In the last few months, I have had a number of people call me to ask my opinion of gay marriage, and they attempted to change my mind when I told them I did not think it to be a good idea. I listened to them politely and then shared with them my opinion. The following is that opinion. In this article, I have purposely tried to avoid any argument based on religion or morality.
Recently, I received a number of telephone calls asking my opinion on gay marriage. In actuality, the calls were an attempt to convince me to vote for the state of Maine to approve gay marriages. In some respects, I could care less as to whether the state approves or disapproves of gay marriages, as it will have no impact upon my thinking about it. To me, the truth about any matter is not established by a mob or by counting noses. However, I do feel it will most likely have an impact on my freedom of speech in this country. As we see in Canada and Europe, after gay marriage was accepted, it became illegal to speak against it publicly. In Canada, clergymen are not allowed to speak against sodomy and homosexuality except in their churches and cannot even post a biblical verse in public that condemns the practice. So, I guess as a preacher, I should speak my mind now, before my liberal friends put me in jail.
I also believe that once gay marriage is accepted by the state of Maine or our country as a whole, public schools will be forced to teach it as an acceptable lifestyle, therefore normalizing sodomy as a lifestyle that is not morally or religiously accepted by the majority of Americans. Proponents of same-sex marriage say that this will not happen. However, in many cases this is purely a lie for they know it is already happening in most states that have accepted same-sex marriage (California has already passed such laws). It seems that most states that have enacted this law, find it impossible to merely be neutral on this issue. In view of this, I do not believe we should give the state of Maine power to force the gay agenda on the rest of us. Of course, I also know this is exactly what our progressive liberal friends want to do.
For those who will call me a homophobic, I want to point out that I have a number of gay friends with whom I have discussed this matter. Some of them like the idea of gay marriage, while others hate it, and many are indifferent. They seem to reflect the same feelings of the general population. Therefore, rejecting the idea of gay marriage does not mean that one hates gays.
Is It a Civil Right?
One of my callers informed me that marriage is a basic civil right. I strongly believe in civil rights, but I also believe that those rights can and should be limited by one’s culture, common sense, common decency, and respect for others’ customs and traditions. When these things are violated, the government has the right to place limits on people. Just because I want to do something does not mean that it’s my civil right. To be a civil right, the thing I what to do should be civil. I don’t have the right to go into the ladies’ room no matter how urgently I have to go. Should I have the attitude that if women don’t like it, then that’s just too bad? They’re just bigots. They’re just hung up with a social taboo called modesty. Maybe we could change the definition of modesty or do away with it all together? Would that be civil? Should I start a movement demanding that everyone be gender blind because our culture has a law that says that I have the right to use a men’s room? Does my not being able to use the ladies’ room violate my civil rights? I just do not believe that marriage is a civil right any more than a man going into a ladies’ room is a civil right.
The Cost of Gay Marriage
I also have some serious questions about the cost of redefining marriage in our culture. One of the callers assured me that it would have no financial impact upon the culture. How can that be when it has the potential of bringing millions of uninsured people into the system at a lower rate? Someone will have to make up that difference. Will it be heterosexual married couples or will it be single people? Why should a single person pay more for insurance than gays? Gays want the same rights as married couples but more rights than single people. Is that fair? They want the state government to do to singles what they say the state has done to them by giving married heterosexual rights that they do not have. Moreover, what about the cost of changing all the marriage forms to accommodate gay marriages? That should be good for a few million dollars.
I do not know about you, but I am personally weary of paying for the so-called civil rights of minorities and special-interest groups. Recently, the U.S. Navy retrofitted their jet planes to accommodate women pilots. This little project cost the American people millions upon millions of dollars so a handful of women could be happy and fulfill their dream. Those modifications also disqualified males over a certain size because they could no longer fit into the cockpits. What about their rights? Is that fair? Can we any longer afford such extreme policies to make a few people happy? Recently, the government mandated that every motel in the country that has a swimming pool must also have a mechanical elevator in their pool to accommodate handicapped people. This little law will cost the American people billions of dollars and will only be used by very few people. How many handicapped people traveling will actually use these pools? Would it not have been smarter to give tax breaks to motels that would install these machines, giving those motels an advantage over their competition? Should we provide escalators up all the mountains so everyone can climb every mountain? Is it not their civil right to have equal access? Yes, if it is within reason and common sense, which it seems some Americans no longer possess.
Do you see where all this is going? The concept of civil rights has morphed into a catchall term that means “the government must make me happy.” My response is—nonsense. If you want to climb a mountain, and you cannot walk up it, get a friend to carry you or change your desire. If you want a contract with your partner, get a lawyer to draw it up. Enjoy your gayness, but do not force it on my children or me.
Is Same-Sex Marriage Fair?
One big problem with gay marriage is that it is not fair for the gays to be treated as though they are a third sex. Why should their feelings for someone give them some special rights over other single people that are not sexually attracted to the same sex? Why shouldn’t people who are good friends of the same sex, who do not have erotic feelings for those friends, not have the same rights as married people and gays? Because of the insurance and tax benefits of marriage, I could see in the future all single people claim they are gay in order to get the benefits. In view of this, one would have to conclude that gays are not asking for equal rights, but special rights. Let’s do some clear thinking and come up with a system that will protect everyone without changing a human and religious tradition that has been around for thousands of years.
You see, the thing that people are missing in this debate is that marriage was never about adults meeting their need for sexual fulfillment or even companionship; it was for the children. Its primary purpose was for procreation and the raising of children. Therefore, people can be friends and love each other without being married. We can also give everyone the same rights of married people without calling their relationship marriage. Why restrict the word marriage just to gays? Why not apply it to all relationships where people want a legal contract to define their relationship? However, the real question is why use the word marriage to define a relationship that religion and Western culture have held for eons to be between a man and a woman. Why divide our culture over a word? What the gay movement is doing makes no sense, and I suspect a large number of unspoken motives are behind this agenda. I personally believe that if we use the word marriage to define a gay couple’s relationship, we are well on the way down the road to destroying the concept of traditional marriage, which has been defined by nearly all religions for over two thousand years as between a man and woman.
Picking a Fight
When the gay movement chose marriage as a term to denote their relationship, they should have had the foresight to see the battle that they would have with conservatives, traditionalist, and religious people. Their attitude has been—to hell with them. We want the world to change and give us special rights. Why would anyone believe that people should change a tradition that has existed for as long as human history without debate and resistance? What kind of people would do that, other than radical liberals and progressives?
As a traditionalist, the gay movement has given me no overwhelming or compelling arguments for me to change my thinking about marriage. All I hear from them are little sound bites like “It is the fair thing,” or “It is our civil right,” or just name-calling to intimidate me.
What is Next?
I asked one of the callers what was next. He responded with “What do you mean?” “Well,” I said, “if people that love one another should be able to get married, what about polygamy? His response was that would be stepping out on the slippery slope. I then asked him if same-sex marriage might be a similar step. His response was, “It is different because more people think polygamy is wrong.” I then asked him if his statement would not have been true ten years ago about gay marriage, before the gay movement began their PR campaign to normalize their brand of sexuality. There was silence. The truth is from a rational point of view there is no difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy or for that matter, incest. Why would it be wrong for a boy to marry one’s mother if they love each other and are sexually attracted, assuming it was impossible for them to have children? Is not incest like homosexuality, just one of those past taboos of ancient man? Once people embrace utilitarianism and relativism, there is nothing left but a slide into the abyss. We are already on that slide. Of course, there are those who think sliding down a slide is progress.
The Government and Same-Sex Marriage
The young man who called me stated he did not believe that the state should be involved with marriage. However, from my point of view, petitioning and lobbying the state to approve something is not getting the state out of it, but rather an attempt to get the state on your side of the issue. Whenever this is done, it is for using state power to force one’s agenda on others. You can be assured that the militant gay leaders have an agenda for state power. Could it be to use the public school system to normalize homosexuality? It may be a good idea to get the state out of the marriage business altogether, and I think I would support the gays in that effort, but I really do not think that is their goal. In defense of the state (an institution that I do not like too much), I believe it was quite rational for the state to favor marriage over singleness. Marriage produces families, and families produced good citizens; consequently, they passed a number of laws to help people in their marriages for this in turn strengthens the state. So, I believe the state was acting in good faith and for the general welfare when it gave married couples certain privileges. I still have no problem with that position.
A Dangerous Experiment
One of my main concerns about same-sex marriage is that there has at no time been a culture in the history of the world that has accepted, or notwithstanding, proposed same-sex marriage. Even the Greeks and Romans in the height of their perversion never suggested the acceptance of same-sex marriage. Is it really a wise idea to undertake such a huge social experiment without a lot of thought and debate?
Marriage has been from the dawn of civilization between a man and a woman. Even our language is built around that supposition. When I refer to my wife, people instinctively know that I am taking about a female partner. If we legalize gay marriage, men will have to be called wives and woman will have to be called husbands. If we don’t do it, the politically correct police will probably sue us or call us homophobic. Will the male playing the female partner in a gay marriage be able to go into a lady’s room, or will we have to build another set of bathrooms? Remember, we cannot put any traditional norms on people without violating their civil rights.
I mentioned something along these lines to my callers, and their reply was that we are more moral and progressive in our thinking than the Romans and Greeks. From my study of history, there was a time in Rome and Greece when the people would have thought that we were the barbarians, and they would have been right. Only a radical liberal could believe and apply the concept of progress to Western culture in the last few decades. Western culture in the last one hundred years has been sliding into the worst declension the world has ever seen. In the last century, there has been more genocide, abortion, and war than all the rest of humanity has perpetrated together from the dawn of time. In business and government greed and narcissism reigns. Addictions have enslaved millions of individuals. Sexual perversions have escalated beyond the imagination of Greeks and Romans. Yes, we have come a long way, baby. Liberals and progressives need to face the fact that the high humanists of the Enlightenment are dead and gone, and all that remains are a new hedonism and paganism cloaked by a thin veneer of liberal self-righteousness.
The Real Source of Gay Marriage
What the gay movement is attempting is far beyond anything that could have been imagined 20 years ago. What changed? The change did not begin with the gay movement. What is happening in our culture is the fallout of a philosophical movement called postmodernism, which began in our universities a few decades ago. Those involved in this movement are called deconstructionist (for a good reason). Out of this group came our radical feminists, radical environmentalists, and our radical gays. This movement and those involved believed that our culture and institutions are so corrupt and flawed that they must be destroyed and replaced with something totally different, even though they cannot quite yet define what the other looks like. One of the larger contributors to this movement is the radical feminist who believes that the institution of marriage was created for establishing and continuing male dominance over women. This means that in their brave new world, marriage between a man and woman must go. It also means that our culture must become gender neutral. This means same-sex marriage, same-sex bathrooms, same-sex classes, and same-sex dorms. This movement will continue to force same-sex norms on the world until the world is gender neutral. Their goal is a sexually vanilla world. (It sounds pretty yucky to me, if not purely boring.) The ACLU is one of the promoters of the deconstructionist movement.
Let me make a few observations, the first one being that I do not believe that postmodern ideology is going to usher in any kind of utopia. Those who believe this are naïve and outright foolish, as most central planners seem to be. Based on our past liberal utopian experiments, the odds would indicate that we are heading toward another fiasco of epidemic proportions, like the loss of our civilization. This, however, does not bother the deconstructionist for they believe that the system must collapse so the unknown can take its place. The problem is they don’t know what the new looks like, but they do believe that they will be in power to shape its future.
When you understand that nature is not very forgiving, it should be obvious that Western culture should be extremely selective about the roads it travels. This includes changing the meaning of marriage. It takes thousands of years sometimes to build a civilization, especially one like Western civilization. However, civilization is fragile and can be destroyed easier than most could imagine. We need to be very much aware of the deconstructionist among us, and there are many. They are angry and often hateful people bent on destruction. Unfortunately, a lot of nice naïve people get duped into aiding them in their mission.
Where Does This End and When Will It Stop?
When does this all stop? If our culture compromises common sense and morality for every group that can organize and create some civil unrest, where does it end? Does the culture have to surrender its civilization to be liberal? Do we have to stop thinking to make people happy? Can a culture make everyone and every lifestyle equal? Should we accommodate the North American Man/Boy Love Association, which wants to lower the age of consent in order for older men to have sex with boys? Their group is growing.
Canada is an example of a liberal government trying to make a moral-free culture where no one can make a negative judgment about other people’s lifestyle. A judgment-free culture is not a culture, and it will not be a free culture for very long. In order for a culture to be judgment-free it must restrict the free flow of information and restrict freedom of speech as they have done in Canada. In fact, with all the reading I do, I have not seen one honest debate on homosexuality or gay marriage. Why? I’ll tell you one reason—homosexuals and advanced liberals intimidate any dissenters by calling them homophobes and other names (as one of my callers did). I personally think it is time to draw a line in the sand and take a stand on traditional marriage.
Before you vote for gay marriage, please take the time to think through the issue very clearly. Take into consideration all the consequences and implications of voting for it. Do not be swayed by propagandists’ arguments based on emotionally charged expressions like: “It is only fair.” “It is the right of two people who love one another to get married.” Remember, the gays I talked to do not believe that people should have the right to enter a polygamist relationship. So they really do not believe that everyone that loves each other should have the right to get married. Why not? Where is the fairness? Polygamists love one another as much as other people. Is it not fair to put limits on their relationships? What about the brother and sister who love one another? Should we deny them the right to get married? Why not, if they love one another and do not have children or for that matter, why not a mother-son marriage? Do we really as a culture want to open up these debates?
My conclusion is that we should be cautious about legalizing gay marriage. If this cultural experiment fails, it may be extremely hard to correct it. I ask you to exercise prudence and caution in voting for gay marriage.
I have purposely left out of this discussion any appeal to religion or any discussion about the myths created by the radical gay community to justify homosexuality and gay marriage. However, for those interested in an exchange that I had with a pro-gay marriage person in which I do bring religion into the discussion, please drop me an email, and I will send you a copy.
The following is an interesting video on homosexuality.
The Myths of the Gay Movement
“When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Amicus Solo
I named this article The Myths of the Gay Movement because the word myth means an unfounded or false notion. I personally believe that many in the gay movement, and their supporters have fostered myths to win compassion from the masses in order to further their agenda. I am for compassion, but not for spreading myths that are not true.
This article is not an attack on homosexuals nor is it an attempt to prove that homosexuality is right or wrong. It is an attempt to look at some of the arguments used by gays to justify their movement in order to see if they are grounded, in facts or myths.
I have the upmost compassion for people that have a same sex orientation. However, the question is how to express that compassion in an appropriate way. How one responds to the gay movement will somewhat depend on a lot of different factors. A persons responds will depend somewhat on ones worldview; emotional make up, level of reasonability, and one’s environment. An example of the latter is when most people that have family members who are gay, will often change their opinion on the subject. It’s not because the facts have changed, but rather their emotions have taken over their reasoning, which is quite common for human beings. You could go so far as to say that once emotions are brought in, the well becomes poisoned. This is one reason why it is smart to have an objective standard outside of one’s self that is grounded in reason or truth.
The most common way of dealing with this subject has been mindlessness. On one side you have mindless acceptance, and on the other, mindless condemnation. In fact, very few people have taken the time to really study the issue. If you are one of them, I would encourage you to take the time to learn more about it before coming to a conclusion.
Myth number one
The gay movement and the gay-marriage movement are similar to the civil rights movement of the blacks. This myth has been around for sometime but has grown in the last few years as the gay-marriage movement has grown. The purpose of make it a civil rights issue is twofold.
First, making gay marriage a civil rights issue took it out of the moral arena and made it a civil rights issue. If you cannot win the battle on one field simply change the playing field, which is a old debating trick. In essence, this move silenced and skirted the ethical questions in the mind of many without any debate whatsoever. Note this is not a use of facts, but of deception and manipulation.
Secondly, the move from a moral issue to a civil rights issue also made gay marriage a political football, which could be used by one party as another wedge issue to win and keep voters. This made the party bosses and some gays happy for it not only silenced any moral objection but seduced a large number of blacks and people prone to support the underdog to their side of the issue without any moral argument or much thought. Without making it a civil rights issue, very few blacks and many liberals would not have endorsed the gay rights movement and same-sex marriage. Of course, it has grievously divided the nation, which is the goal of the political class.
Making same-sex marriages a civil rights issue also made it out to be a legal issue more than a social or moral issue. This has opened the door for the courts and government to use state power to intervene and force the issue. In addition, this maneuver removed it from the authority of the church and common sense, giving it over to the legal profession and the states to decide – both of which have an odious record when it comes to morality and common sense.
Is it a civil rights issue? I guess the answer would depend on who you are and how you look at it. If you want to make every issue a person or a group has with our culture a civil rights issue – your answer is yes. If want to make every issue a civil rights issue, so you can make money like the ACLU and the civil rights attorneys – the answer is yes. It is also a civil rights issue for the party people that want to divide people to win power. For example, the communist party in the United States supports gay rights, in Russia it is against gay rights. What is that all about? It is all about power. My enemy is my friend when he is the enemy of my enemies. Of course, after the communists get power they have the propensity to shoot their allies. This should be something the gays should be pondering.
This raises the question; does our culture (majority) have any rights to hold any beliefs or behavior as normal or sacred without violating someone’s civil rights? Must the majority surrender its religion and morality to accommodate every individual and group’s beliefs or lifestyle? If this is the case, mixed with the politicization of these issues, our culture is doomed.
The next shoe to fall on the civil rights table will be polygamy. It will take some time for it to happen, for as it now stands, there are not enough practitioners to make it an attractive issue for the political scum to make it an issue. It also lacks the numbers involved in it to make it an acceptable behavior by the nose counters who form their moral opinion by counting noses. However, it is something that will happen at sometime in the future if we were to continue on the road we are traveling. In fact, I noticed that there is a TV program (Sister Wives) on one channel that is making an attempt to normalize polygamy and make it look attractive.
To be a true civil rights issue, I would think a group must prove that they are being discriminated against in some fashion, like being forced to sit in the back of the bus or being forced by law to use separate restrooms and drinking fountains. When everything is said and done it means to be oppressed socially and financially. When I look at the gay marriage issue, it has nothing to do with civil rights, and I fail to see how the gay community is being oppressed socially and financially by marriage being between a man and a woman. The law applies to all men and to all women equally. Should we redefine the definition of race and should we redefine the idea of gender, male and female?
Moreover, the latest statistics seem to be indicating that gays have a higher level of education than the average American and have a higher income than the medium American. Where is the oppression and discrimination? I personally believe that overweight people are discriminated against far more often than gays. Why not give them special rights? We could give them a unique name like Jollys. We all know heavy people are jolly right? Then they could march on Washington demanding larger doorways, bigger seats on airplanes and bigger toilet seats. If a person is overweight in the US military, he is kicked out and given a general discharge even if his condition is genetic, even if he can pass the entire fitness test. Now that’s a clear case of discrimination.
The presence of homosexuality in some animal species is proof that it is natural or not contrary to nature. I have run into this argument in a number of fields even in theology. It is an argument based on exceptions. Those that use this argument seem to believe if you can find an exception to a rule or a law; the exception does away with the rule. However, no matter what field you are talking about, this view is just not true. Exceptions do not do away with the rule they establish the rule. In fact, the very idea of law infers and carries with it the idea that it can be broken and when broken it cares a penalty to those that break it. If an animal species completely ignores or breaks a law of nature, they would cease to exist or suffer great harm. When you break a natural law, nature is not very forgiving.
In the animal world, it is quite obvious that sexual acts toward the same sex do not constitute a sexual orientation toward the same sex. It would more likely constitute an animalistic reflex for the purpose of reproduction. When a dog hunches your leg, our respond is to think, “Look at the stupid dog. It does not know what sex or species it is.” The truth is, it does not. It does not know that it is a dog or what sex it is – male or female. It reproduces by instinct alone. The paradox of being human is that we do know. We are not only animals; we are gods, and we know what species we are, and we know whether we are male and female. We also know when we are acting like animals and not humans. You may not like this, and you may wish it to be different, but that is reality.
In comparing human sexuality with that of animals is a gross mistake. Humans unlike animals transcend their sexually. (At least some humans) Sex is something humans can examine, talk about, and make moral judgments about unlike animals. For example, most humans believe that humans having sex with an animal is wrong. In believing that we have made an ethical judgment on human sexuality, most human beings place some self-limits on their sexual expression and can control their sexuality to some degree. On the other hand, animals have no control over their sexuality, nor any desire to control it, though the idea of self-control seems to be also out of the question for some men. I gather from this that comparing human sexuality with that of animals is not wise, nor does it support homosexual behavior in any way. May I also point out, nor does it condemn it.
Myths number three
Homosexuality is genetic and homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation. The simple truth is that there is no hard scientific evident to support this myth. There has been very few studies done and the ones that have been are flawed by the biases of those conducting them. This myth reflects an advanced liberal bias more than any scientific fact.
For some, genetics has become the new determinism. In religion, it was Calvinism, an unseen God who predestined everything. In psychiatry, it was early conditioning. In genetics, for some, it is an unseen gene that predetermines everything. Why not keep it simple and say the Devil made me do it. I was taught by an old wise professor, that any teaching or belief that questions or denied free will was false and should be rejected. I have found it to be good advice.
The truth may be that all the above have something to do with our destiny, but they do not make us do anything. The truth about being human is that we are free to choose. Do not let anyone tell you differently. This should give hope to all those that have a desire to change in any area of life. People can and do change.
This section on genetics falls under the category of unfounded at the moment. Science may at sometime in the future establish and give an answer to how much genes play in one’s sexual preference but as of yet there is nothing but a few hypotheses (guesses).
Do not take my word for it but do your own research. You can find some information on the net; however, much of it is biased and written by unqualified people. There are some good books that will help your study; they are: :The Blank Slate” with sub-title The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, “Are We Hardwired” by William R. Clark and Michael Grunstein, “Exploding The Gene Myth”, by Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, “The Genetic Inferno” with sub title, Inside the Seven Deadly Sins by John Medina.