Here's a nice dialogue I had with a conservative friend of mine on Facebook.
“...throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty.”
False. The family has served as essential to the rearing of the emotional, physical, spiritual, and educational needs of the individual. You can add various other things in there that sound good.
Basically, that statement is so illogical and irrelevant that it’s like saying the following:
“Door knobs, throughout history, have served and essential role for making watermelon taste good.”
“The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government.”
Illogical and false on some levels. The home also serves to provide a secretive environment to indoctrinate evil ideals, molest, rape, verbally abuse, physically abuse, and emotionally abuse. The home can also serve as a place to prevent education, destroy free-thinking, etc.
In other words, it’s a two way street.
Now, the home is far and away removed from being a defense from the overreaching powers of government. In fact, that’s completely backwards. Unless you’re living in the middle of nowhere in and underground bunker that is buster bomb proof, you are far and away from the overreaching powers of government. (even in your bunker, the government can still find you.)
I would say that the home SHOULD and SOMETIMES provides more of a safe haven from detrimental social influences. It also SHOULD and CAN provide a place of peace, love, and comfort from the evils of the world. “Defense” is kind of a weird word to use.
“In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home.”
I 100% agree. Couldn’t have put it better myself.
“Strong families are thus vital for political freedom.”
Wow. This statement, coupled with the previous statement’s context, commits so many logical fallacies. Even saying “strong families are vital for political freedom” is illogical. Non sequitur at the least.
“But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life.”
Saying that the public has to accept civil-unions is absolute rubbish. You never have to accept it; you just have to tolerate it. Also, teaching tolerance in your home is important too. I find it rather absurd that things of the secular world are thought to be the business of the religious. It’s none of our business if two homosexuals want to legally bind themselves to each other, nor is it your business to talk about them behind their back in your homes. Of course, there will still be homosexuals out there when civil unions are legal, and there will still be taught the "law of chastity" taught in homes. Maybe “tolerance” should be taught in homes as well? I’ll bet that that would be something Jesus would have taught in his family home. 😄
“The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable,”
Wrong. They are very predictable. Since it doesn’t concern the homo-haters at all who gets married in the secular world, and they can still continue to teach the “gospel” or “hate” in their homes after it’s made legal, nothing much will change.
“but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.”
So, if the “state” allows civil unions, that equates to the “patriot act”? Very curious, indeed, that logic there. Since civil unions are solely a secular state institution, religion has no place messing with it. It causes no harm and alleviates the oppression of a minorities’ freedom.