This is the second in a series
reviewing an article by the same title that appeared in the June 22, 2015 issue
of The Weekly Standard. It has longed been argued that homosexuals are
born with a disposition to that particular life style. My first encounter with
someone giving this so-called defense of their deviant behavior was more than
30 years ago, shortly after my move back to Texas. I learned on that occasion
that one might as well go out and beat his head against the wall as to convince
a homosexual that he was not "born gay" (as they are wont to say).
The evidence for such genetic disposition has never been produced, and in fact
evidence to the contrary abounds. I'll not address the so-called
'evidence" (or lack thereof) that is presented for support of such foolishness;
perhaps at another time. Right here I am concerned about the dishonesty among
those bent on changing the thinking of society with regard to homosexuality in
general, and same-sex marriage in specific. Jonathan Last, who wrote the
article under review, made this observation: "Now that same-sex marriage
is a reality, some activists are admitting that this view might not, strictly
speaking, be true" (Last, 21). I provide here Mr. Last's quote from an
article in The New Republic of January 2014:
[I]t's time for the LGBT community to start moving beyond genetic predisposition as a tool for gaining mainstream acceptance of gay rights. For decades now, it's been the most powerful argument in the LGBT arsenal: that we were "born this way." Still, as compelling as these arguments are, they may have outgrown their usefulness. With most Americans now in favor of gay marriage, it's time for the argument to shift to one where genetics don't matter. The genetic argument has boxed us into a corner (Jonathan Last, 21).
Do you see the significance of that comment? Here is a movement that claims that truth, liberty and equality are on their side, but who view one of their primary arguments as a mere "tool" that has outlived its usefulness.
Another argument that has "outlived its usefulness" was the topic of Jay Michaelson's article in the Daily Beast (as provided by Mr. Last). The argument once presented by those opposing same-sex marriage is that it would radically change the concept of marriage and advance a perverted union of same-sex couples under the guise of it being some kind of marriage. Read now the comments of one who, along with his cohorts, once attacked the notion that same-sex marriage would radically alter the definition of marriage and lead to a wide scale abandonment of the monogamous relationships in traditional marriage:
[T]here is some truth to the conservative claim that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage. According to a 2013 study, about half of gay marriages surveyed (admittedly, the study was conducted in San Francisco) were not strictly monogamous. This fact is well-known in the gay community-indeed, we assume it's more like three-quarters. What would happen if gay non-monogamy actually starts to spread to straight people? Would open marriages, '70s swinger parties, and perhaps even another era's "arrangements" and "understandings" become more prevalent? Is non-monogamy one of the things same-sex marriage can teach straight ones, along with egalitarian chores and matching towel sets? And what about those post-racial and post-gender millennials? What happens when a queer-identified, mostly-heterosexual woman with plenty of LGBT friends gets married? Do we really think that because she is "from Venus," she will be interested in a heteronormative, sex-negative, patriarchal system of partnership? Radicals point out that gay liberation in the 1970s was, as the name implies, a liberation movement. It was about being free, questioning authority, rebellion. "2-4-6-8, smash the church and smash the state," people shouted (Jonathan Last's quote of gay activist Jay Michaelson).
I hope by now that you are seeing that the real agenda of the homosexual movement is not equality under the law, but abandonment of all law that has anything to do with the Biblical view of marriage and the home. Yes, "you will be assimilated!" But lets move on.
Same-sex marriage will not be the end of the LGBT movement. Remember when some people were predicting that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy, incest, and other deviant forms of sexual "relationships"? If marriage can be "redefined" to include same-sex unions, why stop with two in that relationship? Why not three, or four, or even dozens? Mr. Last focused on the inevitable outcome of the legalization and societal acceptance of same-sex marriage:
Changing marriage beyond recognition has long been a stated goal of the organization Beyond Marriage, which is a collection of several hundred gay-rights lawyers, law professors, and activists. They argue that same-sex marriage is merely the first step on the path to redefining the family itself. Ultimately, they want legal protection for a host of other relationships, including, as they delicately put it, "Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households" and "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner." This group is not a collection of cranks: It includes professors from Georgetown, Harvard, Emory, Columbia, and Yale. The Beyond Marriage project has at least as much elite support today as the entire same-sex marriage movement had in 1990 (Last, 22).
If you want a shocker as to the agenda of the "Beyond Marriage" project, go to their website and read their manifesto (www.beyondmarriage.org). I'll forewarn you, it is disgusting! Once marriage has been redefined to include any number, and any diversity of relationships, what is to stop a person from marrying an animal? Or, perhaps he could marry himself; one wonders how he would go through a divorce should he decide he can no longer life with himself. The possibilities are endless, and the perverted and deviant activities within those relationships unimaginable. I'll continue this with at least one more article next week as we look at the effect that same-sex marriages will most definitely have upon our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press.
[I]t's time for the LGBT community to start moving beyond genetic predisposition as a tool for gaining mainstream acceptance of gay rights. For decades now, it's been the most powerful argument in the LGBT arsenal: that we were "born this way." Still, as compelling as these arguments are, they may have outgrown their usefulness. With most Americans now in favor of gay marriage, it's time for the argument to shift to one where genetics don't matter. The genetic argument has boxed us into a corner (Jonathan Last, 21).
Do you see the significance of that comment? Here is a movement that claims that truth, liberty and equality are on their side, but who view one of their primary arguments as a mere "tool" that has outlived its usefulness.
Another argument that has "outlived its usefulness" was the topic of Jay Michaelson's article in the Daily Beast (as provided by Mr. Last). The argument once presented by those opposing same-sex marriage is that it would radically change the concept of marriage and advance a perverted union of same-sex couples under the guise of it being some kind of marriage. Read now the comments of one who, along with his cohorts, once attacked the notion that same-sex marriage would radically alter the definition of marriage and lead to a wide scale abandonment of the monogamous relationships in traditional marriage:
[T]here is some truth to the conservative claim that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage. According to a 2013 study, about half of gay marriages surveyed (admittedly, the study was conducted in San Francisco) were not strictly monogamous. This fact is well-known in the gay community-indeed, we assume it's more like three-quarters. What would happen if gay non-monogamy actually starts to spread to straight people? Would open marriages, '70s swinger parties, and perhaps even another era's "arrangements" and "understandings" become more prevalent? Is non-monogamy one of the things same-sex marriage can teach straight ones, along with egalitarian chores and matching towel sets? And what about those post-racial and post-gender millennials? What happens when a queer-identified, mostly-heterosexual woman with plenty of LGBT friends gets married? Do we really think that because she is "from Venus," she will be interested in a heteronormative, sex-negative, patriarchal system of partnership? Radicals point out that gay liberation in the 1970s was, as the name implies, a liberation movement. It was about being free, questioning authority, rebellion. "2-4-6-8, smash the church and smash the state," people shouted (Jonathan Last's quote of gay activist Jay Michaelson).
I hope by now that you are seeing that the real agenda of the homosexual movement is not equality under the law, but abandonment of all law that has anything to do with the Biblical view of marriage and the home. Yes, "you will be assimilated!" But lets move on.
Same-sex marriage will not be the end of the LGBT movement. Remember when some people were predicting that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy, incest, and other deviant forms of sexual "relationships"? If marriage can be "redefined" to include same-sex unions, why stop with two in that relationship? Why not three, or four, or even dozens? Mr. Last focused on the inevitable outcome of the legalization and societal acceptance of same-sex marriage:
Changing marriage beyond recognition has long been a stated goal of the organization Beyond Marriage, which is a collection of several hundred gay-rights lawyers, law professors, and activists. They argue that same-sex marriage is merely the first step on the path to redefining the family itself. Ultimately, they want legal protection for a host of other relationships, including, as they delicately put it, "Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households" and "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner." This group is not a collection of cranks: It includes professors from Georgetown, Harvard, Emory, Columbia, and Yale. The Beyond Marriage project has at least as much elite support today as the entire same-sex marriage movement had in 1990 (Last, 22).
If you want a shocker as to the agenda of the "Beyond Marriage" project, go to their website and read their manifesto (www.beyondmarriage.org). I'll forewarn you, it is disgusting! Once marriage has been redefined to include any number, and any diversity of relationships, what is to stop a person from marrying an animal? Or, perhaps he could marry himself; one wonders how he would go through a divorce should he decide he can no longer life with himself. The possibilities are endless, and the perverted and deviant activities within those relationships unimaginable. I'll continue this with at least one more article next week as we look at the effect that same-sex marriages will most definitely have upon our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press.
--by Tom
Wacaster
No comments:
Post a Comment