Past Show Favorites

Please update your Flash Player to view content.


Surrendering Reality - How Gay Activism Won

We are well on our way to codifying same sex relationships as superior to traditional Marriages.

Yes - Superior.

Gays demand not only to be equal, but to be held as a "protected class" based on their behavior.

The Supreme Court of the United States has become and open joke. The chances that they will act as Jurists applying law rather than social engineering master minds - is close to zero.

The question is: Where was this issue lost?

The objective truth and reality clearly fall on the side of the traditionalist. Yet the traditionalist finds himself overwhelmed by a tsunami of gay activism demanding not just equality - but heroic exaltation. Yes, if a professional male athlete publicly proclaims his practice of sexual gratification via another mans anus - he can expect a call from Barack Obama praising his heroic actions.

Objective reality suggests that having ones anus routinely penetrated by a male seeking to achieve orgasm - isn't the highest and best use of that orifice.

Yet, to suggest such a thing is now considered the height of bigotry. In liberal revisionist reality, a male anus, and a vagina are indistinguishable sexual organs - and don't you dare suggest otherwise. 

Even now, prior to anyone speaking in favor of "Religious Liberty," they must recite a preamble of sorts that declare "They are not opposed to Gays."

It is this writers belief that by ceding the fundamental argument of homosexuals - that is - that homosexual behavior is equal or preferred to heterosexual behavior - every succeeding argument is lost.  

Can we not state the obvious? 

-Society has a compelling interest in maintaining at least a replacement birth rate.

-Same sex relationships cannot produce offspring.

-Society has a compelling interest in promoting heterosexual relationships.

-Accordingly, society has a compelling interest in discouraging homosexual relationships.

Yes, despite the assertions of Federal Judiciary that it is only hatred and bigotry that deny those practicing same sex anal relations equal recognition under the law; there is actually sound basis in the morays and traditions of the past 6,000 years.

At the core of all major moral constructs, is the desire to propagate the species, and the recognition that we, as a species, have evolved to the point where our behavior is largely "learned" rather than "instinctive." That is, while we retain a primitive desire for sexual gratification, we don't have a "mating season" where instinct takes over and we engage in reproductive acts like deer, dogs, salmon, etc.  Rather, we are largely "taught" our sexual / reproductive practices.

(Side Bar - Yes, I know there are those that contend some men are "born" with the undeniable need to sexually gratify themselves via another mans anus. It's likely that such "born" characteristics exist. The existence of such in born traits are insignificant to the validity of the argument of creating public policy discouraging such behavior.)

For about 6,000 years, morality has taught human beings that sexual desires should be channeled toward productive acts. It is the same morality that discouraged masturbation. It was not that it was inherently evil or dangerous, simply that it was a misdirected application of sexual energy that could lead to no end - other than gratification itself. Similarly, it was taught that achieving sexual gratification via the orifices of people of the same sex could never produce off-spring and were likewise to be discouraged.

It may be argued that reproduction is not a desirable goal. Of course to do so would be to argue that extinction is desired - and perhaps by some it is.  But it cannot be argued that only heterosexual actions produce offspring, and there is a compelling reason to encourage that behavior. 

Accordingly, there is a compelling rationale behind public policy that discourages homosexual behavior. It is simply a fundamental objective reality that needs no apology. If the case for the objective truth - that public policy encouraging the fruitful coupling of the species is of benefit to society is clearly stated; then the basis for declining to participate in a homosexual coupling, or to sanction it as equal to a heterosexual coupling - is firmly grounded. 

Conversely; if one argues there is no objective difference between one male seeking sexual gratification via another male anus, and a male seeking gratification via a female; but adherence to an arcane religious moray dictates you act otherwise - ones argument is already lost.

As I'm afraid this one is least for now.