Posted by
Jason Cunningham on Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:31:00 PM
So the Los Angeles Times is “pained” to see Proposition 8 take effect, and “longs for the day” when Prop 8 is “relegated to history” (this according to an editorial in a recent edition).
I, on the other hand, am pained by all the sore-loser crying over Prop 8 and long for the day when liberal editorial boards are relegated to history.
Homosexuality is just plain wrong. It is certainly not a civil right and thus deserving of legal protection. I base my position primarily on my religious faith, but for all the secular humanists out there, who are so enamored of the god called science, I also base my position on physical, empirical, verifiable fact: male bodies weren’t made to go together, nor were female bodies. And if there are so many lesbians (and there are) saying “I don’t need a man,” why do they become manish or date manish women? So many lesbians dress like men, wear their hair like men, act like men, talk like men, and so many homosexual men (who “don’t need a woman”) act like women, dress like women, wear their hair like women, talk like women – if you don’t need someone of the opposite gender, then why do you bother becoming like the opposite gender, or date such people?
The Times also makes the uneducated claim that courts were created to rule on the constitutionality of laws. No, actually, they weren’t. When the Founders were setting up our nation’s government, certain of them made sure that the establishment of courts was for the sole purpose of declaring whether alleged actions were in accordance with written law, and these men also strictly opposed the concept of “judicial review.” If someone did something, and that act was deemed by law enforcement officials to be in violation of the law, and the individual took their case to court, the court’s job was to determine whether their act (or acts) broke the law. That was it. That was all that courts were supposed to do. It wasn’t until later on, in the U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, that the Court, against the will of the Founders, enacted the unfortunate precedent of judicial review, whereby courts now have the final say on every law that comes before them.
Besides all that, marriage – as I’ve explained before – is not a civil right. Marriage has nothing to do with preserving people’s political freedoms from government tyranny. And for homosexuals to be comparing their “plight” to that of blacks in the 1960s is absurd, preposterous, and insulting to blacks. Homosexuals have not been denied the right to vote, they’ve not been segregated, they’ve not been made to drink from separate water fountains or use separate bathrooms, they’ve not been knocked over with firehoses. They have all the rights that I have, even the right to marry – it’s just that marriage involves a man and a woman, so since homosexuals choose to be with others of the same gender, they can’t be married. It’s that simple.
And yes, it is a choice. How can I say that? Because, firstly, no “gay gene” has been discovered, and thus cannot be said (empirically) to exist. Secondly, even if such a gene were to be discovered, that doesn’t make it “right.” There are many things in human genetics that exist but aren’t supposed to – physical ailments, mental illnesses. It is clear that these things are abnormal, and we fight to overcome them – we search for cures, we use medicine, counseling, various therapies. And it is clear, based on (if nothing else) the picture our physiology paints, that homosexuality, whether genetic or chosen, is abnormal.
Thirdly, we have each been given a conscience, which is the mediator of our morality. All of us, myself included, face a variety of situations each day in which we must make a choice concerning how we’re going to behave – opportunities to steal or leave be, to hit someone with whom we’re angry or to resist, to be rude or polite. Many of these things could even be said to be impulses … but that doesn’t make them okay to do. I may have a bad temper, or a penchant for being a crotchety jerk, or a passion for pleasure that knows no bounds … but having an impulse for any of these doesn’t legitimize acting on them.
God is clear in his displeasure with homosexuality, as is nature (not only is homosexuality biologically unnatural, it’s also an evolutionary dead end) – if you have disagreement with these, then on what do you base your disagreement? Love? The world doesn’t know what true love is. True love came to us 2,000 years ago and we nailed him to a cross. The world wouldn’t know love if it stared it in the face. And if your definition of love was the one standard, the be-all and end-all, then what of one man and several women who say they “love” each other? And what of the 23-year-old woman and the 16-year-old boy who say they “love” each other, and that their relationship is “consensual”? Just as most people agree with the obvious truth that adults shouldn’t be having sex with children, it should be just as obvious that two males or two females don’t go together.
This entire issue is ridiculous. I’ve heard a few people say that same-sex marriage should never have come before voters; they’re right, it shouldn’t have – because the proper sexual relationship between the sexes should be as clear as day, and unnatural behaviors should be left to the darkness, from whence they come and where they belong.