tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post8816103525637916844..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: An Important New Paper on MarriageA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-12316082846668898512010-10-05T17:06:33.857-07:002010-10-05T17:06:33.857-07:00Yes, T U &D, that is also a good article.
Fin...Yes, T U &D, that is also a good article.<br /><br />Finally, I neglected to link to Anthony Esolen's two essays in the two most recent issues of <a href="http://www.touchstonemag.com/" rel="nofollow"><i>Touchstone Magazine</i></a> -- you will need a subscription to read them, but then, everyone should subscribe to <i>Touchstone.</i>A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-63346590909138207382010-10-04T13:52:20.345-07:002010-10-04T13:52:20.345-07:00Thanks Anglican Curmudgeon for posting this paper....Thanks Anglican Curmudgeon for posting this paper.<br /><br />On the flip side of the coin, have you read Albert Mohler's recent essay <b><a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/30/divorce-the-scandal-of-the-evangelical-conscience/" rel="nofollow">Divorce — The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience</a></b>?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-61373221202809278812010-10-02T18:34:46.952-07:002010-10-02T18:34:46.952-07:00I had not read a secular argument of this depth in...I had not read a secular argument of this depth in the past. <br /><br />I liked this point, <br /><br />"Take Joe and Jim. They live together, support each other, share domestic responsibilities, and have no dependents. Because Joe knows and trusts Jim more than anyone else, he would like Jim<br />to be the one to visit him in the hospital if he is ill, give directives for his care if he is<br />unconscious, inherit his assets if he dies first, and so on. The same goes for Jim.<br />So far, you may be assuming that Joe and Jim have a sexual relationship. But does it matter?<br />What if they are bachelor brothers? What if they are best friends who never stopped rooming<br />together after college, or who reunited after being widowed? Is there any reason that the benefits<br />they receive should depend on whether their relationship is or even could be romantic? In fact,<br />would it not be patently unjust if the state withheld benefits from them on the sole ground that they were not having sex?"Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-78919889021257950532010-10-02T17:32:43.972-07:002010-10-02T17:32:43.972-07:00Thank you so much for posting this! I feel like th...Thank you so much for posting this! I feel like this is the most important paper in our culture right now. <br /><br />It is just unbelievable that we have so lost our way. But we have. And the dearth of childbearing is the result.Perpetuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16632860530530786486noreply@blogger.com