While many are framing the same-sex marriage debate as a civil freedom, Brooks suggests that it may be a positive move toward civil restraint. Is the LGBT campaign for same-sex marriage a positive step toward personal responsibility and the limiting of freedoms? Read Brooks' column and see what you think. Here are a few paragraphs to pique your curiosity...
Recently, the balance between freedom and restraint has been thrown out of whack. People no longer even have a language to explain why freedom should sometimes be limited. The results are as predicted. A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate. Decline in marriage. More children raised in unsteady homes. Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings.But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage.Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.- - -The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations.
Interesting. Never heard this slant on the argument before. I especially liked the paragraph that includes "Maybe there will be social codes so that people understand that the act of creating a child includes a lifetime commitment to give him or her an organized home."
ReplyDeleteBring it.