During the summer, as both sides of the homosexual marriage debate sounded off on their varying viewpoints, the media apparently sided with the side that was opposed to the traditional definition of marriage. I say that the media picked sides, because a comprehensive look at the consequences of this step onto the slippery slope was never given, at least not in the mainstream press. Those opposed to the redefinition of one of our oldest institutions were not just religious extremists. They were men and women who saw where this could lead us, but they were never given a fair hearing, they were just shouted down. This is unfortunate, because there were some very valid arguments against recasting our definition of normal. Reason does not always prevail in our culture.
Many stood up in the past few months and proclaimed that all Canadians should have the same rights. This, on the surface, sounds totally benign and innocent. After all, who would want to deny any Canadian that which would make them happy? Not I surely. Having said that, I do believe that a society needs a founding set of principles upon which to build, and a solid set of standards upon which to give direction.
The base argument for the homosexual community has been that their sexual preference is no one else’s business, especially the government’s. Who is the government to dictate who someone can marry and make a home with? Let me pose to you a similar question. Who is the government to dictate how many people someone can marry? Why does someone have to have only one wife because some Christian extremists say it is a sin to have more? If you think this argument sounds ludicrous, I will assert that so did gay marriage only 10 years ago.
How about the following scenario? A woman, let’s say a school teacher, falls in love with a younger student, say a 14 year old. This happened a couple of years back, with the teacher ultimately having two children by the young student, who she professed to love ardently. She was found guilty of child abuse and sent to prison. Who is the government to tell that young man who he could sleep with? The left is always espousing children’s rights. That is why a 13 year old can sneak off and have an abortion without telling mommy. How can we then tell a child that he or she cannot have sex with an adult? How can the government legislate this piece of morality? We are told that it doesn’t meet the standards of normal behavior, but whose definition of normal do we now follow?
It seems that once upon a time, common sense and morality dictated where the fence went up, but lately, the fence has been bulldozed under. Our standards are eroding, and the liberal left is succeeding in abolishing our morals under the guise of freedom of religion, which has turned out to be freedom from religion. We sometimes hear it referred to as the separation of church and state. Liberals have ranted about this idea so long now, the media treats it as if it were a precept enshrined in the founding documents of our country.
There is a foundation with members in high places called NAMBLA, an acronym for the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Its goal? To liberate boys as young as 12 years old from the constraints of the law so that they may openly and freely have sexual relations with grown men. Here is a quote from their site. “Pederasty is the main form that male homosexuality has acquired throughout Western civilization – and not only in the West! Pederasty is inseparable from the high points of Western culture – ancient Greece and the Renaissance.”
Then of course we have bestiality. The moral foundation of our country vehemently opposes this form of gratification. It is considered to be one of the sickest activities on the planet, but if some have their way, your children may in fact embrace the act. Again, we have to ask the same questions that the homosexuals have been asking of us. Who are we to say what is wrong and what is right? Who are we to impose our morality on anyone else? Why should everyone have to adhere to the teachings of the Bible? Right now we consider one who would engage in such acts as mentally ill. Sound familiar?
If you think I am going overboard, think hard. The arguments I present can be found in plain sight. All you have to do is look over the edge of decency. It’s right there, at the bottom of the slippery slope.