Definitions are everything in a debate. Controlling the language is crucial. People who engage in sex with people of the same sex are masters at manipulating the language to their advantage. It’s taken them time to chisel “gayness” as a state of being in granite, and they’ve nearly accomplished the task. They have people believing that “being gay” is identical to being male or female. In their world there are males, females, gays, and any number of other manufactured sexual identities.
And if a person is actually a male (Bruce Jenner) who identifies as a female, and a female (Chastity Bono) who identifies as a male, the public will be forced to accept what is not true, and anybody who claims otherwise will be charged with the ever-evolving “hate speech” accusation, another manufactured social taboo and soon to be a crime.
The editor of Huffington Post’s Gay Voices, Michelangelo Signorile, “is calling for the media to be intolerant ‘of all forms’ of ‘bigotry against LGBT people.’ And by bigotry, he means anything less than celebration. . . . His reasoning? Well, from time to time conservative and Christian pundits are given air time on the major networks. That’s right, Signorile protests at the very notion that someone who disagrees with his lifestyle is allowed to speak in public.”
In reality, people who self-identify as “gay” are really sexual choosers. They are no different from people who commit adultery, have sex with underage children in schools and on sports teams, and engage in any number of sexual relationships.
For example, “a 23-year-old woman accused in 2012 of having sex with a dog in Arizona was arrested Monday in Volusia County on allegations of having sex with a 15-year-old boy.”
Was she born with a sexual predisposition to have sex with minor children? If she was, and all she has to do is claim that she was, then there is nothing morally wrong with what she did. The same is true if she believes that having sex with a dog will make her happy.
Congressmen Steny Hoyer said as much, and he used God and the Declaration of Independence to support his argument. “Is there a happier time in one’s life than when one pledges themselves [sic] to another?” To another what? To a child? Three men? Four lawyers? The household pet?
In the oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court on the question of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees two people of the same sex have the right to marry one another:
“Justice Samuel Alito asked whether—if two of the same sex have a right to marry—why not four people of opposite sexes. Would there be any ground for denying them a license? . . . Let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers.”
Given the absence of any fixed moral standard, who’s to say otherwise? At this point in time, five members of a supposed “Supreme” Court get to say. I doubt that this is what our founders intended or even imagined.
What’s really on trial is who gets to define what we are. On what basis can any court redefine marriage when the courts can’t define marriage within the narrow confines of man-centered law? Marriage doesn’t exist in a matter-only, no-God worldview. The same is true for our humanness, what separates us from the elements of the Periodic Table and the roaches we squash with the heel of our shoes or poison with insecticides.
Read more: “Atheism Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry.”
Homosexuality is not a state of being; it’s what people do sexually. Since when does a sex act get legal protection? Where does the Supreme Court get its ultimate authority to make such a decision for more than 300 million Americans? Tradition? The voice of the people? Legal precedent?
The judges have lost the ability to judge with righteous judgment. Joel McDurmon writes:
“Here would have been a perfect opportunity to remind the Justices that the ‘merely religious reason’ was a precedent of the vast majority of Western Civilization precisely because it had been based upon the Word of God, and that it was only by that God that these Justices had any authority to begin with. By dismissing that Word, the Justices dismissed the very authority of the bench upon which they sit. At that point, they become the outlaws and the founders of social chaos.”