According to liberals, the whole world prior to five years ago was irrational

Laura Wood (Laura W.) at The Thinking Housewife discusses a Pennsylvania state legislator who says that “in the many dozens of conversations he has had with supporters of traditional marriage, he has never once heard a ‘rational’ argument for keeping marriage as it is.”

- end of initial entry -

Tim W. writes:

It isn’t just that no society until the past few years ever sanctioned same-sex “marriages.” It’s that no society ever even entertained the idea. The Athenians didn’t vote down same-sex “marriage” in the assembly after a long and spirited debate. Chinese emperors didn’t ban these “marriages” after hearing both sides of the issue from assorted philosophers.

The Pennsyvania legislator Daylin Leach has it backward. Normal human society never even dreams of same-sex “marriage,” because the idea that gender is irrelevant to marriage is something no one would ever imagine unless totally controlled by an obsessive ideology. That ideology is modern liberalism and its obsession is the destruction of the host civilization and its institutions.

Nothing in nature would lead one to conclude that gender is a social construction. No form of logic would lead one to the belief that gender is irrelevant to an institution created to bond people of the opposite sex in a natural pairing. Ideas such as that can only exist in the mind of someone determined to ignore one of the most blatant facts in the universe, namely, that there are two sexes and they procreate sexually and are counterparts to one another. I don’t think it would have been possible for such an absurdity as same-sex “marriage” to spread in an era before mass media brainwashing.

LA replies:

Very well said. I don’t think that the sheer strangeness and unnaturalness of what is now happening and taken for normal has ever been described better.

July 2

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Your praise of Tim W.’s comment on marriage is not too effusive. His remarks are perfectly measured and concise, in addition to expressing the plain truth of the matter. Thanks for sharing his email, and thanks as always for VFR.

LA replies:

You mean, at VFR we don’t call each other “illustrious” and such like?

Sage M. replies:

Ha, I suppose I should have said “is not excessively effusive.” Though maybe if you get a magazine going and an office at 15th and K in Washington, we can begin referring to each other as “illustrious,” “brilliant,” and, of course, “very important.”

Terry Morris writes:

One assumes then that this legislator believes he has heard many rational arguments for destroying the foundational institution of society. Or at very least a single one. Which brings me to my point—I’d sure like to hear it.

LA replies:

You know the answer: fairness. Equality.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 01, 2009 03:15 PM | Send