Posted on 02/25/2004 5:31:58 AM PST by Americathy
I can say without reservation that “gay marriage” is decidedly wrong, and arguments that cite “feelings” and “love” to support it are not likely to sway me. Personally I couldn’t care less if two men or two women want to play house, but here are some reasons why, as a society, we must say no to homo, including no to gay civil union or same-sex marriage.
Now, before I begin my diatribe, let me repeat myself: I don’t care one iota if someone wants to pursue a gay lifestyle. I think it’s wrong, sinful and aberrant, but I say that about a lot of things that I wouldn’t want to put under statutory control. I think fornication is wrong, but I wouldn’t want to dunk people in a river for doing it, anymore than I would want to draw up a contract that would give them the right to pursue it. Some sins, like murder and stealing, deserve public retribution; others are personal choices that we should neither legitimize nor penalize.
What gays want is very clear: The stamp of normality. They want universal acceptance. They want to see the wholesale rejection of homosexuality as a sin or taboo. If that were not true, gays would be content with calling any instance of domesticity a “civil union” or a “domestic partnership.” But those terms do not do the job for them. They are going after “marriage,” a word that gives them no more legal rights than any other term, but allows them to stake a more solid claim to normality. (I would suggest new words, like “garry” and “garriage,” for the purpose of distinction, but that is exactly what gays don’t want.)
In order to make marriage happen for them, gays must declare the term “marriage” as already broadly defined. This defies both history and the law, which has seen fit to put the terms “bride” and “groom” on marriage licenses. Thus, it is not surprising that those who stormed the nuptial gates in San Francisco crossed out “bride” and “groom” on all legal papers. “Marriage” is a word of Latin origin that has always meant the union of a man to a woman, but it is, nevertheless, etymologically imprecise. “Bride” and “groom,” however, are Germanic words that specifically denote “woman” and “man,” respectively. This means that our state and federal constitutions have been sufficiently clarified by the law itself, which proves that marriage signifies a union between a man and a woman only.
For a long time, I have accepted Rudy Giuliani’s take on the dilemma we face, that “civil union” is okay, but “marriage” is off limits. Allowing civil unions may be a reasonable compromise (and one that gays will ultimately reject), but after thinking it through, I have to dismiss both, because, no matter what we call it, we are talking about asking the state to legitimize homosexuality.
Gays speak out of both sides of their mouths: They want the government out of their business, and they want the government to sanction their business. It was smart for gays to get sodomy laws stricken from the books, because that gets Uncle Sam out of their bedrooms. Now they are asking him to officiate over their weddings. That puts Uncle Sam back in their bedrooms, just as he is for straight people. (Don’t think Uncle Sam is in the bedrooms of heterosexuals? Tell that to the judge during divorce proceedings, where infidelity and sexual frigidity are permitted as reasons for annulment.)
As a general rule of thumb, it is a bad idea to legitimize aberrant behavior, simply because it tends to promulgate that behavior. Man-boy love has been going on since the dawn of robes and togas, but no good society wants to legitimize it. No one wants to encourage old men to shack up with young boys. The Greeks embraced both democracy and just about anything that moved in the city-state, but it is democracy that won the day, thank God, else we might be trying to make a go of “homocracy,” where men with the greatest sexual prowess rule (brings a whole new meaning to the term “banana republic,” doesn’t it?). Bestiality offers another example. In Denmark, where bestiality is legal, animals are treated for sex-related injuries and disease is on the rise. Should Denmark sanction man-animal unions to try to encourage monogamy? If zoophilistines become common, they will eventually demand acceptance through marriage. Does anyone in his right mind think that would be okay?
Gays want us to think of their activity as normal, and they turn to nature for support. No one should be surprised that homosexuality among animals happens all the time. People who own dogs know this, but they also know that, given a chance, dogs will eat feces. Should man follow suit? I have a female dog that wants to hump people’s legs. Is she a lesbian? A male in a female’s body? How about just stupid? Should I encourage my daughters to follow that example?
I watch a lot of nature shows, and sexuality in the animal kingdom is as varied as the beaks of birds and often just plain weird. In general, male and female pairing is the norm, so, if one wants to cite nature for support, this fact still leaves homosexuality in the abnormal category. But nature does have its anomalies, and it provides ample instances of behavior that are, by civilized standards, rotten. The male lion, for example, roves about looking for a pride of females, with conquest in mind. Once he takes control of the females, he often brutally kills the cubs as the mothers mournfully look on. Why? Because he wants them to bear his own cubs. How sweet. If nature-based examples sanction human behavior, perhaps men should drive around looking for clusters of defenseless women, invade their homes, kill their children, and impregnate them again.
I don’t reject nature outright as an argument for or against homosexuality, but we cannot look to the animal kingdom. As a special creation, we must look to ourselves. Even if we strip religion and morality from the equation, we are left with the stark realization that man is not designed to accommodate homosexuality. As the hilarious Morton Downey Jr. once remarked about gays’ use of the anal cavity, “It’s an exit, not an entrance!” Men who desire each other fulfill that desire in spite of nature’s obvious lack of complementary fixtures. The same is true with women, who together are like puzzle pieces without nodules.
Of course, there is more to this than just nature, but since man has rejected God in favor of evolution, we are left with nothing else. If man is indeed an animal, then picking and choosing from the strange world of the animal kingdom to justify aberrant behavior makes perfect sense. The problem with this is found in evolution itself, which holds as a tenet of the faith the idea of “survival of the fittest.” Are gays willing to take the bet that homosexual animals will one day win the battle of survival over those already endowed with evolutionary-friendly equipment?
Marriage is a civic institution that has its basis in a religious truth, that man is meant for woman, and vice versa, by the design of God. Just as clearly religious is the taboo concerning homosexuality. If the union of man and woman is holy, all activity out of compliance with that union is unholy. Hence, we find in the Bible the condemnation of divorce, which is the disunion of man and woman; and of promiscuity, the disregard for the union’s holiness; and of adultery, the breaking of the union; and of bestiality, the union of man and beast; and, yes, of homosexuality, the union of man and man or woman and woman.
Those in favor of gay marriage claim that marriage is already in trouble, as evidenced by divorce, which somehow negates its claim as a holy institution. But divorce continues to be an option that people generally eschew (not counting celebrities, of course). We believe divorce is not, by and a large, a good thing. And note that while we try to discourage it, even stop it, we are censured and derided if we suggest discouraging homosexuality. In fact, homosexuals who go straight are reviled by gays and gay sympathizers.
Gays, especially religious gays, argue strenuously against the holiness of the man-woman connection. They note, for example, that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality as a sin, erroneously assuming that silence means approval. Jesus didn’t mention pedophilia or pornography either. The truth is, Jesus’ silence is more likely to mean something was simply not an issue at the time. We have no evidence to suggest that homosexuality in pre-Christ Judea was rampant. Other sins were prevalent, such as prostitution, legalized stealing (taxation), and religious corruption. No surprise that Jesus had something to say about them. Later, when St. Paul, who met this very Jesus on the road to Damascus, began to speak God’s word, we find condemnation of homosexuality. Why? Because he was dealing with Christians who lived in gay-friendly, pagan lands.
If gays are not turning to nature or religion for support, they are forcing the comparison to civil rights. At one time, they remind us, it was wrong for a white to marry a black, and eventually the courts had to strike those laws down. Some day, they claim, we’ll look back on our aversion to gay marriage and laugh. I doubt that. Righting wrongs is not the same as legitimizing wrongs. We were supposed to laugh about our aversion to abortion, too. Forty million dead babies later, and we have not yet found the punch line.
When all is said and done, homosexuals have nothing to fall back on but the way they feel. Despite a total lack of evidence, they insist that they were born into homosexuality. Religious gays go so far as to say that, since they were made this way, their lifestyle is justified by God. Naturally the same can be said about every other kind of tendency toward sin. An honest man will admit that his tendency is to jump on just about every beautiful girl that comes his way, but he resists. If God made him polygamous, why does he fight the feeling? He fights because he knows that right and wrong does exist for man, that he is not really a highly evolved animal, and that society itself needs him to behave.
For many, including traditionalists who don’t agree with it, gay marriage is a battle that isn’t serious enough to warrant a fight. The truth is, the battle is a critical one, because it is part of a greater war, one in which dark forces seek to turn America into a secular state, free from the inhibiting hand of religion. I think we are too far gone, I’m afraid, for even our adults no longer have the ability to see homosexuality—or any aberration, for that matter—for what it is. The clearest sign that decadence is irreversible is a society that no longer recognizes its own decadence.
BTTT!!!
Go, Cat, go ! ;^)
Hi, Americathy! Welcome to FR!
"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" bump.
They want more than that. They want Christians, Orthodox Jews, Moslems, and other "non-reconciling" (their buzzword) religious believers to STFU.
They want government to close the mouths of their critics for them -- this is why we have seen the rise of proposals for "hate-speech" laws over the years. This is the object in view. They want to drive Judeo-Christian morality out of the public square. Eventually, they will want to drive Leviticus underground, and see to it that the 19th and 20th chapters of Genesis, in which God damned the Sodomites, are never read out in public again.
Hours will become days, days will become weeks, weeks will become months....soon, you'll be old and gray and wondered what HAPPENED to you! LOL!!!
Already starting to experience that, and I already have a problem with surfing the web for hours on end!
Hours will become days, days will become weeks, weeks will become months....soon, you'll be old and gray and wondered what HAPPENED to you! LOL!!!
Sounds like a perfect recruit for our next FReepathon!! :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.