Anyone who follows this column knows how much I venerate my grandparents. They were both wise, compassionate and thoughtful people. My grandfather was the son of a small farmer in east Texas before joining up to fight in WWII. He always had a hug, a smile and “a saying” as we used to call them. Many of his “sayings” meant little to me as an adolescent youth. Now I realize these were more than attempts to be clever. He was passing down the distilled wisdom of his predecessors.
One of grandpas favorite sayings was “some things are wrong just because they are wrong.” I was well into my high school years before that one made sense to me.
I watched a rerun of Dr. Ben Carson’s second address to the National Press Club the other day. As he spoke I couldn’t help remember just how much hate had been directed at him not to long ago over his supposed “hateful anti gay comments.” If one reads what the good Dr. said it is obvious that his listing of groups was to illustrate a point not, as his hate filled distracters would have you believe, equating them. It is also helpful to remember that the closer one gets to the truth the louder and angrier liberals and progressives will scream.
In his comment he made the perfectly valid point that if society redefines marriage once, in this case for “gays” then what possible prohibition can there be for redefining marriage again later? Once marriage has been redefined then under what circumstance would we deny the right of three people to get “married” to each other? Or twenty? How would we then deny brothers to marry their sisters? How could we deny the fifty year old pedophile the “right” to marry the twelve year old boy who “loves” him? The question Dr. Carson was indirectly asking was, just where is the line here? Terrified of lines ( or what some would call being judgmental ) homosexuals and their supporters went creatively ballistic. The level of their misrepresentation of his remarks could not be achieved naturally. It had to be chosen. I think that amply illustrates the weakness of their argument.
Let us clear the decks here (I am a sailor after all) I believe that marriage is nothing more complicated than the union of one man and one women for life in the eyes of God. Attempting to redefine it because two men/women “love” each other is wrong simply because it is wrong. As little Barry would say, period.
I have listened with great curiosity as the progressive liberals desperately try to defend their position. They use such intellectually vapid arguments as it is their civil right, they love each other, they want the same benefits as married couples and the excuse used by every five year old in the world, its only fair. These little minions of tolerance believe that anyone who opposes them is a homophobe. Lets look briefly at each argument.
Civil rights, correctly so, are based on characteristics we have no control over. Lets be honest here, no one (excluding Michael Jackson) chooses their skin color. Since there is no clear and convincing body of evidence that show homosexual behavior is somehow instilled at conception one can only conclude such behavior (let the flood of “tolerance” begin) is chosen. Did you know that there are many former homosexuals. Do you know any former blacks, former asians or former pacific islanders? I suspect not. Lets bring in one the progressive gods, Mr. Darwin. From an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality is an obvious dead end. This explains the constant need of homosexuals to recruit (as early as kindergarten in some states now) as opposed to reproduce. Not exactly solid ground on which to overturn five-thousand years of tradition.
Appealing to a distinctly deep-seated American sense of compassion, homosexuals boast loudly and often about their “love” for each other. I once saw a study that showed the average male homosexual will have nearly one-thousand partners in his lifetime. I guess they love each other until someone with more “attributes” comes along. In a compelling sense of irony this argument, that we should redefine marriage because of their love for each other, only substantiates Dr. Carsons comments. I am sure every polygamist loves all his wives. I imagine every NAMBLA member/supporter loves an underage someone. So then, do we deny the guy who loves his dog the right to marry the critter? If so or if not, why? As Dr. Carson was asking, where is the line?
The “benefits of being married” is perhaps the shallowest of all the homosexual lobbies arguments. I have been in hospitals around the country and not one of them would deny someone visitation. To be perfectly honest here all the benefits they claim to be seeking are easily accomplished without a marriage license. If you want Skippy to inherit your estate them name him in your will. Tough I know, actually being responsible for a minute or two. If you want the tax advantage of married filing joint then find someone of the opposite sex who will tolerate you and get married. This has the additional advantage of showing that gays can get married without having to redefine the institution. I can hear the gasps now.
As for the “fairness” argument I’m sure we all know the only word bigger than fair in the dictionary is if.
For much of recorded history marriage was squarely in the religious arena. That is, in my humble opinion where it should have remained. But no, some progressive liberal figured out that the state could tax and regulate the union. Ah, the joys of taxing and regulating. Makes the progressive heart swell with pride.
I am suspect of the motives when I hear many gay marriage activists hyperventilate about the “right” to marry. In a way though I can kind of understand where they are coming from. I remember one Christmas when my brother got the coolest, biggest, yellow Tonka truck I had ever seen. I knew it was my right to take it and play with it whenever I wanted to. My brothers protestations just showed how intolerant he was and grandpa, well, he just gave me that look that only us grandpa’s can give and said, “You don’t get to take things that don’t belong to you.”