Sociocrats Out of Touch

| | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

DNC Chairman Howard Dean on the New York decision stating that it is not the role of the courts to create policy/law and radically redefine marriage via litigation brought forward by liberal same-sex "marriage" advocates:

Today's decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing. [Emphasis mine]

The concept that children have a right to a mother and a father and that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is an "outdated and bigoted notion"? This, my friends, is another example of why, despite all the problems within the GOP and tension over Iraq, the Democrats will not sweep the table come November. These folks are WAY out of touch with middle-America.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sociocrats Out of Touch.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/445

8 Comments

charles said:

Lets hope they are. As I said over at Shaun Kenney's site, we haven't done a good job defending traditional marriage these past 50 years, and divorce has greatly degraded the franchise.

I hope that the recent focus on gay marriage will cause America to turn back to the traditional view where commitment was more important than "feelings of romance", where children were more important than "how I feel", and where couples learned that getting along is more a matter of respect and human decency than it is some romantic or physical attraction.

zimzo said:

Maybe you can write up a Constitutional Amendment to ban love, Charles.

zimzo said:

"The concept that children have a right to a mother and a father."

And you accuse Democrats of inventing new rights?

And by the way what is a Sociocrat? That's the second time you have used this bizarre neologism. No wonder you don't seem to have time to defend any of your arguments against gay and straight civil unions when you you are spending all of your time thinking up names to call your opponents.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

at first I thought the heading of this thread said, "Socrates out of touch" ...now THAT's funny!

charles said:

zimzo, i don't want to ban love.

I simply hope the focus on marriage will inspire the people to focus on commitment rather than their own selfish desires.

I don't normally find this concept to be controversal -- in fact, the discussions here are the first time I remember people arguing that the idea of sacrifice for a relationship was somehow a bad thing.

I am completely serious. 50 years of TV and movies have overtaken the traditional concepts of duty, commitment, sacrifice, and replaced it with a modern ethos that the only important think is one's own feelings.

Thus we end up with a Reality TV show where a mother, having finally seemingly gotten her family together after her husband has left, and having found a half-decent nanny to help her out, decides that what is REALLY important is to leave the family for a year to go off to france for her own "me-time", because she has earned it, leaving her children with the hired help.

Abortion, divorce, so many alternative lifestyles are all predicated on this new and selfish focus on personal wants and desires.

We are taught to have a relationship with whomever we are attracted to, and to break it off when the attraction wanes. We are told how much "better off" children are if the parents don't "pretend" to love each other, when in fact there is no reason why two decent human beings can't live together and raise children regardless of their personal feelings. Knowing full well how important commitment to the children is, our society ignores that and instead teaches our children that commitment is a meaningless concept (as we only "commit" to those who we desire to be with, and leave whenever that desire is gone).

Oddly, couples who go through periods of trouble but who believe commitment is the highest calling OFTEN come out more "in love" -- when you HAVE to make things work out, it is amazing how well you can do so.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

dude, I've been following the marriage debate on this blog for a while, and I don't think anyone has ever even hinted at arguing that sacrifice for a relationship is a bad thing. what are you talking about? and what does it have to do with gays? the whole thing about gay marriage is that they WANT to be in committed relationships, and to have the legal rights and protections which go along with such a lifelong commitment.

charles said:

here we go again.

One says that my call for sacrifice means I should support banning love, and then another says that I'm imagining it.

I will make this as plain as I can: romantic attraction is overrated, and basing relationships on physical intimacy or "eros" love is a recipe for failure.

Appeals therefore to extensions and perversions of marriage based on such attraction only further erodes the true meaning of committed relationship.

I have no problem with the idea that people WANT to be with people they are attracted to -- people want lots of stuff, and if it is in your own power I'm not going to stop you.

But building on sand isn't the recipe for success.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

says you

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM