In light of yesterday’s ruling by California’s Supreme Court which declared same-sex marriage legal, a question occured to me. How come all these “rights” that liberal secularist judges miraculously “find” in the Constitution would doom us all.
Roe V. Wade was the first right that was made up…I mean “found” that was hoped to be “safe, legal and rare” giving it the distinction of being the first “right” that everybody supposedly hoped nobody would use.
Quick quiz: How many other rights have been called “a sad and tragic choice” by the very people who support it?
But now the right to gay marriage, which has been cleverly unearthed in the California Constitution by four judges, also would doom us all if not done rarely.
Man, these rights are killing us. Literally.
To put it more bluntly, if the “rights” of abortion and gay marriage were taken advantage of by everyone, humanity would be eradicated from the planet within 100 years:
1) If we all took advantage of the right of same sex marriages, pro-creation would be pretty darn rare.
2) If a baby did somehow occur by someone having a heterosexual adulterous affair (shame!) they could take advantage of one of their rights to abort the baby.
I mean, aren’t rights supposed to be universal? How about a new rule. If a “right” being universalized means the eradication of all humanity, perhaps we shouldn’t call it a “right” but instead, something to be avoided.
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all pretty nice things which actually help people and perpetuate our civilization. Even the right to bear arms is rooted in the wish for people to be able to protect themselves from being eradicated. But these judges are so brilliant they’ve found rights to destroy all those other things. Congratulations to them. I can’t wait to see what they’ll find next.
May 16, 2008 at 4:27 am
Well said. Keep up the good fight.
May 16, 2008 at 5:30 am
Basically the judges obliterate the meaning of family.
Now if “the future of humanity passes by way of the family” (Familiaris Consortio – JPII), it is easy to conclude what those so-called “rights” are obliterating.
May 16, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Roe V. Wade was the first right that was made up…
I beg to differ. Griswold v. Connecticut found a “right” to contraception several years before Roe. That was the initial hole in the dike.
May 16, 2008 at 1:43 pm
It would fit into my point well. These newfound rights all seem intent on destroying humanity.
May 16, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I guess if some state outlawed celibate religious lifestyles, you would be *against* the courts finding that people have the right to enter the priesthood??????
Or maybe the logic in your post isn’t quite right.
May 16, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Huh? The right of one man staying celibate by giving his life to God is hardly comparable with inventing a right to gay marriage.
YOu’re confusing “creating” a right with not infringing on them, I think.
May 16, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The whole intent is to eradicate the human “cancer” from the face of the earth. Mother Earth was going along just fine until us awful humans came along and ruined it.
Sharon
May 16, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Excellent post, Matthew!
I used to argue this when someone would call abortion a “fundamental human right.” How, I would ask, can you have a “fundamental” right which can only be exercised by fertile women during their childbearing years? Such a “right” leaves an awful lot of people out–and what about the fetus’s “fundamental” right to an abortion? How will she ever exercise that right if she is aborted herself before she’s old enough?
I notice the term “fundamental human right” doesn’t get thrown around so much these days.
May 16, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Anthony, I’m just illustrating the structural flaws in the way the argument was presented in the original post. Consider the language:
“To put it more bluntly, if the “rights” of [here replace abortion and gay marriage with celibacy] were taken advantage of by everyone, humanity would be eradicated from the planet within 100 years,”
If the lack of procreation in gay marriage is REALLY the reason Catholics oppose it, then the same reasoning applies to the priesthood.
May 16, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Kevin,
I don’t think I said that’s the reason to oppose it. I was simply pointing out a consequence of these “rights.”
May 16, 2008 at 7:15 pm
You are doing more than pointing out a consequence. How does this not apply to the priesthood?:
“I mean, aren’t rights supposed to be universal? How about a new rule. If a “right” being universalized means the eradication of all humanity, perhaps we shouldn’t call it a “right” but instead, something to be avoided.”
May 16, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Kevin,
I hate to argue here but there is no “right” to celibacy. You can or can’t do it. It’s never been brought up in court.
You’re making a theoretical argument. I think Matthew is talking about the real world because now, thanks to judges, there are spelled out fundamental rights to gay marriage and abortion in this real world.
Your theoretical argument could just as simply be about the universality of flying kites because that doesn’t necessarily help the species and if everyone were to do it all the time then the world would end.
Your logic is fine but your premises are wrong.
May 16, 2008 at 8:23 pm
kevin,
I think there is a distinction between celibacy and abortion.
You theorized on the celibacy issue coming to court.
On the celibacy issue in court, if the state ruled against the celibate they would have to be coercing someone to do something which is to say, the court would be ordering the person to have sex.
If they ruled for the celibate it would be not a vote for celibacy but a vote to protect that person from being forced or coerced into sex.
Protecting the celibate from those who would force him to act against his conscience is very different from granting an affirmative right to do something like procure an abortion or get married to someone of the same sex.
May 17, 2008 at 3:04 pm
These new “rights”, I think, are another symptom of Western self-hatred. Anything that remotely affirms the values and virtues of Western civilization (ie: the procreative purpose of marriage or the intrinsic dignity of the human person) is suspect. It’s all become all about ME, and to heck with the rest of humanity or any responsibility I have to others.
Bob Hunt
May 17, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Matthew, I’m really talking about the priesthood as a vocation and career, not just celibacy per se. I agree that it wouldn’t make sense that the courts would force someone to get married against their will. But the question is how would the courts treat a State law prohibiting men from entering the priesthood? If such a law was passed, we would hope that the courts would overturn it and find that men have the *right* to pursue a religious vocation if that is what they want to do. That would be the correct thing for the courts to do. But such a ruling would also fall under your criticism, particularly in the wording I quoted in my last comment.
So to sum up, I think criticizing gay marriage FROM THAT ANGLE is a mistake. I’m not trying to defend gay marriage, just make a point about the structure of your argument. My personal opinion, for what its worth, is that it is a mistake for a secular or pluralistic society to recognize marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution.
May 17, 2008 at 6:58 pm
“My personal opinion, for what its worth, is that it is a mistake for a secular or pluralistic society to recognize marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution.”
Then why does “RavingAtheist” support monogamous marriage? By the way, he isn’t alone. Many, many agnostics and atheists support it. Last time I checked, a man and a woman pairing up was human nature.
http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2006/02/the_feminine_critique.php
The point is, forming a monogamous family unit is the normal behavior of our species.
I suggest watching the following documentary. This certainly isn’t the first time that a government has refused to uphold the stable family unit. It probably won’t be the last either, but it just might mean the end of our civilization.
http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html
It killed Rome, and many other ancient societies. Why not us?