Monday, June 27, 2011


"The only thing all your past failures have in common is you."

New York State Assembly has passed a homosexual "marriage" bill for the state. This is one of few times the homosexual advocacy groups have been successful at actually getting a vote to go their way rather than forcing it on people through an activist judge or three.

Something truly symptomatic of this vote was State Senator Roy McDonald who used profanity to defend his flip flop on the issue, and said:
You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, *!% it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing.
Now, Democrats love this kind of guy because it supposedly shows he's "evolved" and "grew" to agree with them, and tries to portray himself as being beyond the whole democrat/Republican divide by... acting like a Democrat. But look more closely at what he's saying here. His first sentence says it all:

You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing.

Uh, didn't you just say you "evolve" beyond good and bad, black and white? That's like saying "Eventually you get to the point you don't care about Yankees vs Red Sox, and that's why I'm supporting the Red Sox." He just argued that he's taking this position because he believes it to be the right thing to do, right after saying he's evolved past right vs wrong.

And that's too common in this debate. People aren't moving away from rigid, ideological position to a loving, more flexible one. They're moving from one rigid ideological position to a different rigid, ideological position. They haven't swapped away from religious and inflexible dogma, they're just picking an alternative one that is more socially popular at the moment.

Because supporting homosexual "marriage" doesn't demonstrate a lack of convictions or moral ambiguity, it is always presented as the more moral choice, the better way, the more kind and loving, the right position to hold. People who disagree may be portrayed as religious zealots and inflexible extremists, but they're depicted as being sinful without using that term. If you oppose homosexual "marriage" then you're a bigot, you want to prevent people from having their rights, you are hateful. Those are moral judgments by someone holding an alternative and opposition moral position, not amoral judgments by someone who doesn't care about morality.

Ace at the HQ wrote a long and powerful piece over the weekend about trust, the flow of events, and the obvious pattern of control that homosexual activists are engaged in.
That has been the game all along. It is a cunning game, designed, as it is, to boil the frog slowly so that he never jumps out of the pot.

But like most cunning strategems, it is entirely dishonest, and always has been so.

Do the ends justify the means? For those convinced this is a sacred right unfairly denied to gays, I suppose it must seem that the ends justify the means. Certainly the stratagem employed belies such a belief.

But dishonesty remains dishonesty, which I think most still consider a rather bad thing even in this rapidly-"evolving" world where apparently only One Single Thing Really Matters.

It becomes harder and harder to believe anything gay marriage proponents claim about their future agenda when every past claim about their next moves has been false (and false from the moment of utterance).
The fact is, these people are deliberate and systematic in their efforts to step by step change society to fit their whims. This isn't new, it has long been used by an outside group. Commenter Diver noted:
Charles Porterfield Krauth, a 19th century theologian, said heresy always proceeds in three stages:

-weakness/asking for toleration
-growing strength/asking for for equal rights
-institutional control/suppression of orthodoxy.
That's the pattern followed over and over by anyone who wants to take over a culture. You start out just asking for people to not be so mean and end up being mean, all too often. The only time the final stage does not happen is when you make a deliberate, conscious, and continuous effort to fight for liberty instead of dominance. It is the story of every revolution, which is why almost all of them end in misery.

Ace's main point is that, having won, the next step is to eliminate any religious objections (and marriages) that deny homosexual "marriage." They swear that's not the goal but its obvious from the start that's what will take place, and what, then, happens to religious freedom in America? Another commenter noted this:
"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr."
-Francis Cardinal George, 2010.
Is that really so unthinkable with the path of modern culture? I think he's being excessively pessimistic, but there are many on the left who'd celebrate such an outcome.

Why, though, do homosexuals and activists want to push this so hard? Twenty years ago, gay groups mocked marriage as an institution, despised the idea of gay marriage, and the general culture thought it was ridiculous. In ten years, suddenly it became a pressing, desperate human rights struggle, a fight for liberty and social justice.

This has never, ever been about marriage. Almost no homosexuals ever "marry" even in places where its considered legal, and few even care or want such a thing. Homosexuality has from the very first instance of human activity been about pleasure and sexual gratification, not relationship. Marriage doesn't bring either one of those things - in fact it can lessen both.

No, what this is about and has always been about is two separate concepts working side by side.

First, there's the effort to demolish every traditional and Judeo-Christian influence and tattered remains of foundation in western society. Some do this on purpose, some do it without understanding what or why they do it, but that is the goal: remove that influence and build a new society free of these old, judgmental, tyrannical constructs in favor of new judgmental, tyrannical constructs.

But the second is the more prevalent and the most common one from homosexuals. Basically it goes like this: being gay makes you feel like a weird outsider and feel guilty because you desire what everyone around you thinks is repulsive at the very least. In order to fix these feelings of estrangement and guilt, some gays are loudly demanding everyone stop saying they're weird, normalize their behavior - no matter how strange - in society, and shun anyone who dares disagree with this agenda.

There's a scene in BlackAdder II (episode "Bells") that illustrates this well and, appropriately enough, deals with Edmund being concerned that he's turning gay. He goes to visit a Wise Old Woman to find out a solution and here's how it goes:
WOMAN: Very well then. Three other paths are open to you. Three cunning plans to cure thy ailment.
EDMUND: Oh good.
WOMAN: The first is simple. Kill Bob!
EDMUND: Never.
WOMAN: Then try the second. Kill your self!
EDMUND: No. And the third?
WOMAN: The third is to ensure that no one else ever knows.
EDMUND: Ha, that sounds more like it. How?
WOMAN: Kill everybody in the whole world. Ah, ha, ha ...
The homosexual agenda is an attempt to fix what's inside by making everyone else act differently. Change everybody in the whole world! and you'll feel better. Except what's inside is what causes these feelings, not everyone else around you. They aren't going to change no matter how accepting the world acts and how the structure of the planet is altered.

And that's what this law in New York State is about. The thing is, how far does this law go? What would prevent two female room mates from getting married, or two brothers? If they want the tax and legal benefits, why not? What is the philosophical and legal argument to prevent this?

You cannot argue incest and breeding, because two men or two women are not going to have children. If you argue that it must be about love, then you've introduced an alien and unprecedented concept into the legal definition and exercise of marriage, something never before even hinted at. If you argue that they are only doing so because of the legal benefits... that's the entire argument of homosexual marriage to begin with.

All you're left with is the argument of societal building blocks, of the core of culture and the future of a people. And that's the entire argument against homosexual "marriage." The idea of a married couple being the very foundation of culture and society is the fundamental argument against homosexual "marriage" let alone open and accepted behavior.

The fact that a married couple creates stability, a continuing influence on a culture, and is the foundation for passing on traditions, patterns, and shared morés of a culture is the basis for the secular argument against homosexual "marriage." The fact that homosexual marriage cannot produce children, only borrow them from others, makes this an even more pressing and significant issue.

And since the left - particularly the activist left such as people pressing this issue - are utterly opposed to the concept of passing on culture's traditions and values, they cannot argue against roommate weddings, or even weddings of sister and brothers, since nothing compels them to breed.

This isn't a slippery slope argument, it is an inevitable consequence argument, and every legal decision since the dawn of law requires analysis to see what will likely result and come next from the decision. If you argue that ruling that its okay for Bob to shoot Bill, then you have to consider what the consequences of that decision is, how people are likely to use and abuse it, and what the legal consequences of that decision will be. You cannot simply dismiss that fact by yelling "slippery slope" like you're in an Oprah show and she passed you the mic.

And this doesn't even touch on other issues like age differences and species differences, or multiple marriages.

Ultimately, this push for homosexual "marriage" will win, and spread by legal mandate and the "full faith and credit" act to every state in the union. There's simply nothing anyone can do to stop it at this point, because culture has been rammed to this point and the legal system is designed in such a way as to be taken advantage of in this manner.

The problem is, the people who "win" this victory today won't be around to see the damage it does generations into the future, and even if they were, they'd deny it could possibly have been their fault anyway.

1 comment:

Eric said...

While I'm not sure we will ever agree on the pros vs cons (and I admit there are plenty of cons) of gay marriage, I do think there is a compelling argument to be made for federalism on this issue, in which case the New York law is no big deal... but the real question, as you mention, has to do with how one state's marital laws might be applied to another.

I'm not so sure that the Full Faith & Credit clause will be applicable in the case of gay marriage. At the very least, I think a state may have to aknowledge that you are entitled to marriage benefits in another state that extends those benefits to gay couples. That doesn't force your state to grant those same benefits. It's sort of like concealed carry laws: some states allow legal reciprocity with the permits of other states, some only allow concealed carry permits that are issued by that state, and some don't allow concealed carry at all.

At most, I think Full Faith & Credit could be used to force states to allow some leeway for entities operating within the within those states to make their own determination about what constitutes a married couple. For instance, say, New York offers gay marriage and Oklahoma does not. An employer in Oklahoma who wants to offer insurance benefits to gay 'married' couples may be able to employ the FF&C clause to offer those benefits to couples who were married in New York but now reside in Oklahoma, even if the Oklahoma government objects. I don't have a problem with that (employers should be able to offer whatever benefits they want to whomever they want).

But I don't think the FF&C clause logically or legally extends to forcing each state to offer the same marital benefits and definitions as any other state, and I haven't really seen any good legal arguments for why it would.