Today’s post is at The Remnant: “Ever Wonder Why Gmarriage Is Only Legal in Post Christian Nations?”
Have you noticed that gmarriage—government-defined marriage—is legal only in post-Christian nations? Why this is so in a moment, but first a brief review of where we stand.
The Netherlands were the first to pretend that two men (or two women) can be married, making it the law of the land in 2001. Belgium followed close at heel in 2003, with the flight from reality gaining momentum in 2005 with Canada and Spain. As of this writing, there are twenty-four countries mandating gmarriage, with Finland, Ireland, Mexico, and the United States the latest entries.
Go there to read the rest. Albert Jay Nock would: you should, too.
I think the connection you make from the Enlightenment to post-Christianity is on the mark. Like yesterdays post, we are coming to the logical end of progressivism which had its start in the Western world (the Christian world).
Forty-one years ago I read AJ’s Memoirs of a Superfluous Man with great enjoyment and never knew his mortal remains rested only four miles from my dorm room. Had my libertarian visiting history professor mentioned it, I would have made the pilgrimage.
Same-sex marriage is now legal in the US after the SCOTUS’s ruling. One can find the religious affiliation of the SCOTUS members here. Is America country post-Christian? One will need to show that it is a Christian nation in the first place. Hmmm, just like many other questions, one undoubtedly can find something to support their prejudice. Just ask Mrs. Google.
Taiwan is the first region in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. Has it ever been a Christian nation? No, though the Christian population is rising in Taiwan.
Why pretend that you don’t understand what “marriage equality” is about?
Taiwan was mentioned in the article, and Taiwan is not quite there yet, and there are caveats and obstacles to reaching full equality: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/07/taiwan-moves-toward-gay-marriage-new-law-give-sex-couples-2nd-class-status/
Had Taiwan made this step a century ago, then there may be something to discuss.
Had Taiwan made this step a century ago, then there may be something to discuss.
Why? what would be the something to discuss?
JH,
You’re back!
Katie, you are right that same-sex marriage has not been legalized in Taiwan, but a same-sex couple can register as a household. The household registration comes with certain rights. Though the Christian population is increasing; I believe that that same-sex marriage WILL be legalized with a term reflecting the characteristic of being same sex… which is necessary due to the way Chinese language works.
The Netherlands has a civil marriage starting with Bonaparte. Which is a contract regarding certain rights and duties. It has nothing to do with the natural marriage which is advocated by the Roman-Catholic Church. People getting a civil marriage divorce stay married for the Catholic Church, as long as they want to be part of that Catholic Church.
Gmarriage is discussed here in terms of church marriages. These kinds of marriages haven’t been legal for more than 200 years over here.
So, instead of warning agains a post-Christian apocalypse, these things have been going on for ages over here. During the time when Christians, in particular the Roman-Catholic majority, were the local political power.
BRIGGS says: “…there is little doubt that the leadership in all the countries with legal gmarriage is post-Christian…” The article references at length a number of examples where the decline in religious affiliation correlates with “gmarriage” — that social rejection of religion opens the way for gay marriage.
Mention is made of China (strongly atheistic), but none of Russia — the latter with an atheist heritage that remains overtly, and forcefully, anti-gay.
Thus, the data shows this apparent correlation between cause & effect:
Where
– religious affiliation is strong, gay marriage is rejected,
and,
– where atheism is strong, gay marriage is rejected.
Religious affiliation of the citizens doesn’t seem to correlate with the outcome (consider the sample size of those two populations relative to the rest of the world).
Also, consider the U.S.A.’s “Founding Fathers” — most were deists, rejecting of Jesus or an involved deity; this during a time (‘age of enlightenment’) where emphasis on science & rational analysis (aka “scientism” in today’s parlance) was in vogue. No evidence of support for gays then either.
That sure appears to prove the analysis of religious decline leading to gay marriage, is in reality an example of case of ‘correlation is NOT evidence of causation’ being presented as ‘correlation IS evidence of causation.’ By a statistician no less.
JH,
same-sex marriage has not been legalized in Taiwan, but a same-sex couple can register as a household … I believe that that same-sex marriage WILL be legalized with a term reflecting the characteristic of being same sex
Why would that be necessary at all if they can already register as a household? Why is that insufficient? What is so important about calling it a marriage?
Ken,
Russia, of course, has strongly re-embraced Orthodoxy. Perhaps you recall an article I wrote about a year ago in which I speculated Vladimir Putin’s publicly acknowledged faith was genuine.
And, of course, I have written many articles in which I say (correctly) that with causation comes correlation. I gave the cause, then I showed the correlation.
God hates fags, so when God is abandoned, gays are accepted.
DAV,
Same-sex couples are allowed to have their partner’s name recorded as if they are family, which can be helpful in many situations such as medical emergencies and mortgage application. It’s a big step forward! However, there are other legal benefits granted to married couples only, e.g., inheritance and those similar to spousal social security benefits.
The pictographical Chinese character(s) for marriage describing the ceremony of receiving female is, in fact, practically outdated. The female radical part of the character(s) can be taken to be singular or plural. Polygamy, banned by Mao’s communist party, was the traditional marriage for the rich. No contradiction there as one man could have one or multiple ceremonies to welcome one or more women to his mansion. One can also argue the origin of the character(s) didn’t state that the ceremony had to be a man receiving a women.
In general, people there are not bothered by the wording. Taiwan’s low fertility rate might have generated a deeper concern about the legalization of same sex marriage. People believe that it is important to continue the torch of life, and same-sex marriage seems to pose as a threat. But I think people also know the low fertility rate is mainly due to other reasons. I could be wrong as I have no survey evidence here.
JH:
Could you explain the issue that the Chinese language raises concerning treating unions between homosexuals as though they were marriages? I don’t speak Chinese, and the only expression I know for getting married is ??, which of course does include the radical ?, but I’m not clear on how that presents an impediment.
Oops; it appears that this site doesn’t support Chinese characters. The pinyin for the first word was jie2 hun1, and for the second was nv3.
Pingback: The Remnant: Ever Wonder Why Gmarriage Is Only Legal in Post Christian Nations? | Reaction Times
Briggs,
Current estimates are:
~ half of Russia identifies as Christian
~70 of the U.S. identifies as Christian
Putin’s assertions aside, and emotion-laden terms such as “Russia, … strongly re-embraced Orthodoxy” don’t get away from the fact that, based on gross numbers (or even a much finer analysis in that general regard) the belief/assertion that a breakdown in the number of Christians in a population is leading to support for gay marriage is simply missing the point.
Stating you’ve addressed correlation vs causation doesn’t address the essay’s fundamental flaw of attributing the problem with a “post-Christian” situation in the U.S. — there’s way too many “Christians” relative to other countries that don’t have that same problem.
The issue few will address, the real issue, is that Christianity itself is corrupted. Not all, but a sizable proportion — especially in the U.S. and then in many “first world countries.” These are not “post-Christian” nations, they’re nations populated by people that have bought into heresy. And, generally, haven’t a clue they have; worse, even those that haven’t fail to recognize their bretherin-in-namesake are heretics.
The problem is well-known & oft-cited…in some arenas…but for the most part ignored. I know of only one book addressing it head-on and in some depth, & it’s not particularly great:
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Religion-Became-Nation-Heretics/dp/143917833X
The problem, especially in the U.S., is so bad that so many simply cannot see the corruption for what it is. You sometimes fall in that category, with well-intentions, but with rationale & arguments that are missing the mark by too large a margin (as indicated by any number of comments).
It’s an area that needs to be addressed — but addressed competently. Otherwise it’s best to address other issues…first do no harm.
“Alfred Jay Nock” should be “Albert Jay Nock.”
Thanks, Clyde.
My enemies are now changing names on me!