The Death of Marriage
After centuries of mischief making, homosexuals would have us believe that they have abandoned their former ways and embraced domesticity. In truth, an influential minority of homosexuals have chosen to momentarily mimic heterosexual restraint for the calculated purpose of mainstreaming homosexuality. A splinter faction of gay radicals want to fix in the minds of normal heterosexuals the false notion that homosexuality is an alternative co-equal of the universal mammalian standard of species-preserving heterosexuality. This notion is nonsense.
A normal heterosexual disposition is the consequence of many biological developments progressing normally. In every healthy human culture the normal inborn proclivities of heterosexuals are complemented and enhanced by social institutions and rituals that reinforce a species-preserving normalcy. No healthy culture idealizes any sort of deviancy, least of all sexual deviancy.
Homosexuality is deviant because every homosexual is the consequence of some normal biological development gone haywire or some normal human life interrupted by a toxic deviant sexual encounter with a predatory homosexual. If there were anything life-enhancing about homosexuality, homosexuals would amount to more than the trifling 2.8% of this planet’s human population.
Homosexuals are not a genuine minority. Genuine minorities are distinguished by well-defined cultural or fixed and visible biological characteristics, and usually both in combination. Homosexuals, in sharp contrast, have no clearly defined culture and only a single psychological quirk in common – same-sex attraction. Many gays are the result of arrested development, of a failure to mature emotionally beyond the infantile stage of self-adoration.
Gays Slam the Door
Radical gay activists have rushed to slam the door in the faces of homosexuals who seek deeper insight into their deviancy. On New Year’s Day of 2013, California became the first state to make it illegal to offer minors any therapy intended to change their sexual orientation, including any effort to “change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” This law restrains every “licensed professional” from offering any insight or assistance to minors and compels every minor seeking help to consult an amateur counselor.
This law is unprecedented. Never before had any form of talk therapy that didn’t include physical harm been banned. This law infringes on free-speech rights because talk therapy is just that – people talking through emotional issues.
New Jersey Assemblyman Tim Eustace is a proud gay Democrat. He has introduced legislation to outlaw “gay conversion therapy” by licensed practitioners. He argues that the government (politicians like him) must protect minors from gay conversion therapy in the same spirit in which government restricts potentially harmful activities, such as, underage drinking, indoor tanning and tobacco consumption. Completely lost on the assemblyman is the documented evidence that homosexual behaviors are the filthy high-risk behaviors that fueled the AIDS epidemic and a standing venereal disease epidemic and a rampant contagion of a dozen other diseases that are virtually unknown among heterosexuals. Gay sex is a rejection of the most basic tenets of toilet training. Don’t wallow in you poop!
It’s no wonder so many gays have problems with self esteem; being always one genuine sex organ short of any genuine biological purpose, gays are left to ponder the fact that gayness, unassisted, is a biological empty lot or, maybe, an amusement park.
Psychology is not a hard science; its evidence is anecdotal. Psychology is a body of opinion; its many schools of thought are centered on imaginative paradigms of the human mind; psychology is equal parts observation and fantasy. That said, does reparative therapy work?
For people whose same-sex attractions are rooted in childhood family dynamics or in emotional trauma, the answer is yes. For those whose homosexuality is anchored in neurological abnormality, probably not. Indeed, a biological gay might feel worse after a go at therapy simply because he saw the therapy as his last chance for a “cure.” If a gay is in despair when entering therapy, then a therapeutic failure may deepen that despair, but that is not a reflection on the therapy; it is simply the discovery that the gay’s gayness is biological in origin and not the result of a damaging life experience. The only therapy for unhappy biological gays is palliative – philosophical reflection and self-acceptance.
The effort to ban attempts at reparative therapy is an effort to codify in law the notion that all homosexuality is rooted in immutable biology. This is a political proposition unsupported by evidence. These prohibitions will face constitutional challenges rooted in parents’ rights, in religious rights, and in free speech rights. Thomas Healy, a constitutional law professor at Seton Hall Law School, believes that the proposed New Jersey law will be vulnerable on free speech grounds because it “really strikes at the heart of what psychiatrists do, which is talk people through issues.”
Reclaiming Their Manhood
The November 1st, 2012 New York Times included an article titled “ ‘Ex-Gay’ Men Fight Back Against View That Homosexuality Can’t Be Changed.” As this article relates:
“Ex-gay men are often closeted, fearing ridicule form gay advocates who accuse them of self-deception and, at the same time, fearing rejection by their church communities as tainted oddities. Here in California, their sense of siege grew more intense in September when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law banning use of widely discredited sexual ‘conversion therapies’ for minors – an assault on their own validity, some ex-gay men feel.
Aaron Blitzer, 35, was so angered by the California ban, which will take effect on Jan.1, that he went public and became a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional.
To those who call the therapy dangerous, Mr. Blitzer reverses the argument: “If I’d known about these therapies as a teen I could have avoided a lot of depression, self-hatred and suicidal thoughts,” he said at his apartment in Los Angeles. He was tormented as a Christian teenager by his homosexual attractions, but now, after mens’ retreats and an online course of reparative therapy, he says he feels glimmers of attrasction for women and is thinking about dating.
“I found that I couldn’t just say ‘I’m gay’ and live that way,” said Mr. Blitzer, who plans to seek a doctorate in psychology and become a therapist himself.
Many ex-gays guard their secret but quietly meet in support groups around the country, sharing ideas on how to avoid temptations or, perhaps, broach their past with a female date. Some are trying to save heterosexual marriages. Some, like Mr. Blitzer, hope one day to marry a woman. Some choose celibacy as an improvement over what they regard as a sinful life.”
It is not my belief that homosexuality, as such, is sinful. Homosexuals are a menace to our culture simply because their appetites, their proclivities, their collective transgressions and their social agenda are corrosive to the moral and emotional health of normal human beings and the institutions that normal humans have created to preserve a coherent and sane environment in which to raise children and continue the great enterprise of civilization. Gays don’t have to be evil to be destructive; they only have to be different in ways that are socially subversive.
The only reason we are being subjected to the current gay-marriage dog-and-pony show is the yearning of some white upper-middle-class lesbians and gays for middle-class respectability. This tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of American homosexuals is ashamed of the edgy, subversive, outlaw essence of unbridled homosexuality. These are the “white-picket-fence-and a 401K” gays who are scathingly mocked by authentic gay critics.
The Mouse That Roars
Homosexuals are not a legitimate minority; they are merely a self-proclaimed identity group with quirks. Homosexuals are no more an “oppressed minority” that teenage girls with eating disorders. The behaviors of both groups elicits disapproval from normal humans, but disapproval is not oppression.
According to revised U.S. Census data, pair-bonded homosexual couples amount to less than 1% of pair-bonded American couples. To put that another way, over 99% of American couples are heterosexual. The Census Bureau downgraded the number of same-sex couples living together in 2010 by thirty percent after it was discovered that Census workers had mistakenly miscalculated many heterosexual couples as same-sex. To put the American gay population in perspective, take note of the fact that there are 227,431,000 adults in America of whom only 6,368,000 are homosexuals (2.8%). Homosexuals congregate in urban areas to enhance their chances of meeting other homosexuals; their appearances at gay parades are overly impressive because these gatherings occur in the few places where gays are plentiful. The ranks of these public displays are deceptively swollen by gays who commute cross-country from parade to parade, by non-gay sympathizers, by pandering politicians and by voyeurs pathetically seeking a glimpse of those bare-breasted lesbians.
Here’s the truth: the entire population of American gays is almost two million fewer than the population of a single American city, New York. Straights outnumber gays 64 to 1. That’s because gays are biological or behavioral accidents; they are consequence of normalcy gone wrong; they are a sterile residue of heterosexual procreation. To celebrate or idealize these developmental accidents is to subvert the purpose of our civilization’s central organizing institution: heterosexual marriage. The false impression that gays are a significant fraction the American population can be traced to the big noise that gays make. That is intentional.
The blueprint for the gay propaganda campaign that now permeates our school curricula, our political contests, our popular entertainment and our news media was first articulated in 1987 by the queer theorist Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in their essay subversive essay The Overhauling of Straight America. The title captures its essence, though it would be better titled “The Grooming of Straight America” because that’s what this battle plan was all about: the lulling, the disarming and the duping of heterosexuals into accepting homosexuality as an alternative new normal that is the moral co-equal of heterosexuality. The queer theorists cynically described their program to confuse normal humans. Here’s a sample:
The way to benumb sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizeable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality.”
Any American who came of age after 1987 has been marinated in this false propaganda since kindergarten. Gay propagandists now hang their hopes on the fact that so many young people have been groomed by gay propaganda. But when questioned further these same youngsters display a stunning ignorance of homosexuality. It is commonplace for these kids to say that gays are twenty-five or 30% of the population, instead of the true 2.8%. How will they feel about homosexuality after most of the “gays” they knew in high school get over their confusion and identify as straight? Or when the few true gays they knew want to share a tent with their sons at Boy Scout camp? Maturity has a way of making normal people more critical of abnormal people.
An Unfunny Joke
From the perspectives of either traditional religion or Darwinian determinism, homosexuality is a joke without a punch line – it falls flat. The religionists believe that heterosexuality is the reason that there are two sexes, that the two sexes complement one another in a meaningful life-enhancing manner, and that the intention of the Creator is writ large in our biology.
To the Darwinian atheist we are what we are because what we are allows us to survive as a species. Our biological and cultural dimensions are the sum of our “adaptive fitness.”
Because homosexuality is a disaffection for one’s sexual complement, homosexuality confers no survival benefit; to the degree to which it exists in any human society, it is a menace to group survival. To put that another way, we survive as a species only because there are so few homosexuals.
What should give Darwinian atheists pause is the historical fact that superpower empires tend to last a century. The atheistic empires of modern socialism have lasted less than a century, while the great faiths endure for thousands of years. Why is that?
Charles Darwin was perplexed by human altruism which seemed to contradict his basic thesis that natural selection should favor the most selfish human behaviors. Darwin was puzzled by the question of why anyone would sacrifice his life for another before passing on his genetic inheritance. Here’s the answer: We pass along our genes as individuals, but we survive as social beings in groups and groups can survive only if individuals are willing to defend the group. We are social beings. Our outstanding survival advantage is a consequence of our ability to form large and complex groups. We call these groups cultures.
Every culture enhances its chances of survival by defining itself with a distinctive language and distinctive rituals and distinctive myths. These myths are the shared stories about group origin and group identity; these stories bind the group together.
Religion is a repository of shared sacred myths. These myths are sacred, not the least, because they facilitate group cohesion and survival. The sacred institution of marriage, together with its attendant myths of masculine and feminine virtue, gender complementarity and the obligations of fatherhood and motherhood, is the cornerstone of group cohesion and group survival.
In contradistinction to the demonstrated social benefits of religion and heterosexual marriage from both the religious and the atheistic Darwinian perspectives, we have the clamoring of an ill-defined hodgepodge of males and females who are incapable of normal human pair bonding. They are a catch basket of genetic mutations, neurological oddities, wounded psyches and developmentally-delayed narcissists. All of them are demanding “inclusion” and “respect” and their “rights.” They want the 97% of Americans who were born normal in accordance with God’s life-enhancing Big Plan or maybe Darwin’s life-enhancing natural selection, or both, to just ignore the demonstrated fact that homosexuality is a quirk without a future, that all erotic contact between homosexuals and normal people is toxic to normal development, that homosexuals are incapable of role-modeling the nuanced chemistry of normal pair bonding that is every child’s birthright and that every gay “marriage” is a mocking parody of the central organizing institution of our civilization.
Even sterile couples and elderly heterosexual couples serve the supportive role of modeling the nuanced normal behaviors of purposeful heterosexuality. For the purpose of role modeling, every gay relationship is a curiosity at best and always a distracting muddle. The similarities between gay and straight relationships are superficial. A glass of water and a glass of kerosene look exactly alike, but their chemistries are profoundly different. It’s the chemistry that matters.
Gays subvert the institutional purpose of marriage by cunningly distracting us with arguments about individual rights. But it is group cohesion that is the first purpose of every organizing social institution of our civilization. Individualism is the enemy of group cohesion; individualism weakens our capacity to form groups.
Obama Declares War Against Our Culture
The central organizing institution of our culture does not exist to showcase anyone’s love or anyone’s relationship. Marriage exists to fortify cultural norms, to facilitate cultural continuity, and to provide an anchor point for social cohesion. As a matter of common law and ancient custom the definition of marriage in Western Civilization is the union of one man and one woman. There have been pockets of exception occupied by polygamous heterosexuals, but the towering model is heterosexual monogamy.
Heterosexual marriage is the mainspring of a larger social clockwork that brings a measured life-enhancing consistency to the lives of generation after generation of psychologically normal human beings. Now a splinter faction of abnormal humans, and a politically-divided faction at that, is throwing sand into the gears of that clockwork.
The President of the United States, Barack Obama, who was never a man to let Christian morality stand in the way of political pandering, has thrown the prestige of his office behind the effort to create totally new and unusual wedlock modalities. Because gays and lesbians are something other than what our culture understands to be men and women, any newfangled single-sex wedlock modality will not be a marriage as genuine Christians and Jews define a true marriage. These novel social inventions will be One-Sex Modality One and One-Sex Modality Two; each one encapsulating the offbeat specialness of its manless and womanless emotional chemistry.
The New York Times gave the most-honored front-page above-the-fold position to the announcement “U.S. Asks Justices to Reject a Ban on Gay Marriage.” (3/1/13) This was the opening:
“The Obama administration threw its support behind a broad claim for marriage equality on Thursday, and urged the Supreme Court to rule that voters in California were not entitled to ban same-sex marriage there.
“In a forceful argument, the administration claimed that denying gay couples the right to marry violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause . . .”
In truth, every adult male and female has the right to marry. Some people choose not to marry, just as some people choose not to own a firearm. One of every five male homosexuals will marry a woman of his choice and one of every three lesbians will marry a man of her choice. One-sex wedlock is simply not marriage by definition One-sex wedlock is an essentially different social modality.
Obama wants to strike down Proposition 8 which was chosen by voters in 2008 to restore the traditional definition of marriage in California after that state’s Supreme Court had changed the definition of marriage to include one-sex wedlock. This 2008 balloting was the same one that elected Obama president. There was an enormous black voter turnout for that election. When all those black folks entered the voting booth to cast a vote for president they were also presented with Proposition 8 which offered them an opportunity to restore the traditional definition of Christian marriage in California. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama and overwhelmingly for Proposition 8. When Prop. 8 passed, the homosexuals were furious; the Internet was ablaze with their rage; the word nigger got an amazing workout. Obama has turned his back on those Christian voters because they are not now greasing him with the really big money.
Team Obama noted that California already permits gays to enter binding contractual domestic partnerships very much like marriages in their legal framework and added that “the designation of marriage, however, confers a special validation of the relationship between two individuals and conveys a message to society that domestic partnerships or civil unions cannot match.”
Indeed it does, but the bigger question is why any culture that had a care for its future would choose to idealize anything as quirky and biologically pointless as same-sex attraction? This weird idea is only being considered now because America is showing the symptoms of late-stage decadence and decline.
The reference to domestic partnerships by the Obama team was a poorly-veiled threat to the people of the seven states who foolishly legalized domestic partnership. Their thanks for accommodating homosexuals will be a kick in the teeth and the imposition of “gay marriage” if Proposition 8 is invalidated. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement that conflated the gay wedlock issue with past civil rights struggles. This is what the queer theorists Kirk & Madsen called muddying the moral waters. The comparison is false because black people are the result of normal biological development; homosexuals are the result of abnormal development. Homosexual psychology is abnormal psychology.
All attempts to liken Proposition 8 to the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia in which the Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage are false and misleading. The few state laws that banned interracial marriage were historically recent. Interracial marriage had been commonplace throughout America before these few laws were enacted; they were pretty much a localized phenomenon with no deep historical roots. Heterosexual marriage, by contrast, is ancient and deeply anchored in human biology. In every human culture heterosexual marriage has emerged as an expression of healthy human nature.
To elevate a parody of time-honored marriage to co-equal status with marriage for the sole purpose of gratifying the emotional needs of a few behavioral outliers is to mock the serious purpose for which marriage was instituted. We can be forgiven for suspecting that if one of every six of Obama’s big bucks bundlers had not been a homosexual before the last election, Eric Holder would not now be carrying water for the homosexual agenda.
The Obama/Holder legal brief disparages Proposition 8’s defense of ancient norms as an “impermissible prejudice,” but Californians weren’t pre-judging anything. The evidence was apparent: the time-honored institution of Judeo-Christian marriage is available to every adult not already married; everyone is free to choose marriage or leave it alone. Traditional marriage is the wellspring of Western Civilization and it is in no need of companion parodies.
President Obama did his best to divert our attention. In his second Inaugural Address he declared that “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.” Which law? The Americans with Disabilities Act, perhaps. Sexualizing persons of your own gender is a disability; having a quasi-autistic non-response to persons of your complementary gender is a disability. The “gay community” is self-marginalized because of its abnormal appetites.
Obama continued to misdirect America: [I]f we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well.” But the struggle to defend traditional marriage is not about the quality or the quantity of anyone’s love; it’s about the preservation of a vital and intact social institution.
If the gender aspect of the traditional definition of marriage is suddenly deemed arbitrary and based on “impermissible prejudice” then so is the number aspect of the definition. There are court cases pending that seek the decriminalization of heterosexual polygamy and the plaintiffs in those cases are keeping a close watch on all of the gay-marriage cases. Gay marriage is a stalking horse for the polygamists and a Trojan Horse for the rest of us.
Making the institution of marriage all-inclusive is to blur its definition beyond recognition and to obliterate its culture-preserving purpose. Keeping the institution of monogamous heterosexual marriage intact should be a critical governmental objective. Instead Barack Obama is shamelessly pandering to his homosexual bundlers and bagmen.
March 4, 2013