ILLINOIS COULD LEAD WAY TO DESTRUCTION OF REAL MARRIAGE
By Laurie Higgins -
Mayor Emanuel, with his finger ever on the political pulse of Democrats-I mean, Chicagoans, has discerned that two of the top three problems facing the city are the absence of casinos and legalized
"same-sex marriage."
"same-sex marriage."
The city's failing schools, gang-activity, murder rate, debt, unemployment, poverty, family breakdown, child abuse, and drug use pale in significance as compared to the absence of casinos. Or, perhaps Emanuel sees casinos as the solution to all those problems.
One of his top priorities is bringing casinos to the city, casinos that will disproportionately harm those of lesser incomes because they have less financial padding to sustain the ineluctable losses on which
predatory casinos rely.
predatory casinos rely.
Judging from his letter, his de facto top priority is same-sex marriage, which will further erode the institution of marriage, the erosion of which has already disproportionately harmed the black community.
But why should these inconvenient truths bother Emanuel when he's got fat cat casino-backers and wealthy homosexuals in his corner. Emanuel in a display of "progressive" ignorance and uncharacteristic mushiness claimed that "gays and lesbians are still denied one essential freedom: the right to make a lifelong commitment to the person they love." Say what?
Every unmarried person of major age is free to marry as long as he or she is seeking to marry one person of the opposite sex who is not closely related by blood. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. They choose not to participate in this sexually complementary institution.
Homosexuals are simply not permitted to unilaterally jettison the central defining feature of legally sanctioned marriage: sexual complementarity. Similarly, polyamorists may not unilaterally jettison the requirement regarding numbers of partners, and those in love with their siblings or parents may not unilaterally jettison the requirement pertaining to close blood kinship.
Moreover, homosexuals are not denied the right to make a lifelong commitment. Homosexuals may, indeed, love, have sex with, set up households with, and commit for life to any person they wish.
Emanuel seems to have adopted the view that marriage is an institution centrally or solely concerned with the loving feelings of those involved. But if that's the case, if marriage is solely about love and has no intrinsic connection to procreation, then why does the government limit it to two people? And if marriage is solely about love, why not permit two loving brothers to marry?
If marriage were centrally or solely about the recognition of love, there would be absolutely no reason for the government to be involved. The government has no vested interest in "recognizing" subjective feelings. The government has a vested interest in the objective connection of sexually complementary coupling to procreating.
The government is in the marriage business because a two-person, sexually complementary union is how children are produced, and the government has a vested interest in recognizing, regulating, and
promoting the type of relationship that can produce children-whether or not any particular couple has children.
promoting the type of relationship that can produce children-whether or not any particular couple has children.
In describing Chicago's diversity, Emanuel paired race and "sexual orientation" revealing that he's also bought into the intellectually vacuous comparison of race to homosexuality, which is the flawed analogy upon which the entire homosexuality-affirming house of cards is built. Whereas race is 100% heritable, in all cases immutable, and has no behavioral implications whatsoever, homosexuality is constituted by subjective feelings, volitional sexual acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment, and is not 100% heritable.
Despite exploiting the language of the civil rights movement by trumpeting his defense of "equality," Emanuel is not advocating for equality. He's advocating for the unilateral redefinition of marriage by
homosexuals to serve their desires.
homosexuals to serve their desires.
Emanuel, envisioning himself as the Martin Luther King Jr. of the homosexual movement, proclaims "Marriage equality is the next step in our nation's march forward. Illinois must lead the way." Emanuel would do well to remember these words of Martin Luther King Jr.: "How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law....An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
Illinois has certainly proved itself capable of leading the way, leading the way to fiscal insolvency, educational malpractice, and incomprehensible murder rates. Why not lead the way to the destruction of real marriage by pretend marriage?
You strike me, at times, to be too intelligent to me to make such a foolish comment that gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriage. Gay people marrying does not harm straight people marrying - at all. Never will.
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of full disclosure, I did not completely read the post because while scanning it the comment goes beyond the absurd; e.g., "why not let two brothers marry?" It is outrageous that people even think this way or would raise such a stupid question. It is a statement like that why I do not take people who oppose gay marriage very seriously; their thinking is in many cases beyond absurd.
There is a small minority in the country, purportedly straight, who obsess on this issue. Honestly, that is . . . incredibly strange.
I agree that it seems to be a stretch to think others would want to marry, ie the slippery slope. However, your whole statement - if written just ten years ago, would have sounded absurd. Few people would have thought gay activists would be working so hard for gay marriage.
DeleteMy problem with gay marriage is that since marriage has always been a sacrament of the church. Why won't the people pushing for this law allow for protection under these laws for religious groups who teach homosexual behavior is immoral ? If we have to be tolerant, don't they need to SHOW, in law, that we have nothing to fear?
They have not so far been willing to do so...hence if the law is to take effect, and you find their behavior physically and morally repugnant and contrary to your religion, you can be charged with civil rights violations. It is already happening in Canada. If they would be willing to include language that would protect religious beliefs, then I say go ahead and marry.
They will no longer tolerate those who think homosexual activity is a sign of moral weakness and is sinful, to hold or profess such thoughts. The thought police will charge you with a civil rights violation.
DeleteIn my 40 or so years of life , homosexuality has been slowly introduced into popular culture. The media and the schools have done so. Suddenly 2,000 years of Western culture should be thrown out? Were our ancestors, (and grand parents, parents) that bigotted that they just hated homos out of ignorance and fear? Or did they know more than the young today (who have been spoon fed, dare I say brainwashed by the media culture). Could it be that they understood that a man wanting to have *n*l sex with another man was by nature disordered? Psychiatry called it a disorder once (not that long ago) but changed solely for political reasons. We must remember to love all children of God and we surely can accomodate the gay members of our community, but I for one am a little tired of this grandstanding by liberals to show how enlightened they are. I see moralizing on both sides....
Two brief points.
Delete1) Marriage is a sacrament in one religion, viz. mine. Marriage in other religions is regarded, treated, and defined differently; e.g., just look to Mormonism before its change.
2) Actually, in Western civilization, ancient Greece being its cradle, homosexuality was absolutely tolerated.
And look what happened to ancient Greece.
DeleteOK. From memory.
DeleteThe ancient Greeks saved Western civilization by uniting and fighting off the Persian invaders. A great book to read is The Battle of Salamis by Barry Strauss (you can borrow my copy—not joking).
Alexander the Great, probably gay, was the world's greatest military commander in human history. Alexander is the one and only to conquer IRAN *and* Afghanistan, to this day.
After Alexander's empire, the Hellenistic kingdoms broke up into little kingdoms. Cleopatra was Greek (not Egyptian). Uhm. Pretty much the Romans and Greeks were content to live and let live. The Greeks pretty much regarded the Romans as "barbarians." After conquering southern Italy and having Sicily at its toes, Rome would then develop a naval power and completely destroy Carthage.
Rome was now the WESTERN Mediterranean leader. Rome would finally intervene in Greece after its policy of "freedom for Greeks" and destroy Corinth as it did Carthage.
Although Rome conquered Greece militarily and politically, Greece conquered Rome culturally. Strangely the Romans would adopt the Greek gods. Even more, with Virgil's Aeneid, Roman's would mythologize its origins as being Trojan. All Roman nobility were bilingual, speaking Latin and Greek. In fact, the Roman empire was bilingual, the Western half speaking Latin and the Eastern speaking Greek (the nobility speaking both).
Keep in mind when Rome conquered the known world and brought law and order (and peace), it was essentially Greek thought. All the leading Roman families would have Greek tutors teaching the future commanders of the armies, magistrates, and governors Greek literature and language.
I see what happened to Greece indeed, and I see a flourishing Western civilization. Wasn't Aristotle, the gay Alexander the Great's tutor, who said that an excellent life is one in which we flourish?
Not to jump off to a new set of train tracks, but we should be proud of our Western progressivism and libertarianism, particularly on individual liberty, freedom of choice, etc. We should go to bed and wake up proud of these Greek, the world's first democracy, traditions AND values.
Rahm's values are not our values.
ReplyDeleteRahm is busy running for president of the United states in 2016. And we are his g pigs.
ReplyDeleteRemember when "Gay" was a wonderful word? Expressing delight and joy? Then the liberals usurped it to apply to perverts and perversion.I suppose after pervert marriage becomes law, marriage between brother and brother and sister and sister will be Rahm's next big important (ISSUE) Meanwhile, less inmportant issues like out of town parade visitors being stabbed in the face are ignored. First things first! The perverts vote here and the stabbed visitor doesn't
ReplyDeleteMany of these "activists" are the ones who have dressed up as nins and priests, in order to mock Catholicism, protested on the steps of our churches, sometimes even invaded them - taking the host to step on it, etc...there is alot of Catholic hatred in the "gay" rights movement. And by the way, I do not consider them to be "gay", because gay means happy. Many I have met have a strange anger or sadness about them. It is as if they know something is wrong with them. But there are many good and bad people of the gay and straight variety.
ReplyDeleteYou know what is funny, you and me see the same thing but in different people. Honestly - we do. I see a "strange anger or sadness" in the purportedly straight people who vehemently and actively oppose gay marriage. It makes no sense to me why I would go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning worrying---and being angry about---gay people loving marrying.
DeleteTruly, I see sadness and strange anger in anti-gay folks.
How in the hell did homosexuals hijack the word gay. The very first song I remember was When Johnny Comes Marching Home. It is a song about a soldier coming home from war and "when Johnny comes marching home again we'll all feel gay". It's not fair to veterans let alone children who watched The Flintstones. The theme song from this cartoon insisted "we're gonna have a gayo time" when we me the Flintstones. I watched every episode of the Flintstones and never once had a gayo time. Homosexuals also have no right to highjack the rainbow as their exclusive property.
ReplyDeleteSomeone tell me how civil rights for gays impacts their marriage.
ReplyDelete