- The Annihilation of Marriage-Part One
- The Annihilation of Marriage- Part Two
- Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right
- Scalia Indicts Windsor Decision’s Intentional Bias
- Scalia’s Windsor dissent: Deficient in principle?
- U.S. Judge discards unalienable right of marriage
- Liz vs. Mary: How Both Cheneys Mistake the “Gay Marriage” Issue
- The flaw of Judge Allen’s precluded muddle
- Enslaved by mammon: Brewer, GOP elitists abandon unalienable right
- The elitists’ war on human nature
- Family ties and the natural basis for property
- Legally Institutionalizing homosexuality threatens America’s rights and liberty
[FYI: This is a reply I just posted to a comment about my WND article today. I thought it might be of interest.]
America was founded upon the idea that justice requires that all individuals (including people bereft of superior strength, talent wealth or other powers) be treated with respect, simply on account of their willingness to see and respectfully act upon the self-evident traits that constitute our humanity. Without appeal to the transcendent authority of the God as our Creator, this idea has no rational basis.
With that appeal cut off, the ancient view that “might makes right” naturally prevails in human affairs as it does in the material world conceived of without regard for humanity. So outcomes that result from the relative power plays of purely material forces justify themselves, with no need to give “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”, as the founder put it,
Are people such as yourself simply out to dupe Americans into surrendering the key insight that gave the relatively powerless reason to stand confidently against the tyranny of superior power? Or are you simply blind to the rational logic, and historical facts that made government of, by and for the people viable? Either way, you abuse words about “democracy” in order to encourage people to surrender the premises, in reason and good faith that produced the most successful example of democratic self-government in human history.
I thank God that He favored me with a heritage that does not permit me to forget the powerful arguments in respect of His authority that were indispensable in successful efforts for justice, such as the abolition of American slavery, and advancing political equality for women and black Americans. The elitist power-mongers know full well that equating homosexual behavior (an artifact of arbitrary human freedom without regard for natural right) with the activities essential to human nature (unalienable rights precisely arising from respect for God endowed natural right) destroys the rational basis for recognizing the common humanity of people who are simply acting to respect and preserve it.
Note well: Rejecting homosexual behavior as a matter of equal right does not, in and of itself, condemn or otherwise formally restrict the individual’s freedom to indulge in it. It does preclude any attempt to enforce respect for such behavior as a matter of law, or equal justice under the law. In fact, the attempt to do so, when it involves denying or disparaging the exercise of natural right, is a violation of fundamental law. This observation is explicitly supported by the language of the U.S. Constitution’s 9th amendment.
Human freedom is a capacity for choice, subject to abuse. Whether or not it is being abused MAY be a matter for prudential judgments, (made in light of particular circumstances and consequences, and of laws that take account of them.) Whether or not a particular individual has abused his or her freedom CERTAINLY IS for prudence to decide because in every particular case fair judgment naturally requires the presumption of innocence.
The foregoing observations suggest that, where particular circumstances and consequences do not justify the conclusion that homosexual behavior produces results that interfere with the natural rights of others, or their lawful goods (natural and otherwise), prudence suggests a degree of tolerance, out of respect for the fact that human freedom itself involves a natural faculty.
But homosexuality directly impinges upon human good will in respect of procreation. Our judgment of its consequence must take account of that fact. If made into a law for all humankind, the species would be headed for extinction. But insofar as homosexual behavior is respected, praised, and cited as a characteristic consistent with a praiseworthy and honorable human character, does this support or injure the will to accept the responsibilities and sacrifices of procreation and child-rearing?
Homosexual behavior captured the carefree label “gay” precisely because it connotes the use of the sexual organs for pleasure, unburdened by the sense of care and responsibility for its consequences that otherwise haunts sexual relations. Just as hedonistically abusing the appetite for food (gluttony), implies deadly consequences for individual life, homosexual behavior generally implies deadly consequences for the perpetuation of the human species.
It’s irrational to expect that people encouraged from childhood to see sexual activity as recreation will eagerly embrace the vocation that connects it with what they will therefore impatiently perceive as drudgery. They will by and large be glad to surrender that drudgery to others, as elites in a position to do so have routinely done. But in our era, this will mean surrendering the upbringing of children to government.
That raises the prospect of harmful consequences in respect of the damage government child-rearing is predictably likely to do to the independent will, character and judgment of individuals. Every totalitarian regime in the 20th century aimed to substitute government power for parental authority when it came to child-rearing. They did so in order to produce a population more susceptible to regimentation; people used to behaving more like bees and ants than human beings.
In the United States such a dehumanizing result is a direct attack against the very foundations of constitutional government, of, by and for the people. Though exceptional individuals will arise to resist this government regimentation, most people raised in material and psychological subjection to government authority, will be hard put to find the identity, will and courage to do resist,
By contrast, the material and psychological dominance of parents in the natural family starts out strong, but usually becomes relatively weaker as the child grows. This must be particularly true in a society where individual choice and responsibility are the norm. The natural family is therefore more likely to produce individuals who learn to balance respect for the common good (represented by their sense of obligation to their parent centered family) and their sense of responsibility for their own abilities, inclinations and moral sensibilities, as well as the human relations and associations that result from them.
These considerations suggest that the general encouragement of homosexual behavior will damage the balanced character required to sustain institutions of self-government. Already disposed to surrender to the tyranny of sexual pleasure, people no longer required to meet the challenges of family life will also be more disposed not to resist the imposition of government tyranny, especially if they are educated in government institutions precisely designed to produce that result.
If you are among the elitists who see this as a good outcome, you have no reason to think this through seriously. You will in fact welcome and encourage it, whatever your rhetoric to the contrary. I and other people who sincerely care about America’s rights and liberties have no choice but to take it seriously, and therefore resist to our utmost the push to institutionalize homosexuality as a legal norm.