To the Editor:
Those with children will recognize the saying, “Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”
The equality marriage act is only a foot in the door for the “progressive” transformation of human society. This is only a symptom of the coming changes that are, in this particular case, exploiting and capitalizing upon the current social position of homosexuals, who are being manipulated and radicalized.
The concept of “alternative” no longer means being a minority fringe group that’s outside the norm; but now means an equal and viable choice from among many choices, a sea of variations without norms.
To foster that indiscriminate mindset is one of the real aims embedded within the marriage equality movement. Equality has come to mean inclusion; with one voice being the equal of a thousand voices.
The ideas of authority, tradition, and majority, are being supplanted by the tyranny of individualism.
As with the “inch and mile” reality, if something long-standing can be changed in just one parameter; then that vulnerability will encourage further change. “Long-standing” doesn’t carry the weight it once had; it almost invites investigation into how it can be modernized.
The same sad soulful pleas used to justify the change in “one man – one woman,” could easily be used with the same logic and emotion towards polygamy; which is only shifting the “amount” as well as the gender. Open the door wider, and could customized limited duration clauses be far behind?
The acceptance of the gender arguments that shift the norms of society will then make it anyone’s choice of where the line is arbitrarily drawn about any and all conditions of interpersonal relationships.
Once it’s proved that a long-standing boundary can be moved, then the whole concept of boundaries themselves are downgraded from edifices of safety and stability into temporary bookmarks of convenience; so much easier then to manipulate and control the population.
This is the idea behind the scenes; redefining boundaries – to mold the future to consist only of temporary plug-in modules of expedience – no absolutes; no permanence; no stable truth, law, or morals. No right, no wrong, no shame, no sin; just levels of acceptability based on preferences of current taste and fashion.
What is going to happen with words in the dictionary like sodomy and sissy? How are they going to be changed away from negative connotations towards positive, and at the same time make words like pervert and deviate apply to orthodoxy?
There will be a major shift in language and conceptualizing, and who knows what collateral damage will occur. Is toleration and inclusion more valuable than truth and delineation? Only if the concern is for making impressions rather than promoting facts.
Think upon what slippery slope this attempt to modify the culture is really causing us to embark upon.
The adaptations forced upon all institutions and social conventions in the name of toleration will cause them to disintegrate into personal non-binding contracts of convenience.
If the relatively small proportion of the population is evangelistic enough and prevails, then what’s to stop the subsets of that group, like the flamboyant exhibitionist boys on Castro Street who are even more aggressive in their zeal to blatantly promote and flaunt their lifestyle, from getting their way too? Would there be any reason for them to exercise restraint, when requests for decorum are considered suppression and discrimination?
Already in more militant areas there are demands that instruction in the “how to” of homosexual acts be taught in school – is there a moral rationale for that?
All sorts of justifiably marginalized groups are eyeballing the opening door of opportunity through toleration.
Witness the public discussions in Europe about doing away with the concept of “age of consent,” replaced by what the pedophiles now euphemistically call “children’s rights.” Openly brought out into the public for debate as if it had any chance of legitimacy, by attitudes that make any and all alternative lifestyles worthy of consideration.
This is license being marketed to us as freedom.
As far as the purpose of sex for species reproduction goes, homosexuality is an aberration. Resentment is brewing by forcing others to join in pretending that homosexual arrangements are “normal.” Worse yet is the forcing of institutions to join in pretending, or face extinction.
Whatever else may be binding upon human commitments, the narrow definition of marriage was intended primarily for a social structure for the potential of producing and raising children, based on the sexes’ symbiotic reproductive compatibility. Secondarily it may be for companionship, pleasure, economic survival, genetic lineage and privileges, or any number of reasons.
Foundationally, homosexuality turns that hierarchy around. Its primary foundation is not for cementing societal structure. It can imitate and mimic the norm, but its starting point is from the individual’s needs rather than from society’s needs. This is a social structure being built based on self-fulfillment rather than societal fulfillment; and with that, can anyone confidently predict its outcome leading to a better world?
Tradition at least gives a framework; a definition to what a couple is building, and a direction to take it in; a commonality with all other married couples; a shared part and place in the cement of civilization. The very reason for tradition is to keep society from progressing beyond its limited wisdom of the moment and running off into folly.
It’s natural to think of a man and a woman as being married, it doesn’t seem unnatural at all – yet that can be trivialized into only a personal preference, where neither God nor nature informs the choice. There would be no “natural order” of things, only choices portrayed as either motivated by old traditional superstition or by new progressive enlightenment.
This is a quandary. Let’s just back up and say, if you want to do your partnerships differently than the majority of the world’s societies, that’s your right, but then go the entire mile and don’t imitate and mock traditional arrangements; invent and name your own, and gain your validation on your own merits.
Ask yourself, what is it about the tradition that you need so much that you’re willing to take the chance on destroying it? If you can’t see that marriage’s value is in how it is, exactly as it is now; then what else about it is so important for you to have? Then what possible value would remain if you change it? Let civil unions be your bond, and validate your lifestyle by your actions in how you live your life…not in how you can cloak yourself in a borrowed and mutated traditional respectability.
What’s left? Seeing humanity hovering without hope of rest, above perpetual shifting sands, having traded objective absolutes for subjective illusions?
Just know that demanding change is playing into the hands of evil manipulators, as tools used to burn the house down around all our ears.
Michael Bourland, Newcastle
