Some of my notes about Canada’s events last summer, which bear directly on the discussion here:
Much discussion on the net and in the media in the last week or so, as regards the ruling of Canada’s Supreme Court regarding homosexual marriage. I wonder sometimes if they really thought this one through. There’s a major difference, I think between a ruling that is legally correct, and one that is socially and culturally correct. If destroying the culture is the target, that there could hardly be a more effective tool to that end, than using law and the courts. And I fear that our rights to speak out on such matters, both in Canada, and here in the US, are in trouble if things don’t change soon. So, I’ll make use of the right now, lest it disappear.
Consider that to make marriage for homosexuals possible, the law regarding marriage for EVERYBODY needs be changed. Do the proponents of this idea think that the laws will not change the behavior of both homosexuals (as intended) and heterosexuals? What unintended consequences to the vast heterosexual majority (97%) in our society will ensue? Or perhaps the consequences are not unintentional. Hmmm.
Anyway; What happens to the traditional, (and heretofore, legally acknowledged) roles of fatherhood and motherhood? Consider the legal confusion in a homosexual divorce when both partners claim to be the mother, for example. As a result of increasing liberal encroachment, wedding vows are being taken less and less seriously. (stats) Does this push us over the edge in that regard? Watch the words “Husband” and “Wife” disappear from our ‘official’ speech because some government hack rules them to be discriminatory.
Yes, that blithering idiot Jean Chretien is mumbling about how Churches will be exempted from being forced into recognizing these ‘unions’. However, reality rears it’s head.
Do any of you recall the case in Western Canada, (Saskatchewan, I think) wherein the court ruled that the provincial hate crime laws applied to a man who took out an ad whose only content was four bible verses, condemning homosexuality… and if I recall rightly, there’s currently a bill in the Commons which echoes that provincial statute on which that ruling was based? Does Jean Chretien plan to blot those laws? I doubt it. The argument resulting from such an act, would be between Chretien and the Canadian Human rights commission, (who also seems to feel the Church’s stand on homosexuality a criminal matter). It would be loud, and almost interesting, but in the end, unavailing, even if he were so inclined. So, we can take his comments as worthless political positioning… positioning under the nearest cover.
The usual argument offered by homosexuals about ‘freedom” and “constitutional rights’ rings hollow, here. Much as some would have you think so, the constitution of Canada, nor that of the US, was written in a social or cultural vacuum. The very purpose of law… IE; the idea behind the concept of law itself, was to provide the culture a means to reinforce and expand it’s influence. Of course there are those governments that lost sight of that fact, and tried to alter the society by means of law. Each of them failed, as did the cultures and societies the governments involved were supposed to be protecting.
I recognize there are many who would like to see the failure of our cultures happen, for their own reasons. But consider that history is replete with examples of governments, which ignored their base culture, and this destroyed themselves in the process.
All of this ignores the process of defining the behavior, which is needed if we’re to properly discuss what it is the courts and some legislatures are seeking to accommodate.
Take a little memory trip with me, back when the homosexual extra rights advocates were touting the idea that homosexuality was a natural phenom. Remember? There were some very high-level studies that were released about this time, that showed some very good promise of finding a cause.
Funny thing, though….
Once they started getting close… once the question of the cause being similar to something called Tourette’s syndrome, which is treatable, but not yet curable, came up….. well, suddenly, the homosexual extra rights advocates backed off of the argument as one would back off from a Palestinian bomber screaming “Allah is great!”, as if the thought of an actual cure horrified them. As well it might; no more special rights, and homosexuality moves form ‘lifestyle choice’ to ‘illness’.
Suddenly the bloom was off the rose, as far as the ‘homosexuality is a natural thing’ argument went… and suddenly their argument switched to what we on the right have been saying for decades… it’s a choice. It’s a choice they certainly have the right to make, at least based on our understanding of the issues thus far.
But for the sake of discussion, let us consider the Tourette’s victim further. The person has a choice; they can either chose to treat the illness as such, or they can say to hell with the rest of the world, label it a lifestyle, and try to get everyone else to accept it as such. Again, something they have the right to do, but I doubt that many will abide that right for long. Behavior has consequences, after all.
Consider the rather interesting parallels. Just as with the homosexual who claims to have been born into the homosexual role, such a person cannot be said to have entered the situation by choice. Yet, we as the rest of humanity, regard it like we do any other physical/mental malady… an illness to be overcome if possible. Treated with understanding, certainly… but treated. Drugs are able to limit the social consequences of the problem. Should the Tourette’s victim go off his meds, and insist that everyone else put up with the consequences of his illness as his chosen lifestyle? Tourettes is a natural occurrence, after all.
Now of course you’ll say Tourettes should be treated. And, you’re right. It should. Somehow, though, because we’re dealing with sexuality, suddenly this philosophy of treatment, goes out the window. Why? Put another way; The Tourette’s victim doesn’t stay off his meds, defying cures, and demand that we all accept his behavior as a natural lifestyle choice.
As homosexual columnist Camile Paglia wrote a couple of years back:
“Which brings us to another subject, the furor this past month over a report by psychiatrist Robert Spitzer of Columbia University that, from his rather cursory interviews with 153 men and 47 women, the “reparative therapy” endorsed by conservative Protestant groups can in some cases change sexual orientation from gay to straight.
That Spitzer had helped to persuade the American Psychiatric Association to drop the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 makes his current study harder to dismiss.
Nevertheless, screeching gay activists immediately descended on the media to denounce and defame Spitzer as a tool of the far right. This was a good example of the fascist policing of public discourse in this country by nominal liberals who have become as unthinkingly wedded to dogma as any junior member of the Spanish Inquisition. Why should the fluidity of sexual orientation threaten any gay secure in his or her identity?
What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can’t admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature’s norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.
Because of the unblushing dishonesty of strident activists and campus “queer theorists,” whose general knowledge of science would fit into Marie Antoinette’s thimble, we are ironically further from understanding homosexuality than we were in 1970, when popular culture was moving into the seductive gender-bending era typified by the brilliant David Bowie. With the emphasis on external “politics,” all respect for psychology has been lost. Did no one notice the grotesquely misogynous dialogue put into gay men’s mouths on “Queer as Folk”? That kind of catty aversion to the female body is learned, not inborn, and it can be partly traced to early family relations, before personal memory has even gelled.”
This says it all… and is particularly noteworthy since Paglia is homosexual, herself.
Now, as I pointed out in this column already, there are issues of rights involved, and nobody has the right to legislate the behavior. (At least, based on our current understanding of it)
There’s a major difference, however, between allowing the behavior, and justifying it, mainstreaming it, by means of law. Must we alter our traditions, beliefs and social structures and mores, thus destroying our existing culture, to be seen as non-judgmental… as if that was supposed to be a GOOD thing? I have said it for years in this column, that those who tolerate everything making no judgments about anything,, stand for nothing. Our cultures stand for something. When the culture is gone, what remains of western society? Canada’s government has in their attempt to get us to be more tolerant, asked us… no.. demanded of us, under threat of law, to take one more step towards cultural oblivion.
You’ll forgive me, please, if I refuse to march in their parade.