Monday, May 26, 2008

Political Morality

The recent California Supreme Court Decision to support gay marriage is an arrogant exercise in expedience that threatens the foundations of civilized society.

I do not need to resort to histrionics or homophobia - here are the clear issues.

One: No civilization or culture in the history of humankind has ever given equal status to homosexual unions.

Two: there is no incontrovertible proof of a genetic disposition to homosexuality.

Three: Civil Rights are a subset of natural rights - protecting the freedom of people who have no choice about their gender or race.

Four: The radical activists have a visceral hatred for what they see as "heterosexist oppression" and their strategy is to destroy the traditional family and substitute it with government control.

Five: If you are a traditional family man or woman and later "come out" as gay or lesbian, the world celebrates your "discovery." But woe to the gay man or lesbian woman who wants to change - any therapist encouraging such change is subject to professional sanction!

Six: Gay/Lesbian radicals must actively recruit through schools and the media in order to swell their ranks of adherents. They often talk of the fluidity of gender and contrast the "gender assigned at birth" with the chosen lifestyle of later years. Granting Civil Rights to current chosen behavior flies in the face of the universal principles that secure real liberty!

Seven: We are creating generations of confused, narcissistic, and self-destructive people. It is one thing not to prosecute private adult behavior - it is quite another to promote identities and lifestyles that ultimately destroy our future.

Eight: We must decide what actions we are going to permit, prohibit and promote as a nation. Where do we draw the line? How young is too young for "marriage"? How many partners? The California "Supremes" have undermined the unique place of heterosexual monogamy - we now have no standard except the one we "feel" at the moment!

The current (justifiable) outrage at the polygamous cult in Texas reveals a core morality we share: 1) it is wrong to have more than one marriage partner; 2) It is wrong for adults to have sexual relations with minors; and 3) not any family setup is acceptable.

It is morally inconsistent to promote gay/lesbian unions as equal to traditional ones while condemning another group's moral universe!

Here is Insight Nine: The deeper subversion behind the Supremes' decision is the destruction of any religious foundations to morality and another blow to the Judeo-Christian consensus that is the bedrock of law for 400+ years in the West. 

If the Texas group has been a gay-lesbian-transgender new age/pagan/secular commune in the California mountains, outrage would last a day and be forgotten. Eventually the leaders would be the subject of term papers in "gay studies" courses at prestigious universities!

The Texas cult must be shut down and the children given all the help we can muster. The leaders should be prosecuted for statutory rape. 

Throughout history, consenting adults have privately chosen to depart from social norms. When the exceptions become the rules, the collapse of civilization is inevitable.

Please note that I have not quoted religious documents or party platforms. There is no need - thoughtful people will see through the agendas and vote to amend the California Constitution in November. 

Get involved in making sure that the California Constitution recognizes the inherent value of rightly-defined marriage - a monogamous, lifetime union between one man and one woman.

1 comment:

Ric said...

Looking at this in July and seeing yet no comments is not quite disheartening. It is to be questioned. The arguments you make are direct, succinct, on-the-spot, and dare I say irrefutable. The question then is why do we not react.

Now some might say inaction, is a reaction. But to not comment is ambivalent. Is it a sign of unquestioned support or simply an adversarial approach of surfing immediately elsewhere for a like opinion. Some might say that to respond would be a senseless use of words in a distant section of the net of information, satisfying a self needed drive to support/refute.

Charlie, I simply want to say thank you. You take the time to expose and approach a critical issue of the day in the midst of all the other demands on you.

Oh, and besides, you are so correct.