Skip to comments.Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage
Posted on 02/11/2004 1:50:23 PM PST by StatesEnemy
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling by four of the seven justices that the state must allow gays full marriage rights by May 17th raises a myriad of questions that some are afraid to ask in this time of political correctness run amok.
First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.
As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.
To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.
Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?
There is an answer.
Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.
While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.
The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.
What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.
And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?
Al Rantel is a radio talk show host on Los Angeles' KABC.
Your friend is likely similar in beliefs as a lot of gays. Probably outnumbering the radical gays but a whole lot quieter. The radicals are out there in our (non-gay community) faces, and public schools, striving for "rights" and screaming to be left alone at the same time. In both I think there is a strong desire to be accepted with different ideas on how to achieve acceptance.
Frankly I don't think gays are being hypocritical for wanting gay marriage legal. For some anyway. Others I'm certain are motivated for political reasons. I don't think their lifestyle makes marriage very workable, however. The problem here is not entirely about gay marriage; its that our American society is on a fast track of moral decline that has allowed sin(s)to become acceptable in our eyes. We've accepted divorce and adultry and then when gays decide they want to marry we suddenly become 'moral'? I'd like to ask where we all were when divorce was not the norm or when having a child out of wedlock was shameful?
If the word 'sin' is offense to you or anyone else then lets use the word 'immorality'. No matter what word we choose to describe this rotten, stinking decline in our society those words require a point of reference.
The Church has failed in its call to be a 'light' and 'salt' in the world. They somehow think its their job to condemn; or, equally disturbing, accept what is unacceptable in God's eyes. Referencing the immorality not the person.
As for your comment on religious 'credence', that's your perogative but it is also a Christians' perogative to hold the belief that on God's Word alone sin is sin and not to be embraced as normal. Notice I'm saying the sin is not to be accepted as normal; not the person.