Tuesday, May 15, 2012

The Homosexual Problem

Two accounts in the Lexington Herald-Leader of 14 May dealing with the subject of homosexuality provide a look at the rationales used by different “gay” groups to insist that society recognize their uniqueness and respond to it in specific ways connoting total acceptance of their “normalcy,” which, on the behavioral level, is anything but normal, i.e., with respect to physical manifestations. This is not said pejoratively but simply as fact.

Two lesbian students at a local Catholic high school were denied attendance at the annual prom account their insistence upon participating as a “couple.” They were upfront about their relationship, which is sanctioned as unacceptable, even sinful, by the Catholic Church. If they had attended as “singles” or with male escorts they would have had no problem but they preferred to flaunt their relationship, so they held their own concomitant prom in the parking lot, complete with refreshments and music.

They were joined by other students, teenagers easily convinced that their classmates had been mistreated, not surprising when immaturity rules and features rebellion against the status quo and/or authority as a matter of course, indeed a sort of rite of passage.

The second article was headlined “Gay political donors move into the mainstream,” insisting that this was proven by huge amounts of campaign contributions generated by homosexuals and homosexually-oriented groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, with the recipient of the largesse being President Obama. It’s no small coincidence that Obama has “evolved” from affirming homosexual marriage in the 1990s to a rock-hard position in 2008 that marriage is between a man and woman to his current belief that homosexuals should be allowed to marry each other, an example of flip-flopping based on expediency. He now has a campaign adjunct agency called the LGBT Leadership Council, a fund-raising committee operating officially in his behalf.

Supposedly, it’s about civil rights since married couples, i.e., a man and woman legally married, have rights, especially as concerning financial and insurance matters, that homosexual “partners” lack. For instance, a homosexual’s perks on the job may not obtain for his “partner” while they may for a legal spouse. Thus, the “partner” has to shift for himself/herself, connoting unfairness. This makes Obama the go-to guy with respect to politics since republicans, in the main, insist upon the Defense of Marriage Act passed in the 1990s, mandating marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The teenage girls accused the school of treating them unfairly because it allowed prom-attendance to their classmates who fornicated, also a sin according to the church, indeed most churches. They were probably right in accusing their classmates but neglected or failed to see the difference between what’s done in private and claimed in public (their case), though their intimate relationship was as private as those of their fornicating classmates. If there had been a couple describing itself as fornicating, it likely would have been disallowed at the prom.

The immature teenagers were seeking social acceptance for their abnormality, whether acquired or genetic. The GLBT group seeks, besides social acceptance that will never be possible, political leverage in order to gain materially while at the same time striking out at legal marriage as not uniquely qualified for defining governmental responsibilities, notwithstanding that the marriage contract suffices for the legal standing of children and their support, and mandates provisions applicable to inheritances, for instance, and other contractual/legal considerations.

Most homosexuality defenders, regarding governmental or other status, accuse detractors of opposition for religious reasons, admittedly the case with many. However, the sociological/biological/psychological differences in the genders – with no religious bearing – provide the actual reason militating against homosexual marriage, to wit, that the fundamental unit of society is the family as formed by natural method and eventuating in the propagation of the human race.

The perverted use of bodily appendages and orifices designed for the high-flown objective of perpetuating humanity is a form of debauchery, the rotting-from-the-inside that has brought down governments consistently throughout history, as everything from rampant incest/pedophilia to homosexual behavior to indiscriminate sex and sex-orgies spelled their doom, the sensual trumping the mental, matter over mind, a sure killer for any society.

And so it goes.

Jim Clark

1 Comments:

Blogger Mark said...

Well that was amusing.

Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, I don't want the government giving preference to one type of partnership over another. It's a principled matter of liberty, in my opinion.

5:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home