Friday, October 10, 2014

Why Same Sex Marriage Is Wrong - Part 1

With the recent wimpy Supreme Court decision to allow district courts to redefine marriage for the individual states, it's even more imperative that we understand what's at stake as gay lobbies and ideologues push to enforce same sex marriage as the law of the land.

Those who promote same sex marriage ask the question - "What's wrong with gay marriage?" Then, since they only want to hear one answer, they attack anyone who'll take up the issue and dare to contradict them. Over the years, I've spent a lot of time supporting the fight to save traditional marriage against the concept of same sex marriage.

This list compiles years of experience to review a basic list of the problems with the concept and application of same sex marriage. I do not have the inclination, nor the space to explain every point in detail, relying on a few examples to make each point.

Liberal Dogma
If I knew nothing else about same sex marriage, other than the fact that it has become a Sacred Cow of modern liberalism, I would know that such an idea is 180 degrees opposite from where our country ought to be headed. For more on the subject of Liberal Incorrectness, I invite you to watch this lengthy, though excellent, presentation by Evan Sayet:

Gay activists attempt to redefine the word "marriage" to include same sex couples. In order to do this, they deny any original meaning of the word, instead selecting only a very broad definition in order to force the inclusion of homosexuals. As an example, gay activists deny any relationship of the term "marriage" with the reproduction and care of offspring. In turn, gay activists also have to spend considerable energy convincing the rest of the world of a new definition of the term "family" - in fact denying any blood or even legal relationship as a condition of family - in order to include a dizzying array of relationships. (Again, they always take the broadest meaning in order to include the favorite liberal cause célèbre.)

Gay activists change the meaning of the term "marriage" to include same sex couples, denying the purpose of the state interest in licensing marriages - to protect the contract of marriage between a man and a woman and to protect the children's claim on the parents. Broadening the definition, gay activists can claim such meaningless definitions, such as: "Marriage is a union of love." "Marriage is an agreement between two consenting adults." "Marriage is a contract of ownership."

Modern liberalism loves to redefine terms to suit its political ends, contorting such terms as "rights" and "fairness" to mean anything they want. Changing the meaning of terms to suit ideological ends limits freedom, instead of expanding it. Gay activists use semantic manipulation in order to expand their ideology, doing so at the expense of the rights of others.

Semantic manipulation is a favorite political tool, especially among modern liberals. Semantic contortions can be used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with their political view. (Flinging epithets of "racism" or "bigotry" is a common weapon of the left.) The problem with changing definitions to fit ideals creates a nightmare within application of law. For example, given the concept of a "hate crime," the courts now have to decide if murder is worse because a hate crime was committed. This is a nonsense question, as all murder should be subject to the full force of the law.

Redefining marriage will have major repercussion within the legal system, which will, in turn, weaken the system. Instead of maintaining the concept of the rule of law, the system will promote the rule of the "wise" and "compassionate," applying the law unequally in order to maintain an ideological position.

There is no doubt that same sex marriage will have a social impact. (It already has.) The question is whether or not same sex marriage will harm society as a whole. This, of course, is difficult to argue and to predict since harm may not show up socially for several generations. Yet, we have more than 70 years of liberal social engineering from which to draw a few conclusions.

First of all, the engineered system is failing. Social welfare institutions are falling apart. The education system fails to produce educated children, despite all of the money and "new" standards. The government is coming apart at the seams with out-of-control spending.

The institution of marriage has been all but destroyed by liberal dogmas focused on the Me Generation and unrestrained sex. Gay activists dislike the comparison of same sex marriage with the general breakdown of the institution of marriage and the breakdown of the family. Yet, the concept of same sex marriage is related to the general modern disregard for the institution as a whole. It is a byproduct of the destruction of marriage over the past 60 years.

The concept of same sex marriage rests on the same ideology that has promoted an anti-marriage meme - institutionalizing marriages based, not on trust, fidelity, and life-long relationships, but on selfishness, desire, and convenience. (Of course there are exceptions to the rule within any community. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.) Promoting anti-marriage has become the favorite pastime of the media and the entertainment industries. Such promotion destroys the foundations of the institution of marriage. With the fall of marriage, families fall, and society falls.

Another social harm stems from the gender confusion that gay activists and feminists both have promoted. We are beginning to see the problems associated with gender confusion - conflict over the use of men's and women's restrooms, the hypersexualization of children, legal battles over private clubs and entities, the promotion of gender neutral ideals at the earliest levels of school, the promotion of sex with no consequences, and the continued devaluation of traditional marriages and families. 

However, perhaps the most damaging social harm that same sex marriage presents is the institutionalizing of gay ideology. By creating a protected class of citizens, gay activists promote acceptance through threats, propaganda, youth indoctrination, intimidation, discrimination, and downright lies. Since a large segment of the population will not accept gay ideology, this promotion tears at the fabric of society by creating a false "us versus them" dichotomy. There is no room in a democratic republic to force public acceptance of a person's choice of sexual partners. Only by destroying the foundations on which such a society rests can gays accomplish their goals. 

By promoting same sex marriage, gay activists pose a whole plethora of cultural problems, guaranteeing further splits within society and law. Two examples will suffice:

If same sex marriage becomes law and established norm, what happens to the concept of Mother's Day? The holiday becomes absurd, since marriage (and by extension family) will have no relation to mothers. Will Mother's Day be replaced by Generic Caretaker Day?

School curriculum has already become a tool of modern liberals to indoctrinate children into their ideology. It promotes all of the liberal social issues without any of the rigor. It tells students what to think, instead of teaching them how to think. Gay ideology is and will continue to be force fed to children in the hopes of achieving a generation of believers. We will have created a culture based on the dogmas of liberalism, rather than on the principles of freedom and education.


This essay is already too long. I'll continue the list in my next post.