... understanding the position of this author on polygamy and how it relates to same-sex marriage. Is he against both? Yet in comparing both he seems to be promoting at times. The overall point I came across is that we do have a moral standard that should be upheld. Check it out and tell me what you think.
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/04/17/commentary/op-eds/doc49e7f8bdd01b1083898202.txt
1 comment:
Well. . . I'm certainly not an authority on this, but after reading the article I think that the idea was to point out the fact that if when we allow the definition of marriage to be re-written for homosexual purposes you are opening up other areas for inturpretation and change. If we are going to allow the issue of marriage to be contested on a human rights basis we are going to have to extend that "right" to others who have alternative definitions.
I think that the author's premise is that if you allow one group to change the definiton of a moral standard you are inviting other groups to do the same thing. The danger in this course of action is that if you change things for one group you must change things for other groups. Do this enough and you will soon destroy the solid foundation of our entire society.
Post a Comment