- Text smaller
- Text bigger
(Warning: My column may offend some readers.)
I read a headline similar to this the other day: “SCOTUS preparing to hear arguments for same-sex marriage.” A while before that, I’d read, “At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married” (Barack Hussein Obama, president of the United States).
I have a question for some of the “old flag-waving fogeys” (like me) out there (younger generations exempted). Could you have ever imagined, when you were in high school or college, the president of the United States of America coming out and publicly advocating men having sex with men, women having sex with women, and then the Supreme Court of the United States considering making that legal in the sight of man and God?
Oops, there I go again, acting like there is a real God who established rules and moral principles for human behavior. I somehow keep forgetting that this kind of old-fashioned thinking is restricted to fanatics who read (and believe) the Bible and hang out in buildings with belfries and spires on top.
As people are wont to remind me: Ben, this is the 21st century. People are open minded, sophisticated, modern, liberal, accepting of everyone’s rights and beliefs. All that old “thou shalt not” stuff is so yesterday. Didn’t you hear the president, in his second inaugural speech, say, “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law,” thus adding their struggle to the cherished litany of civil rights? Are you one of those old fogeys who support the Defense of Marriage Act? You know, the one that would deny federal benefits and tax breaks to married same-sex couples. Don’t you believe in equal rights and civil rights with “liberty and justice for all”? Don’t tell me you are going to try and force your old outmoded beliefs on today’s liberated folk.
I must confess, I am guilty of some of those charges. I guess I am hopelessly old fashioned.
And here I thought/think marriage was between one man and one woman, “gathered in the sight of God and this company and joined together … till death us do part.” I thought there were daddies and mommies, not two daddies and two mommies.
Silly me, I believed/believe the creation account contained in (can I still say it publicly?) the Bible. (I guess as long as it is not in a public school classroom.)
Yeah, I know, many reputable scientists and learned scholars say creation is a myth lacking demonstrable evidence. It has no scientific proof, like the theory of evolution. You know, where “something crawled, crept, or was washed up on shore and became something different that became something else that became us.”
So, in that case, I guess if you don’t stop to think about it, this modern state of affairs can make sense. Since we are first cousins to apes, monkeys, baboons and orangutans, we, instead of having the liberty to do whatever feels good, to do exactly as one pleases, subject only to our animalistic passions, desires, natures and instincts, have been subjected to something called morality.
Most modernists assert Western civilization labors under some “mythical” concepts that we have allowed to govern our behavior for centuries. It has established a culture and passed laws based upon a “mythical” system handed down to us from a bunch of loonies who believed a man (named Moses) went up onto a mountain and didn’t eat anything for 40 days and 40 nights, then came down with some rules and regulations designed to restrict our fun. You know, a bunch of liberty-limiting laws, mostly beginning with “Thou Shalt Not.” (Yeah, evolution makes a lot more sense. After all, 40 days without food …)
So, now that we have that settled, we can dispense with all that jazz he brought down about husbands, wives, fathers, mothers and children and revisit the whole of our societal structures.
For example, why do we have prisons? We have people wasting away behind bars because they cracked the code; you know, dissed the “shalt not” steal, kill, etc., bit. Well, since all those outdated values, those old fashioned notions of right and wrong, are essentially just a matter of opinion (which they obviously disagreed with – and people are free to disagree, right?), shouldn’t all prisoners subsequently be freed?
And hey, who can set limits on love? Since it’s OK for same-sex couples to get it on (excuse me, “fall in love”), then why not allow the North American Man/Boy Love Association to be front and center like the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation or LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender)? If a 30-year-old man “falls in love” with a 10-year old boy, can’t they get married? If not, why not? It’s a same-sex marriage, isn’t it? And how about a 53-year-old man marrying a six or seven-year-old girl? OK? If not, why not? Because you disagree with it? (They do it Muslim countries.)
And since “the morning after” pill is now available to girls of all ages without prescription, and abortions (oops, “choice”) are readily available, why should any mother be tied down by some kid? Now, since science is conflicted about when life actually begins, why not extend abortions to age two or three? Three months, three years – what’s the difference? It’s the same “fetus,” only bigger. Seems I recall a certain Sen. Obama from Illinois voting to allow abortion survivors to be killed, terminated, murdered, disposed of. (What is the correct terminology?)
Oh, and one more thing: Why discriminate against animal lovers? Why not let those who practice bestiality (sex with animals) also come out of the closet and wed? (Dogs have been left fortunes like other “loved ones.”) Instead of just Joe and George, or Mary and Madge, why not Frieda and Fido? (By the way, what do you call the male wife or a female husband in same-sex marriages?)
If I were a betting man, I would also bet some of you old prudes (like me) would also object to men who beat, kick or choke their (female) wives – unless, of course, you are a Muslim. Just because you, or some other old snobs (like me) disagree, why should that be allowed to interfere with the happiness of all the aforementioned pairings?
After all, who gets to say what is right or wrong? Absent absolutes (like biblical principles), aren’t right or wrong, good or evil, justice or injustice, morality and societal order all just a matter of opinion?
“Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.”