doesn’t mean I agree with him on social issues. If in fact he really would have held the view that Dr. Horowitz ascribes to him.
Perhaps given the economic circumstances of a poorer, agricultural world, and the state of social and scientific knowledge, the various prohibitions on homosexuality made sense to people at the time, and perhaps they made sense in reality. But in a different era, with different knowledge, Hayek would be the first to say that the institution can and should evolve. After all, how different is it from prohibitions on interracial marriage, along these lines? Didn’t many people believe that the factual knowledge supported an inequality of the races? Didn’t changes in our factual knowledge contribute to the end of such laws?
What has that to do with the fact that the marriage of a man and a woman is intended to engender and nurture children of that union, and that demonstrably, two males or two females cannot have children together?
Slippery slope, it seems to me.
FWIW, fine, let gays marry. But be damned sure they get all of the benefits of the IRS’s lovely marriage penalty, just like straights.
And if you’re going to let gays marry, then make divorce EXTREMELY hard to obtain for EVERYONE. Then maybe ALL people will think twice before tripping down the aisle to pledge their troths till infidelity, boredom, or abuse do them part.
Marriage should be viewed as a privilege, not as a right. “Whom God hath brought together, let no man rend asunder”, or however that line goes (we don’t have it in the Jewish ceremony). We are privileged that God has brought two of us together to love each other AND to perpetuate the species. Marriage at base has no other function. All of the things that people try to tack on, like caring for children of the union, are implicit in that definition.
I don’t belive in amending the Constitution except when it’s absolutely, without a doubt, fer-shure necessary. I think that day has come, unfortunately. It’s time for the Federal Marriage Amendment, because people in this country no longer understand what makes marriage special and holy — to their everlasting shame and detriment.
PS: I’m waiting with baited breath to hear whether or not allowing gays to marry is going to open up the door to siblings being allowed to marry, as in the case a number of years ago where a brother and sister separated at birth met up years later as adults, fell in love, and tried to get married, only to find out that they were sibs.
Actions have consequences. The problem in this case would be inbreeding. But if you open the door to same sex marriage, aren’t you really opening it to anyone who wants to be married?