Pages of interest

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Party On Dudes - But Why MUST it be Called a Marriage?

By George:

The topic of "gay" marriage has dominated the news cycle lately, especially in New York State, so I will offer my insights and opinions on this subject from my own Orthodox Jewish perspective.

So let's start by asking, why is it called a "gay" lifestyle? Let us call it what it is, and that is "homosexual" lifestyle. Oh, oh.. did I offend anyone? Am I being politically incorrect? If they were to now rename it "heroic" or "heavenly" lifestyle, it would still be simply "homosexual". To use a favorite Liberal saying from the past, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it will still only be a pig". The cosmetic renaming of their chosen mode of behavior will not make it any more condonable as a "normal" societal standard.

 In spite of the heavy duty "spin" imparted to this topic by the Homosexual community and their fawning conspirators in the Media and the Liberal establishment, this lifestyle is NOT "natural" or "normal". This myth has been fostered by them to mitigate their own feeling of pariahdom, or perhaps, inferiority. I will not debate the question of Nature versus Nurture, because it is immaterial. Man is distinguished from the lower animals by his inherent and instinctive knowledge of right from wrong, and having the ability to overcome immoral and animalistic impulses. Because an individual claims that he cannot control his urges, it does not mean that it becomes the norm, only that he is either weak or he is choosing to follow his impulses.

Before I go on, I will make two statements that will come as a surprise to those who don't know me well. First, I am NOT a Homophobe, and I have never been. I have friends who are homosexual, and their sexual orientation is not a factor between us. We don't base our friendship on their foibles, or for that matter, on my lack of predilection for their choices. The second surprising statement I will leave for later.

So let's analyze what is the issue at stake here? Homosexuals are demanding the "right" to marriage between two men or between two women, and that this marriage is to have the same "rights" under the law as heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman. This argument is being framed as a Civil Rights struggle. But is this really the TRUTH? Is the purpose of this struggle ONLY to insure that the rights of homosexual couples equals to what is granted to "traditional" married couples? The answer is a resounding NO.

If this was the real issue, then the solution could easily be addressed with a "Domestic Partnership" law that grants the exact same "rights" and "responsibilities" (yes, you must have responsibilities as well as rights) as the Traditional Marriage. Why does the Traditional Marriage, which has for thousands of years been between man and woman, have to be bastardized because the homosexuals insist on equality. They can have their equality without destroying a beautiful "Tradition" equated to morality.

But they DO insist on melding their desire for cohabitation into the rubric of "Marriage". And there is only one reason why they would want to shoehorn their "lifestyle" under the umbrella of Marriage. It is because they want to be given the social legitimacy that the Traditional Marriage engenders. They inherently know that their lifestyle is unnatural and wrong, but grasping the prevailing decline in societal mores, and the prevalence of Political Correctness, they feel that they can ram their agenda through and gain legitimacy. This has nothing to do with Civil Rights, but everything to do with Civil Wrongs.

This is a blatant case of the tail wagging the dog. Did anyone consider the "rights" and desires of the majority of the public, or do we just consider the desires of a relatively small subset of citizenry? Have the politicians taken the pulse of the non-vocal, God fearing and law abiding citizens? Oh yes, you may have noticed that I have not invoked Religion so far in this discussion. Yet I would be remiss if I didn't mention that most Americans are Religious people who believe in God via one of the major Religions whose genesis was the Revelation on Mount Sinai and the acceptance of the Ten Commandments. All of these Religions have a strong proscription to the practice of Homosexuality with severe penalties for blatant practice. The fact that we are living in a secular society where the Biblical Law is mostly ceremonial, does not negate the stigma that the Bible views Homosexuality with.

In the interest of relative brevity, I will not elaborate on human history to show that when Homosexuality becomes the accepted norm in a society, that society is shortly destroyed. You are welcome to peruse the history of the mighty Roman and Greek empires, their eventual lifestyle choices and their consequent downfall.

Incidentally, the second surprising statement that I teased with earlier, is the fact that the Homosexuality mentioned in the Bible is only male Homosexuality. As far as I understand, female Homosexuality is not disavowed by the Bible.

And finally, I would like to know why the laws that are predicated on human morality and strategic societal norms, are being legislated by politicians who can hardly be considered the paragons of virtue, and are extremely prone to corrupting influences, to say the least. Look around at the politicians that you know and have seen Twittering in the news. They pretend that they are the wise and virtuous elite who have the right to tell the rest of us what is best for us, but what you will see is a group of mostly degenerate narcissists on power-trips. These people should be the last ones in this world who should determine what Marriage is. To get the proper consensus, put this question on the ballot and let the public decide in open elections. Then if the citizens vote for changing the definition of Traditional Marriage, then we would know what type of society we live in. Yet I feel that the reason the "wise" politicians have to force-feed this to us is because the American Public would soundly defeat this demeaning endeavor.

What do you think?


  1. The only question I have at the moment is:

    When did you choose to be heterosexual and live a "straight lifestyle"?

  2. Okay, actually, I have one other thing to point out - once the initial question sinks in:

    Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?

    (apologies in advance if the html formatting doesn't carry over)

  3. Prosey,

    Thanks for your comments and for reminding me that I had forgotten to include a conclusion summary that might have clarified a few things. But when you are working late at night, sometimes weariness wins.

    But to answer your concerns, I chose the "straight lifestyle" the same time when I realized that my life is governed by my impeccable logic. :-)

    What you call Homophobia is a term invented to place guilt on people who don't buy into the whitewashing of a lifestyle that is contra to the preservation of humanity.

    The fact that you quote the "450 species" statistic, only buttresses my argument that "Man is distinguished from the lower animals by his inherent and instinctive knowledge of right from wrong, and having the ability to overcome immoral and animalistic impulses." Man is the ONLY creature endowed with the power of speech as well as the qualities mentioned above and is therefore unique in nature.

    If a person decides that he cannot contain his impulses, I will not judge that in the singular, because on his own anyone has the freedom of choice to emulate the "lower" animal species. What I will vehemently rail against is when these people with their "different" ideas now decide that I MUST be sympathetic to their cause of mainstreaming, and do whatever it takes to bring ME down to their level.

    You see what really upsets me is the attitude that I MUST be understanding of their feelings, but they don't have to be understanding of MY feelings and Religious underpinnings.

    Once again, I am not talking about individuals, because as I mentioned in the article, I get along with Homosexual friends and coworkers. I am referring to those whose organized militant stance is the stated conversion of Heterosexuals to their ideology.

    This Marriage Issue is just that.

  4. First, I understand working nights - my sympathies. :-)

    Actually, George, none of us *chooses* our sexual orientation. That is where you mistake "logic" of invented terminology and choice with something outside of your understanding.

    You are a opposite-sex oriented man, just as I am an opposite-sex oriented woman. It's *NOT* a choice of simply suppressing "lower" urges - that is a false equivalence that is VERY similar to the suggestion from 100 years ago that somehow Black people are "inferior" in some way to White people...I could use several different examples that have been used similarly. Sexual orientation has been shown to be (yes, biologically) as integral to most people as their skin color or eye in, embedded in their DNA.

    A hundred years hence, your arguments are going to be seen as ridiculous as the notion that interracial marriage is "abnormal"... You're a good man, George, but you are on the wrong side of history.

  5. (oh, and the argument that "because I have gay friends means I'm not homophobic" is the equivalent apologist language to "because I have Black friends means I'm not a racist" case you were unaware. Which was why I completely ignored that "shocker" ~ because it was not shocking at all.)

  6. I want to share a link with you, George. Understand, this link is from a "Democratic" organization (I'm not a Democrat - but I found this article interesting because I am always fascinated by how many of today's conservatives seem to be parroting Ayn Rand, even if they have NO idea who she is or why her pseudophilosophy was/is rejected by classically trained philosophy academians) : Ayn Rand and the Sociopathic Society or ‘How I Learned to Stop Loving My Neighbor and Despise Them Instead.’

  7. Prosey,

    I will be off-line until Saturday night due to the Jewish Sabbath. Will pick up the discussion then.
    God bless you.

  8. Hi George,

    Respectfully...understood. Peace to you until your return.

    When you return, I have a different question that occurred to me late last night and reminded me of our conversation here.

    In a conversation with a family member, I mentioned some friends of mine & my husband's who have lived together for about four years now. They had a baby about 4-5 months after we had our youngest son. And they have no intentions of getting married. They are perfectly content with their current situation, both financially secure, deeply in love with each other, and have no plans of splitting up.

    Now, the question that came to me (and this, from a very liberal family member) was, "then why don't they just get married?" The concern was less about societal standards, traditions, or religious reasons than it was about legal protections that even civil unions do not provide. And the questions have been posed to *them* as well by more conservative folks who see the tradition as being squandered - using the excuse "for the sake of the child" - and yet our friends have taken every imaginable precaution to ensure that their child is covered by insurances in both of their names, provisions made in the event that one of the parents dies, or -heaven forbid- should they split up for whatever reason.

    Explain to me how people (on the conservative side) can justify the parallel arguments about legal provisions/traditional & societal expectations for the good to a straight couple who are happily in love with a child and no intentions of ever getting married - while simultaneously telling a same-sex couple that is just as in love and devoted (and sometime where children are also involved) that those equal protections provided by marriage don't apply to *them*, or that it really isn't about equality?

    See, to me, if you call someone your *friend*, that implies that you see them as an equal...deserving of the same rights that you enjoy (not privileges, mind...but rights). If you view for *any* reason that they do not qualify for equality with the rest of society, then you do not consider them equal to you, and calling them *friend* is a bit dishonest. But that is a separate matter. My questions above are more about the glaring hypocrisies by the same people to two different categories of people that those in the conservative religious set seem more than happy to impose their ideologies on, whether or not society at large shares the ideologies.

    Anyway, just a few other thoughts for this thread for when you return.

    Wonderful weekend to you & yours. :-)

  9. Prosey,

    I have not had the chance to reply to your comments (it may be hard to believe, but this is not my full time occupation), but I have been mulling over your comments, and trying to figure out how to answer them without being longer than the original article :-). Perhaps, I was thinking, this might be a great lead-in to another article I have been meaning to write.

    I will at any rate endeavor to spend some time this evening to clear things up.

    Meanwhile, blessings..

  10. LOL, George,

    One of the many reasons I enjoy discourse with you is that you take your time.

    Please forgive me for the multiple posts - I don't do this full-time either. If something occurs to me to send to you to chew on, I send another message. I'm really not trying to be a pest when I do's just the way my brain works. (Probably why I would never make a good many things occur to me after the original discussion...:-D)

    Be well. And keep taking your time. I'll still be here. *nod*


  11. Prosey,

    Your questions were too much for me to answer in the comments, so I decided to base the follow-up article on your comments.

    Please read:

  12. What do I think? I think it is OK if you are gay. The people who love you will still love you and understand. What is killing you is the hate and denial. Again IT IS OK IF YOU ARE GAY.


Enter your Comment here...