<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Marriage for Savages</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2011/07/16/marriage-for-savages/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2011/07/16/marriage-for-savages/</link>
	<description>A First Things Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 12:34:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Eric Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2011/07/16/marriage-for-savages/comment-page-1/#comment-14126</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Eric Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:51:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=3378#comment-14126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stanley Kurtz made this argument years ago.  I largely agree with it, and it&#039;s one of the reasons I oppose gay marriage.

However: 

Gay marriage, to the extent it is legalized, will not itself cause the cultural sky to fall, even if more heterosexuals do begin to let Savage&#039;s nonmonagamous &quot;semi-open&quot; pattern define their marriages.

What will cause the sky to fall is the lawyers and the jurisprudence.  The autonomy imperatives embedded in decisions like Casey, Lawrence, etc., logically will require us to allow polygamy, and worst of all, &quot;marriage-lite&quot; for the growing subset of heterosexuals convinced they have &quot;the non-marrying kind&quot; of sexual orientation.  It does not matter if most gays and most swingin&#039; heteros and most polygamy-desirers seek reasonable compromise in what they demand from the law--all it takes is for a few of them to employ lawyers for their ends.  Anthony Kennedy and co. have already laid the groundwork for demanding the legal recognition of any sort of marriage-like and self-definition-involved contract by society.  God help us when enough of the non-marrying-kind heteros begin to figure this out.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stanley Kurtz made this argument years ago.  I largely agree with it, and it&#8217;s one of the reasons I oppose gay marriage.</p>
<p>However: </p>
<p>Gay marriage, to the extent it is legalized, will not itself cause the cultural sky to fall, even if more heterosexuals do begin to let Savage&#8217;s nonmonagamous &#8220;semi-open&#8221; pattern define their marriages.</p>
<p>What will cause the sky to fall is the lawyers and the jurisprudence.  The autonomy imperatives embedded in decisions like Casey, Lawrence, etc., logically will require us to allow polygamy, and worst of all, &#8220;marriage-lite&#8221; for the growing subset of heterosexuals convinced they have &#8220;the non-marrying kind&#8221; of sexual orientation.  It does not matter if most gays and most swingin&#8217; heteros and most polygamy-desirers seek reasonable compromise in what they demand from the law&#8211;all it takes is for a few of them to employ lawyers for their ends.  Anthony Kennedy and co. have already laid the groundwork for demanding the legal recognition of any sort of marriage-like and self-definition-involved contract by society.  God help us when enough of the non-marrying-kind heteros begin to figure this out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry Bozz</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2011/07/16/marriage-for-savages/comment-page-1/#comment-14090</link>
		<dc:creator>Barry Bozz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:55:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=3378#comment-14090</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry , I meany Savage&#039;s justification and Mr. Douthat&#039;s hope that the discussion would bring a return to Natural Law arguments.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry , I meany Savage&#8217;s justification and Mr. Douthat&#8217;s hope that the discussion would bring a return to Natural Law arguments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry Bozz</title>
		<link>http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2011/07/16/marriage-for-savages/comment-page-1/#comment-14089</link>
		<dc:creator>Barry Bozz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:51:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/?p=3378#comment-14089</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While Douthat&#039;s  justification for &quot;open marriage&quot;
seeks a ground in Natural Law, his view of Nature is as twisted and blind as Hobbes and Rousseau. I doubt that ( no pun intended) his return to a Natural Law foundation will bring any meaningful discussion to those who seek to justify their unnatural, fallen desires. Reasoned and rational insight will only become clear to those who love the truth for it&#039;s own sake.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While Douthat&#8217;s  justification for &#8220;open marriage&#8221;<br />
seeks a ground in Natural Law, his view of Nature is as twisted and blind as Hobbes and Rousseau. I doubt that ( no pun intended) his return to a Natural Law foundation will bring any meaningful discussion to those who seek to justify their unnatural, fallen desires. Reasoned and rational insight will only become clear to those who love the truth for it&#8217;s own sake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
