Just skimming this post from Tristero at Hullaballoo on David Klinghoffer's defense of the defense of marriage from people who want to get married. (Here's Klinghoffer's essay.)
I want to come back to this, although Tristero does a nice dissection. What's obvious on first reading is that to those Klinghoffer claims to be speaking for, there is only one possible view of the world -- theirs. He assumes as fact some things that are not and bases his arguments on those assumptions. The arguments, as far as I can tell on first reading, are junk. This statement is particularly noteworthy:
If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others.
There's little need for the government to be endorsing most sexual relationships, except for disapproving those of a predatory nature, and there's nothing religious about that.
(OK -- I should have realized. Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institution, which is a strong indication that reality does not impinge on his discourse to any great extent. You are, after all, known by the company you keep.)
At any rate, this is one that I do want to spend some time on, so you may see another post about it this weekend or so.
No comments:
Post a Comment