There are political discussions about Obama’s preference for gay marriage all over the place. Many of the more liberal and ignorant among us proclaim that both the president’s and American’s attitude toward gay marriage has been evolving from what it was 10 or 20 years ago.
About this cover: After Time magazine went with a cover shot of a young blonde mother breastfeeding her 3-year-old boy, Ms Brown is said to have taken it in stride, saying 'let the games begin!'
The article accompanying the cover was written by the news magazine's regular blogger, Andrew Sullivan, who is an openly gay self-titled conservative political pundit.
First, let’s understand Obama’s history of multiple flip flops on this issue. Before his candidacy for president in 2007, he said he was for gay marriage. During his 2007 presidential campaign he claimed he was opposed to gay marriage but still thinking about it. Now he is saying he is personally for gay marriage, but wants to leave it up to the states to decide. There is a better than even chance he has been for gay marriage all along, but for political reasons before the 2008 presidential election, he was not completely honest about. OMG!
Now, either because of loose canon Biden, or more likely, because of his political strategy, Obama let loose with his amoral bombshell. A reasonable scenario is that Biden was part of Obama’s play on this issue. In Obama’s mock “forced” outing, he garners the vote of the amoral left with his statement that he, personally, supports gay marriage. In the next breath he seeks the support of the more moderate “states rights” advocates saying it is an issue he prefers to leave for the states.
Since gay marriage is something Obama personally believes in, and at the same time we have NO evidence that Obama really support states rights on any issue, we can bet that he will direct his Justice Department to bear down on individuals, institutions, and states who are opposed to gay marriage.
There is a very real prospect of another multi-millennia-old moral standard being shattered by the actions of our federal government. First the legalizing of the killing of pre-born infants, next the elimination of prayer in public schools; then a prohibition of the ten commandments in public places; next attempts to force religious institutions to pay for abortions; and now the real likelihood that the federal government will force acceptance of gay marriage as a civil right.
A civil right? Like race equality and gender equality? No, no, no! There is no equivalence between the rights of individuals because of race or gender and the rights of individuals because of their chosen life-style and perverted gender identification. No race or gender has been considered an immoral condition in either Judeo-Christian tradition or our current culture. The same cannot be said about the practice of homosexuality. The practice of homosexuality has, from the beginning of history, been considered an immoral behavior. Race and gender are conditions. Homosexuality is a behavior. There is no basis for legal protections of historically immoral behaviors any more than there should be legal protections for murder, child molestation, rape, and incest.
Liberals/progressives/leftists believe demanding universal legal rights for gay marriage is “evolving” our culture. The rest of us believe such irrational and immoral mandate is devolving our culture into an anything goes animalistic maelstrom.
2 comments:
I must say you have a remarkable aptitude for exaggeration and hyperbole, but a lack of social and historical understanding that greatly undermines your arguments. Homosexuality has not always historically been looked down in the same way it is now and so arguing that has been historically immortal is a fallacy. I'm sorry, you're free to see it as immoral if you choose (because that is a choice, unlikely homosexuality I might add) but please don't make arguments that are blatantly wrong and exclude all manner of cultural contexts that differ from contemporary society. Gay marriage has existed previously.
Well I stumbled upon this blog by accident and I can instantly tell we have absolutely conflicting ideologies and world-views so I'm going to leave now and never come back. Have a nice day.
Dear Bilby:
I am certain you are absolutely correct in your observation that "homosexuality has not always been looked down in the same way it is now..." Just as we are experiencing an upswing in popularity and "coolness" of this perverse public display of immoral internal urges, so too have these urges bubbled to the brim of society in periods of centuries past. That in no way makes them moral or right, just because they have previously occrurred. Viral outbreaks killing millions occurred throughout history. That does not suggest we yearn for a repeat.
OK, let's speak of human behaviors and not viruses over which we have little or not control. History has shown periods during which humanity has chosen to kill millions, as in the period of rampant, unbridled Fascism in the 30's and 40's. The perverse desire for power through killing and control, which is innate and mostly suppressed in all of us (to one degree or another), was allowed to bubble up in a whole socieety in a torrent that had dire consequences. Is the release of that suppressed behavior justifiable just because it occurred in the past?
Oh, you say, homosexuality and gay marriage don't hurt anyone. Bull crap. They degrade the multi-millenial old sacrament of marriage, they degrade societal procreation, and ultimately degrade the ability of a society to perpetuate itself. This whole perversion is a symptom of a sick and self-loathing society that has no desire to perpetuate itself into the future. Don't you think there was a good reason for heterosexual marriage to be the norm and vaunted cultural and religious practice it has been for 3,000 years? Or were all who maintained that moral standard just a bunch of religous fanatic control freaks who didn't understand human nature?
It takes many very large gonads to put yourself above 3,000 years of moral teaching, your reference to historical moral lapses notwithstanding. No. History reveals a very sound reason for the moral standards and traditions that you wish to discard to justify your own private urges.
Post a Comment