Ladies and gentlemen, in light of troubling recent events in two of South America’s largest democracies, I am here today to educate you on what is unequivocally the most pressing national security threat our great nation has ever faced.I am not talking about obesity or climate change or the war on terrorism.I’m talking, of course, about gay people. Specifically, I fear the so-called “Gay Agenda,” that insidious piece of demonic spawn that starts with same-sex marriage and ends with something frighteningly similar to equality.I should note that, as a male, I will concentrate today’s discourse on gays, but do not forget that lesbianism is just as damaging to our society.
As with most controversies, there is at least one erroneous argument that could possibly be construed to have at least an iota of merit.With health care, you couldarguethat people deserve high quality treatment because children slowly dying from debilitating diseases is unethical. With war, you could make the point that avoiding carnage and bloodshed is a good thing.Not so with gayness!No, in this argument there is one contention made by the anti-gay marriage coalition that is so beautiful in its simplicity, so damning in its eloquence, and so indestructible in its logic that any retort seems laughably juvenile.You see, when it comes to gay men:
Shocking, no? It’s important here to differentiate between not“liking”gay people and not letting gays “marry.”The era has come when calling homosexuals “abominations unto the Lord” is a slight faux pas, so allow me to make my feelings on the matter politically correct.Like most other bigots, I believe that gays deserve the respect and dignity afforded to every human being as their birthright.I just don’t want them to have the respect and dignity afforded to them bymarriage, along with the approximately 1,138 tangible benefits of matrimony such as shared Medicaid, joint employment assistance, consolidated financial options, hospital visitation rights and next-of-kin status in emergencies.Let me phrase it another way: Gays areequal, they’re just alsoseparate.
Essentially, this is the same struggle for an separate-but-equal doctrine that has existed for years.When formerAlabamagovernor George Wallace won his election on the slogan “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” he wasn’t saying he didn’t respect African Americans.He just didn’t want to drink out of the same water fountain as them. As any history textbook will tell you, government-sanctioned divisions in the basic rights of certain groups have had an illustrious and successful career.
Forget about the economic benefits that gay marriages (and divorces) would bring states.Forget about goodwill to your common man and the increasing segment of the population which supports gay marriage. Hell, you can even forget about the American Academy of Pediatrics’ study which found that sons and daughters raised in lesbian households perform better academically and socially than their counterparts in God-approved families.Simply put, the issue is the sanctity of the institution of marriage—not only from a religious perspective, but from a secular one, too.Whilepuremarriages, such as the holy union between Britney Spears and K-Fed, are still plastered across our society’s trashy magazines, gayness has alarmingly infiltrated our legal and societal mores.The traditions of marriage, developed throughout millennia of civilization, now rest on a knife’s edge.
The only way to stop this tide of tolerance is a cold-turkey reversion to the ultra-traditional marriage.Of course, no one can pinpoint the earliest marriage, but perhaps everyone can agree that the ancient Greeks, founders of democracy and inventors of Western philosophy, provide a suitable example of what a classic, traditional marriage looks like:
1)The husband should be in his mid-thirties and the wife in her early teens.
2)Married women should not be allowed to hold jobs or public office.
3)Economic considerations, such as dowry and inheritance, should take priority over personal affections.
4)Incest is of no consequence—in fact, if a father dies with no male heir, his daughter should marry her closest male relative in order to produce her father’s successor.
Oh, and of course: 5) Male homosexual marriages should be tolerated, and even celebrated.Same-sex marriages are reported throughout the Greek and Roman civilizations, and only in 342 AD, after Christianity had become the dominant religion of theRoman Empire, were same-sex marriages outlawed and homosexuals subsequently put to death.
The way I see it, this leaves our modern world with three options.
Our first choice involves regressing to truetraditional marriage, which condones and encourages pedophilia, sexism and, yes, homosexuality.
Our second option is to realize that if we as a society had never changed our opinions on anything, we would still be living in caves and hunting mammoths.This option, however, really doesn’t seem all that feasible. It requires understanding that “following tradition” is not an acceptable justification for the continuationortermination of any policy which affects those whose beliefs and values differ from your own.Instead, society should determine the boundaries of acceptable behavior based on the most appropriate facts and reasoning available.
Our third—and by far oureasiest—choice involves combating any differing viewpoint by sticking our thumbs in our ears and humming loudly.
America, the choice is yours.