DUPLICITY
The Homosexual Indoctrination Movement (HIM, for short) speaks out of both sides of its mouth on matters of biology. For years HIM petitioned the American Psychiatric Association to have homosexuality removed from its texts as a psycho-physiological disorder. No sooner was the amendment made than critics of HIM--taking HIM at its own words--started referring to homosexuality as a "sexual preference". Seeing that such terms immediately alerted even the most unwary of would-be voters that homosexuality could be a choice the HIM started waving its limp wrists in panic declaring that they are "born that way."
Taken at face value, "born that way" means there is a psycho-physiological abnormality that separates homosexuals from the vast majority of the population. And, yes, abnormality is the proper term; just because a behavior is adopted as a political fashion that doesn't make that behavior normal. The normal purpose of sex is procreation. You can no more argue homosexuality is a normal state of human sexuality anymore than you can argue diabetes is a normal state for blood sugar.
Yet, in the very next debate we will be told that what occurs between consenting adults is none of our business. Well, which is it? Are they born that way and have no control or are they consenting by act of freewill.
The fact that homosexuals have "feelings" for their partners is invalid if you insist arguing from the beginning that they "are born that way" i.e. they have no choice over their feelings and preferences. Imagine any heterosexual man going to his wife on the occasion of his anniversary and upon being asked if he loves her answers, "I was born that way." For a fleeting moment it might seem romantic that he sees them as fated by some higher power to be together but the notion will soon give way to the realization that what he is really saying is he has no control over his feelings for her. There is nothing special about her above all other women as a person or individual...she, through no virtue of her own doing, just happened to tickle his pituitary gland the right way.
MISREADINGS
The Equal Protection clause is supposed to bestow the agenda of HIM by rote. Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage or sexuality defined. If the HIM is to be believed you should be allowed to marry your 13 year old cousin so long as (s)he consents.
But the fact of the matter is, those rights guaranteed by the Constitution are in full affect where homosexuals are concerned. These include the rights to: participate in a free press, peaceable assembly, religion, the petitioning of the redress of grievances, prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, trial by jury, due process, suffrage and many other rights even the right to keep and bear arms, which is curiously under assault by HIM’s political allies considering the supposed mortal danger posed by homophobes. The Constitution guarantees the rights of political participation and none are denied to homosexual.
MISREPRESENTATION
History and anthropology are replete with the counting of societies that have institutionalized homosexual behavior. To claim homosexuals are solely “born that way†is either blinding ignorance or diabolic deceit. Presuming a moral vacuum either metaphysically or in a constitutional sense it may be argued that HIM has a right to seek cultural tolerance if not acceptance of their agenda. So be it, but so too do those who would prevent turning American society into openly accepting/practicing homosexual behavior.
HYPOCRISY
HIM is based on “tolerance†but it seems to find any room to allow itself to co-exist those it deems backward, Bible-thumping rednecks. To be fair, a overt homosexual is as likely, if not more so, to be beaten senseless by an inner-city street thug wrapped as they are in machismo/testosterone laden imagery as they are by the supposed followers of a Messiah that beseeched his followers to turn the other cheek (albeit in a non-homosexual sense). But the inner-city thug is also a protected political class because he is generally “poor†by law-abiding standards and non-white.
Still, if all the pabulum about multiculturalism is to be believed we have to ask why the multiculturalist seeks to command others rather than lead from the front. Let the multiculturalist prove that he will live peaceably with those with whom he disagrees. When the backward, Bible-thumping redneck votes to define marriage as being between one man and one woman let the multiculturalist announce with the pride born of consistency, “Yes, but that is their right.†Only then can his dogma be seen as something other than a self-serving ad hominem used to reflexively bludgeon any who deign to disagree with him.
ANTI-RELIGIONISM
A major news magazine recently ran an article supposedly espousing the reasoning for allowing gay marriage on the basis—of all things—the Judeo-Christian texts. Surprisingly, or not, the one thing missing from the article was the opinions of Jews and Christians. They chose as their chief expositor an academic whose acceptance of the historic validity of the texts is a resounding negative. Millions, if not billions, of Jews and Christians are supposed to be sitting on their sofas or in their doctor’s office reading the magazine wherein in they are told, “Okay, you proles; I’m not like you, I’m too smart to fall for all this God hooey. So I’m going to tell you exactly what these other God believers really meant when they wrote this stuff.â€
Nonetheless, this academic cited the previously mis-cited story of David and Jonathan. Much ink has already been spilled over the texts; I simply wish to address the modern mania for novelty. For more than 3,000 years the rabbis and priests have supposedly failed to grasp true meaning that David and Jonathan were gay lovers. It seems nothing clarifies an issue like removing one’s self from 3 millennium of scholarship. If it is the traditional view it must be wrong because the new scholars are here and now, not those of bygone years so it is to be presumed that the new scholars, ever in need of a new thesis, are—well—new. We must ask if 3,000 years from now what is to be made of the scholars who shall come along say, “You know, for over 3 millennium, scholars have told us David and Jonathan were gay lovers but I wonder…†Will these future academics be treated cover stories effecting the debate on social policy simply because their opinions are new and antagonistic to their particular day? My guess is that repeating and fortifying the “traditional view†makes for poor chances of having one’s doctoral thesis pass review. Novelty wins the day and supposedly demonstrates one’s cleverness. Perhaps it can be argued that cirrhosis is a novelty of a healthy liver.
If this interpretation is accepted we have to ask why the scholars are so anti-theistic? I will hazard a guess that they understand that documentation is not equal endorsement. The Bible also documents the adultery and murder of David's affair with Bethsheba and the horde of wives and concubines kept by the king but this is not an endorsement of these behaviors nor are they treated glowingly. Rather these accounts always end in misery for the particpants all the way back to Abraham. Alas, their scholarship only goes so far. Good luck finding a modern liberal that endorses polygamy or marriage without no-fault divorce...or any of the 10 Commandments, for that matter. No, their exegesis is useful only because it does upset the traditionalists. Once that usefulness ceases any pontifications by HIM will cease with it and they shall revert to their hostility to all matters religious, but the religious should take heart; it is nothing personal against them it is really only that which is personally inconvenient to the liberal that is their only true enemy.
