Not Everyone is Free to Marry

With all the celebrating and parades and rainbows, it is still a fact that not everyone is free to marry the one he loves.

There is the Montana threesome who are filing now to legalize their polygamy. What about that guy who’s infatuated with his ten year-old neighbor? The kid might even return his affections if given a chance. They’re not free to marry. How about the daughter who’s planning to marry her long-lost dad? Or that Londoner who married her cats?

Do one or more of these scenarios make you uncomfortable? Well, perhaps we might ask, who are you to judge?

“Marriage is between two consenting adults,” you say.

Says who? The law? If you’re referring to American law, we were just made to understand with resounding emphasis by the Supreme Court of the land that laws in this nation no longer mean anything. The Tenth Amendment has been shredded. And if the majority doesn’t agree with it, too bad. This is no longer a republic.

“Don’t compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia. That is wrong,” you argue.
According to whom? What moral law dictates such a notion? That’s your opinion, and you’re being judgmental. Who are you to encroach upon someone’s happiness.

“Studies show that statutory sex is devastating, even if the minor is consenting. How heartless and disgusting can you be to suggest it?” you argue further.

Studies show children who grow up in a broken home (without a father and mother) are emotionally disadvantaged. To go a step further and deprive them of either a father or a mother on purpose is heartless. To twist their dilemma even more, they now have to suffer the added confusion of wondering who their “donor” was, observe confused gender roles, and very possibly be exposed to other sexual perversions which often accompany the lifestyle. Right now, several children raised by same-sex couples are now suing for what they endured and the harm done by this atmosphere. Why would you therefore be so heartless to affirm the adoption of an innocent child by a same-sex couple?

“Well, you can say that about heterosexual couples, too. Lots of their children have endured abuse and other bad conditions.”

Yes, but we’re talking percentages here, and we’re also talking about legalizing instability and emotional abuse, even celebrating it. Less than 2% of the population classifies themselves as homosexuals. A much tinier margin has had the opportunity to use children as guinea pigs to determine whether they can possibly turn out emotionally stable and well-adjusted after years of such living conditions. Already we are seeing an emerging group of children of gay parents so traumatized they are filing lawsuits, some even with the disclaimer that they love their two mothers, but that no other child should have to endure what they did.If you are uncomfortable with incest, pedophilia, a non-consensual dog being violated, or any other form of deviancy not only being accepted by society, but equated as marriage, I challenge you to rethink your values. Give it time. Incrementalism is all you need – an opportunity to slowly get used to the idea. Two generations ago, no one was talking about same-sex marriage. It was unthinkable.

The point is, every form of vileness and perversion is now fair game, legally speaking.

Tolerance, after all, is the most extreme form of self-righteousness. It is cultivated out of an underlying arrogance that says, “I get it. I’m not a bigot or a homophobe. I’m with the times, even ahead of the times.” But as Dostoevsky said, “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.”

Welcome to the new America.

Do you think it is possible that “progressives” are deteriorating, not progressing?