Skip to content

“Joy and Stability” for the Forlorn

March 15, 2013

These are the new catch-phrases for those promoting marriage between people of the same gender.  Well, the first two are. The third is an exercise in de-euphemizing.  Those first two words were recently intoned by the formerly conservative Senator from Ohio, Rob Portman, to justify his wholesale endorsement of sodomy-based marriage.  It wasn’t just a statement that he does not oppose such marriage but an endorsement that somehow two men calling themselves married will save the institution of marriage.

Here is his opening line in the editorial he penned shortly after making his announcement (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html): 

I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married. 

Thin gruel for a weak mind. Marriage is just a matter of two people committing to each other for life.  Two siblings are now candidates for marriage.  Two good friends too.  A mother and daughter have been married all this time and no one knew it!  In the Senator’s mind (or is it feelings?) marriage is whatever he says it is apparently. 

And of course, there is no particular magic to the number two.  The Senator has no compunction offering airy statistics to support his equally airy conclusion when he suggests that a declining divorce rate over the past 10 years is proof that homosexuals are better partners in “marriage.”  (How about other factors Senator such as the devastating economy or maybe even that people are finally realizing marriage is the original blessing between man and woman as a response to the insanity of those promoting homosexual marriage?)  Returning to the magic number 2 Senator, how about looking at actual history, where we see that polygamy has been practiced in various cultures at different times?  Given your well-intentioned definition of marriage how can you exclude 3 people from the “joy and stability” of marriage?  Pro-sodomy based marriage people like to ignore this argument and dismiss it as the slippery slope that no one is going to fall down, but you Senator claiming the mantle of conservatism how do you respond?   

Hot Air’s Allahpundit apparently agrees on some level with the Senator but does not give an explanation here:  http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/15/rob-portman-ive-changed-my-mind-and-support-gay-marriage-now/.  No conservative who cherishes the fundamentals of a healthy society can embrace sodomy-based marriage.  No conservative denies the fundamental reality of the complementary nature of man and woman and the unique roles each has in the upbringing of children.  But that truth does not stop this Senator from declaring the conservative high ground!

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.

So now conservatives must give up the notion that man is really different from woman, and father from mother!  Hear that CPAC?  Better conservative minds have now seen the utopia where man and man can lie down together and not be called an abomination but an expression of freedom and, indeed, a picture of married bliss.  Amazing that this idea has never been embraced anywhere at anytime, but our real conservative leaders such as the Senator, have come to the underlying truth to all conservative thought:  personal license.  Yes, the Senator used the word liberty, but it is no more or less than license, that is, liberty without any moral restraint. 

Euphemisms?  The corruption of the delightful word “gay” to include those who lead a life which is decidely not gay is only first in a string of euphemisms employed to justify the homosexual marriage movement.  An accurate word for those who enter into the life of the homosexual is forlorn for they have abandoned the truth of their bodies in the quest of sexual gratification.  That quest leads them to darkness, emptiness, disease and death.  Forlorn is perhaps too mild a word.    

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: