Skip to comments.I want to marry my dog: Erik Rush on desperate attempts to force secularism on America
Posted on 12/09/2003 2:01:33 AM PST by JohnHuang2
I want to marry my dog
Posted: December 9, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
I recently came to the conclusion that the left in this country is like the junkie who will look at everything but their addiction as the cause of their misery but who still wants increasing amounts of dope. The closer we move toward a secularist society, the worse things get but no one espousing that move will ever admit it. The problem is that, like the junkie, he or she isn't the only one who gets hurt through their folly.
The issue of homosexual "marriage" really has me reeling. Really. The reason I use quotation marks should presently become apparent. If you hadn't noticed, the issue of "gay rights" "gay marriage" in particular has been pushed into the forefront of the news lately.
The potential threat that recent developments (such as those in Massachusetts) portend have prompted members of Congress (including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas) to revisit the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which states that, for federal purposes, marriage is between a man and a woman. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has sponsored a constitutional amendment in the House that would define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman.
The left knows it is in for a major fight. Inasmuch as the homosexual lobby has aligned itself with the left, so the appearance of "gays" as mainstream and the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on a national level is being wildly exaggerated in the media. Hence, homosexual "marriage" has become a high-profile issue. The left's desperate sense of immediacy has even caused them to offend black leaders by likening the "struggle" of homosexuals in America to that of blacks.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people religious and secular who are being thoroughly deceived with regard to this issue, as represented by the mainstream media. In their view, the "right" of homosexuals to "marry" is being attacked by Congress, as opposed to the institution of marriage itself being attacked by the left. For the unpoliticized swing-voter type, it becomes easy to rationalize that what people do in their bedrooms, or in their households, is "their business," and "who will it hurt"?
For the individual, high- or low-profile, the question of whether or not to take a stand on this issue comes down to how much derision one wishes to endure as soon as one objects to any component of the homosexual agenda, of course, out comes the schoolyard invective: Homophobe! Bigot! Theocrat!
And then we roll over. No pun intended.
The reality is there is a difference between supporting the rights of individuals and being willing to go along with any and all fringe agenda for fear of being called some vile name. In the '60s and '70s, people who did not embrace any and all of the agenda the left espoused for ameliorating the injustices done to blacks were instantly branded racists. So they rolled over.
This resulted in blacks and other minorities being placed under the yoke of a form of slavery only slightly less odious than the one blacks lived under up until 150 years ago. The fact is that then, as now, what's at work is not an interest in the rights of a group of people, but the opportunism of the left in advancing their designs.
The issue of "gay marriage" really has less to do with the attainment of a civil right as it does with changing the definition of marriage much as the North American Man-Boy Love Association would like to change the definition of "consenting." In actuality, a 6-year-old isn't consenting simply because we say so. In actuality, people of the same sex can no more marry each other than I can marry an Irish Wolfhound.
The deeper truth is this: The issue of "gay marriage" has nothing to do with being "fair" to homosexuals. Laws addressing domestic partnerships would handily take care of that. The advancement of a secularist Godless agenda is at the core of these efforts.
It must be remembered that it is the left that is desperate. The issue of "gay marriage" is but an incremental move, part and parcel of the left's plan to shift us into a self-indulgent, sensualist (and therefore easily-controlled) society from the American Civil Liberties Union's efforts on behalf of NAMBLA and excising "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, to Democrats' attempts to effectively transfer legislative power to the judiciary. They know, given the social climate today, that if they do not ram every possible measure of secularism down our throats once and for all, right now they likely never will.
Indeed. The homosexual community's well planned, well funded propaganda campaign has been going on for years, as documented in the following references:
An excerpt from Culture of Vice:
"The homosexual cause has moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. As Robert Reilly notes a society can withstand any number of person who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But it cannot survive once it adopts the justifications for whose moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war...
For any individual, moral failure is hard to live with because of the rebuke of conscience. Habitual moral failure, what used to be called vice, can be lived with only by obliterating conscience through rationalization. When we rationalize, we convince ourselves that heretofore forbidden desires are permissible. We advance the reality of the desires over the reality of the moral order to which the desires should be subordinated. In our minds we replace the reality of moral order with something more congenial to the activity we are excusing. In short, we assert that bad is good...
It is often difficult to detect rationalizations when one is living directly under their influence, and so historical examples are useful. One of the clearest was offered at the Nuremberg trials by Dr. Karl Brandt, who had been in charge of the Nazi regime's Aktion T-4 euthanasia program. He said in his defense: ...when I said `yes' to euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my conviction today, that it was right. Death can mean deliverance. Death is life.
Unlike Dr. Brandt, most people recover from their rationalizations when remorse and reality set back in. But when morally disordered acts become the defining centerpiece of one's life, vice can permanently pervert reason. Entrenched moral aberrations then impel people to rationalize vice not only to themselves but to others as well. Thus rationalizations become an engine for revolutionary change that will affect society as a whole.
The power of rationalization drives the culture war, gives it its particular revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. It may draw its energy from desperation, but it is all the more powerful for that. Since failed rationalization means self-recrimination, it must be avoided at all cost. For this reason, the differences over which the culture war is being fought are not subject to reasoned discourse. Persons protecting themselves by rationalizing are interested not in finding the truth, but in maintaining the illusion that allows them to continue their behavior. For them to succeed in this, everyone must accede to their rationalization. This is why revolutionary change is required. The necessity for self-justification requires the complicity of the whole culture. Holdouts cannot be tolerated because they are potential rebukes. The self-hatred, anger, and guilt that a person possessed of a functioning conscience would normally feel from doing wrong are redirected by the rationalization and projected upon society as a whole (if the society is healthy), or upon those in society who do not accept the rationalization.
The homosexual movement's rationalization is far more widely advanced in its claims. According to Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, We (homosexuals)_ are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We have a right - as heterosexuals have already - to see government and society affirm our lives. Since only the act of sodomy differentiates an active homosexual from a heterosexual, homosexuals want government and society to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act. Coming out of the closet can only mean an assent on the level of moral principle to what would otherwise be considered morally disordered.
And so it must be. If you are going to center your public life on the private act of sodomy, you had better transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy is a moral disorder, it cannot be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. On the other hand, if it is a highly moral act, it should serve as the basis for marriage, family (adoption), and community. As a moral act, sodomy should be normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in our schools as a standard. In fact, homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be ordained as priests. All of this is happening. It was predictable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. How successful that conquest has been can be seen in the poverty of the rhetoric of its opponents. In supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, the best one congressman could do was to say, America is not yet ready for homosexual marriage, as if we simply need a decent interval to adjust ourselves to its inevitable arrival.
The homosexual rationalization is so successful that even the campaign against AIDS is part of it, with its message that everyone is at risk. If everyone is at risk, the disease cannot be related to specific behavior. Yet homosexual acts are the single greatest risk factor in catching AIDS. This unpleasant fact invites unwelcome attention to the nature of homosexual acts, so it must be ignored..."
Would you like to be part of the solution? To stay informed of the issues? A simple freepmail is all it takes to join the homosexual agenda ping list, and you can cancel at anytime.
This bears repeating. Hate speech crimes are not far in the future, if things keep going the way they are going. Maybe re-education camps? Involuntary admission to "mental hospitals" for the criminally homphobic?