Same Sex Marriage
You can call a camel a dog – but it’s still a camel. Thus is the issue of same sex marriage at its core. Proponents argue that two people of the same sex who love each other ought to be able to marry. 5,000 years of human history say otherwise. Marriage is not simply about the level of affection and commitment between two people. It is a formal bond, sanctioned by religious beliefs or government recognition, or both. It is a ceremonial act engaged in by men and women for generation after generation, signifying love, sharing, commitment, and nurturing of family.
Should two people of the same sex be permitted to marry? Sure. They can pledge their fidelity to each other, cohabitate, make each other legally responsible to and for each other by contract – they can pretty much do whatever they want. They can even call their relationship a marriage – but it’s not. Herein lies the essential truth. It is not about “marriage;” it’s about a broader agenda. Otherwise, why bother to address a challenge to long-established culture and tradition demanded by 2-3% of the population.
The essence of the gay agenda is to alter reality to a condition more suitable to advocates. The issue is not redefining marriage but a more basic alteration of terms: normal and natural. Behavior that is abnormal or unnatural is perceived as negative; because of the way the terms are defined. To create a more positive image, the perception must be changed. This is a frequent tool of Liberals and Progressives. If you don't like the perception of a term, either change the perception or change the term. If you call a camel a dog, and convice enough people, then it is.
Consider the terminology. Normal refers to a statistical relationship. It is a “bell-shaped” curve. Normal behavior is that engaged in by the majority of the population under consideration. In this case, heterosexuality is the “norm” – by about 97-98%. By definition, homosexuality is “abnormal (away from the norm). Now that is not a big thing – just a simple fact. Left-handers are also abnormal – away from the norm (10-15%). So are AB blood types (4%). Normal and abnormal are not value judgments; they are simply statistical references. But abnormal SOUNDS negative, therefore it must be redefined or abandoned to support the agenda driven mindset.
Natural behavior is that which is occurs in nature. Certainly, there are exceptions, but “natural” is a term reserved for the large percentage of behavioral or other patterns. When specified features, characteristics, structures, functions, and behaviors occur in creatures, we group them together using scientific nomenclature – we create “species.”
Again, natural and unnatural are not value judgments; they are simply descriptions of more common and less common conditions as observed in nature. “Gayness” is a human construct, much like “alcoholism.” There is no alcoholism in nature, nor is there any homosexuality. Can some animals consume intoxicating substances that alter behavior? Sure. Does it make them alcoholics? No. Similarly, can some animals mimic or engage in sexual behavior with the others of the same sex? Yes. Does that make them homosexual? No. Such same sex behavior is unnatural.
Gays and homosexual behavior have been part of the human experience since the dawn of man. The Gay Agenda movement is a more recent phenomenon. The traditional view was that “a person’s sexual preferences should not be anyone’s business but their own.” One need not agree or disagree with the gay lifestyle because it was a private matter. Gays and straights alike were pretty much fine with that. In the 60s, however, more radical elements decided ignoring one’s sexual preferences was not satisfactory; preferences must be made public, and therefore not merely tolerated, but accepted - even embraced. Sexual preference, instead of being a private matter, became a very public right among supporters. There were gay pride parades and gay pride days, though one is hard pressed to understand what pride has to do with it. There are many things to be proud of; sexual preferences hardly seem to rise to that level. Then came the “outings,” voluntary or forced. Then the endless parade of politicians and celebrities claiming the title of “first gay” this or that.
The underlying goal of all of this has been to normalize that which is inherently not; to make natural that which empirically isn’t; and to force those who merely accept a right to one’s private preferences to actively and publically support and endorse them. The perfect vehicle for this campaign was marriage. After all, if gay people could be married, that one imprimatur would sanction same-sex behavior as normal, natural, and worthy of public support. And it worked. Despite thousands of years of marriage as an institution recognizing the union of a man and woman, one generation has been duped into a new and conflicting definition. A camel is now a dog.
The agenda has been carefully crafted. The first step was to re-educate the population staying away from critical analysis, instead relying on the “good feelings” approach invariably used by the Liberal Left. The rationale is, “if someone loves someone, no matter whom, why should they be denied the right to express their love.” Of course, that approach ignored the logic and reality that no one was being denied the right to love. To be effective, the emotion-driven approach would have to target the more naïve in the education system, so what was once a college level agenda was moved into the high schools, middle schools, and then grade schools. Impressionable minds are more receptive to “feelings.” Over 20-30 years, the public attitude toward same-sex marriage was thus molded. (Lowering the voting age to 18 helped.)
The second leg of implementation was the judicial process. Liberal Left politicians and agenda supporters have pushed to appoint judges at all levels who were ideological enough to support the agenda, despite the majority’s rejection of it, supported by the history and tradition of eons. They would inject inter-racial marriage as a precedent and primary tool to justify their actions, despite no logical connection between the two issues, the matter of race being both normal and natural, worldwide.
Sensing the growing momentum facilitated by educational indoctrination and judicial activism, states across the country passed laws and constitutional amendments reasserting the classical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. It worked. For a while. Prior to 2014, 31 states had passed such laws or amendments, while 19 states permitted same-sex marriage. The federal government (under Bill Clinton!) even passed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Despite the strong majority desire to preserve traditional marriage, activist courts have reversed democratic wishes to those of today: 36 states now permit same-sex marriage, with seven cases pending in the courts, and no definitive answer from the Supreme Court. Most of this reversal has been engineered by ignoring public opinion and overturning laws passed by substantial majorities.
Emboldened by the anchor of acceptance in the redefinition of marriage, the gay agenda has moved into the next phase. Now that there is an established right to marriage, same sex unions must be not merely tolerated, but publicly accepted and endorsed. There is no freedom of conscience or right of personal opinion permitted. Thus, small bakeries – are REQUIRED to supply gay wedding cakes; private flower shops are REQUIRED to provide floral arrangements for same-sex weddings; and private wedding chapels are REQUIRED to rent space and even conduct services for gay unions. Religious or other objections are denied. The stage is not only set, the third act is about to begin.
Leveraging the acceptance of same-sex marriage, members of the military are required to accept openly gay individuals, despite the uniquely essential need for uniformity in values among the military. Recent indications are that cross-dressing and transsexual soldiers are next. One wonders how troops in WW II would have fared knowing the buddy in your foxhole had a boob-job.
Children as young as kindergartners are being taught about homosexuality as a normal, natural and simply alternative lifestyle. The “teaching” is really a brainwashing indoctrination to help complete the agenda, and a great many well intending people embrace it. In fact I, and most others, support many of their intentions:
Tolerance for different lifestyles and for private behavior at variance with the norm
Civil unions to assure basic civil rights to same-sex partners (or other unmarried couples)
Civility, respect and decency accorded to any person
Even using the term “marriage” as one chooses, without regard to convention, tradition or history (we all have a right to give meaning to our own words)
What I don’t support, and what is fundamentally wrong and destructive to society is:
Redefining marriage, despite thousands of years of convention, tradition and history
Not respecting religious requirements, or personal matters of choice and conscience (First Amendment rights)
Forced offering of commercial services when reasonable alternatives are available
Government forced values having nothing to do with natural rights, whether by indoctrination or legislation
Government according benefits or exacting penalties based on marital status or sexual preferences (including public paid sex change operations)
What started as a reasonable call for tolerance has turned reason on its head with a rejection of tolerance for opposing views. Thus, redefining marriage is acceptable, but support for norms, nature, history, tradition and convention are impugned as vile, hateful, and even racist (go figure). Dialogue suggesting logic is not permitted, high-handed tyranny based on emotion and rhetoric is elevated to false reason. The camel is not only fully inside the tent; it is a dog.
Ref. National Conference of State Legislatures
COMING AS PART OF THIS SERIES:
Muslims and Islam
Regulation and the Internet
United Nations and the New World Order
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
- William F. Buckley, Jr.