting and dieing to protect our own children and grandchildren, than it is not worth doing so for anything at all. (I only say that for you to understand that it is like a cornered animal, he is likely to bite, whether he's “hateful” or not) I can understand that the powers that be might like to get us to that point where we react to nothing. Where they can do literally anything they want with us and with our children and with our families while the people lift not a voice or finger in protest – perfectly made into weak and lifeless objects of the state. Finally a peaceful humanity. Success. Or oppressed, abused and pathetic slaves might say another.
Learning not to be prejudice toward something, and not acting in violence toward that thing, and showing it respect; has nothing to do with this cultural change that is being forced upon us. Our society could teach our children not to react with disdain toward things that are not like themselves. That is possible and desirable apart from any one subject, such as here, sexual orientation. But dangling sex in front of them (something that we all know does not leave the body indifferent, especially the young and growing) while pretending to give them a lesson on proper respectable and behavior is absurd and totally manipulative, disrespectful and yes, abusive.
Why don't you come over and help us to protect our growing children (all our children) from corporate and government manipulation by there abusive use of one of the most powerful things in human existence – sex.
You, accusing people who have no part in physical violence in any way shape or form, as you do here, is a violent aggressive and personal threat onto those people. You should be *arrested for your hate, dangerous speech and accusations. For we know that such violent and hateful talk as yours can motivate ill informed people of authority to look into possible guilt of the people you falsely accuse. You are filled with revenge and hate. Try to back off a bit, and to be more just to all people involved. (*artistic license...)
Have a good day,
Richard,
What you are seeking to eradicate are those words that show this proclivity in the proper light. There happens to be seven-hundred-year-old descriptives of same-gender sex addicts that paint a far more accurate image of who these miscreants are then those fresh knew descriptives that have either been redefined, or newly coined with the intent of lending an appearance of acceptability to that which the laws of nature dictate is wholly unacceptable.
You are of the opinion that sexual depravity is a good thing; history tells us you are wrong. You are not the keeper of the language and I, for one, will not sit ideally by as your side tries to frame this debate.
The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution dictates that faith based religions is held to Strict Scrutiny protection; whereas sexual depravity is afforded the same rational basis consideration afforded all bottom feeders.
Depravity: a state of moral corruption
Immoral: not moral; broadly: conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
Corrupt: to become immoral or depraved, or cause somebody to become immoral or depraved; to make undesirable changes in meaning
People kill for lots of different reasons, Richard. The police who are investigating the crime say that they have found no evidence yet that would suggest a bias-motivated attack. Why don't we let the investigation continue, and refrain from leaping to conclusions and slandering innocent people who disagree with you about gay marriage?