Leave a comment below!
Thank you for this information, Paul.
I wish that I had been updating my blog more frequently... I have several new entries planned for soon, though. Right now, I am guest blogging at 'Deux Ego,' the blog of Pieter Friedrich. Pieter is at a Christian conference, and will be gone through Sunday, so myself and two others have taken over there for this time period. I already posted several entries there; please check them out if you get a chance. I will be adding new entries to my own blog soon; I have updated many of the previous ones recently, though. Thank you so much for adding me to your blogroll; I will try not to disappoint.
Keep up the good work!
You too, Aakash.
Mr. Kurtz has long puzzled me, and occasionally disappoints, but we need to keep in mind that when he defends traditional marriage against the likes of Andrew Sullivan, he wins hands down. Though his argument may be incomplete, it is not wrong. This incompleteness stems from his own admission that he is not a religious man, nor does he consider homosexual activity to be "sinful". (Of course, if one is not religious, I don't know how the notion of sin even gets in the door.) I have scoured his archive at NRO, but cannot find where he lays out the case for this position. He seems engaged in a contradictory enterprise: arguing against a thing without being able to say why it's wrong. He wants to retain its form, but can't explain its substance. If he can't get to the "one flesh" foundation, traditional marriage becomes just another preference. In other words, if he cannot say that it comports with God's will, the only arguments he can make must rise from a secular understanding of human nature, of which his are only a few among many.
Still, as your last paragraph reminds us, sterile sex is the order of the day among heterosexuals, and gay sex is a member of that club. Even if Kurtz were making the fuller argument you ask for, I don't think it would convince very many. Things are too far along now, and I don't know what will return us to sanity. I dread to speculate.
I have nothing to add to the Chesterton-Belloc thing below. Just know that I savored it fully.
Paul,
"The faith of our fathers", in the main - Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism ( religions forming the majority in the world) also accepted, nay propagated, polygamy. We have to move on, too, you know.
Manish:
I take the faith of our fathers to be Christianity; and this, problematically, to still be a Christian nation. "Move on" implies progress; I deny that drastic innovations upon the moral framework of a society are progress.
Commenting by HaloScan
