12/12/12

Another construct of time and existence. 

But it is always through the appreciation of ordinary things that we find the mundane unique. 

晏殊《浣溪沙》

一曲新词酒一杯， 

去年天气旧亭台。 

夕阳西下几时回？ 

无可奈何花落去， 

似曾相识燕归来。 

小园香径独徘徊。 

Trust

"The one great crime on [our part], is worry. Whenever we begin to calculate without God, we commit sin.

It is very easy to trust in God when there is no difficulty, but that is not trust at all, it is simply letting the mind rest in a complacement mood; but when there is trouble, there is death, where is our trust in God? The clearest evidence that God's grace is at work in our heart is that we do not get into panics."

Christian Disciplines, Oswald Chambers

Redefining Marriage? No.

"Marriage is not to be reduced to being only for "sexually-intimate companionship" disconnected from its biological and societal functions". The following extract is a newspaper article on what one of my law professor, Julian Rivers, has written in response to the proposal of the UK Government to allow same sex marriage. The original article can be found here. 

“Changing the legal definition of marriage will likewise reflect and support a different view of what marriage is and what it is for.”
According to Rivers, any such change will confirm and bolster the already dangerous trends of “excessive individualism of modern Western society, as well as the collapse of participation in all forms of social action.” It will “reduce” marriage to being only for “sexually-intimate companionship,” disconnecting the institution from its biological and societal functions.
It will also create a social threat to the wellbeing of children, Rivers said. Referring to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, he said, “Every child has a moral claim on her natural father and mother, grounded in the fact that they brought her into being and that it is in principle good for every child to be brought up by her natural parents committed in relationship to each other and to her.”“Breaking the intrinsic connections between marriage, childbearing and kinship risks the further commodification of children, in which children become ‘ultimate accessories’ – means to the ends of their parents, and ultimately subject to their agendas, rather than persons of equal worth, with an equal stake in the success of the marriage.”
The notion that natural marriage “discriminates” based on sexual orientation is the basis of the argument for same-sex “marriage,” Rivers said. But the real question is whether this discrimination is unjust. Rivers argues that far from traditional marriage being unjust, it “secures the equal value of men and women,” and “promotes the welfare of children.” Civil partnerships already grant other types of unions full legal security.
“Any law which sets criteria for anything discriminates,” he wrote. While it is right to prohibit distinctions based on sex, race, religion or age in political life, business or employment, “sometimes it is right to draw distinctions even on these grounds.” He gave the example of the law that prohibits children under 16 from marrying.
The government’s proposals have failed “to distinguish rationally between relationships and arrangements which are and are not to be treated as marriage in law.”
Moreover, redefining marriage to create a new “gender-blind” institution will threaten the legitimate social advances made by women over the last 100 years.
“Marriage as currently defined is the central social institution which expresses the idea that men and women are equally valuable as men and women. It is only marriage which harnesses gender difference to the purposes of social cooperation.
“Almost all other ways in which difference is acknowledged – from sports teams to public lavatories – depend on segregation. Sexual union in marriage reinforces a comprehensive ‘together-in-otherness’ of male and female.”
Rivers said that the arguments against same-sex “marriage” coming from religious convictions are legitimate and need to be heard – particularly in a country where the great majority identify themselves as Christian – but are not the only arguments worth making. The government’s proposal, he wrote, fails to address “the fundamental question of what a marriage is, and thus it fails to identify and defend the boundaries of any new definition”.
“At root,” he said, the meaning of marriage is socially, not legally defined. It is not the law that makes marriage what it is, but the law that follows the “socially-given expectations”. Marriage itself, in other words, is the underlying, objective reality with the law merely following that template. 

Source: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/redefine-marriage-threaten-social-advances-of-women-rights-of-children-uk-l