Since the State of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages, there
have been several attempts to follow suit and even to expand the idea
in other jurisdictions. Court cases in other states have sought to
legalize the union of same-sex couples and some even of three persons,
two of which were of the same sex. The ancient definition of marriage
as being the union of two persons of opposite sex, united under the
law, to procreate and establish a family unit, is under severe attack
from many quarters. If this definition is changed, where will it stop?
Marriages of two persons of the same sex is only the first step; what
about three persons, or perhaps four or five?
The same-sex
marriage idea was brutally defeated here in the United States, in all
of eleven states where the question appeared on the ballot during the
election last November. This however, is not enough to defeat its
proponents. A phenomenon of our lifetimes has been the systematic
attack on our institutions and individual thinking.
Ever since
the Frankfurt Institute developed its doctrine of "Political
Correctness" in 1923, its adoption by the liberal academia, politicians
and mass media, have taught generations that their thinking has to
conform to certain rules; that their thinking and more to the point,
the expression of their thoughts, have to be "politically correct."
But, what about the expression of one's real thoughts? What about
individuality? What about the values that we hold sacred, as did our
parents and grandparents before us? Our major universities teach their
students not to express them, to conform to the accepted views, as
shaped by themselves, the liberal politicians and mass media.
Charlton Hesston beautifully expressed these thoughts in a speech he
gave before the law students at Harvard in 1999. He bluntly told them
that their grandparents would be ashamed if they could see what they
had become.
The dilemma even reached the formerly conservative Spain.
The Congress in Spain has just passed, in a vote of 186 in favor, 136
against and 6 abstentions, a reform of their civil code to permit
same-sex marriages. They merely changed the definition of marriage from
being between "a man and a woman" to being "between two persons" and in
a different instance, to being between "spouses."
Only the PP
(Partido Popular or "Popular Party") voted against it, in addition to
three delegates from Cataluņa. Luckily, the bill now goes to the
Senate, where the PP is a majority.
Where will this lead, in
Europe, America and elsewhere? God only knows! Many people who would
defend the definition of marriage as we know it, opt for silence, not
to provoke criticism and being branded as "gay bashers." The doctrine
of political correctness has already convinced many that it is better
to be silent or to tone down one's comments, rather than to provoke the
criticism of those poised to pounce at the slightest manifestation of
individuality.
To my way of thinking, it is not "gay bashing."
I have nothing against gays; have good friends who happen to be gay.
Still, while not condemning the gay person, I must defend the ancient,
traditional and holy definition of marriage, as being the base of our
society as we know it. Let's hope it stays the same forever.
But for that to happen, we need for each of you to raise your voice and
lift your pen to state your true feelings on the matter, regardless of
whether or not is "politically correct."
have been several attempts to follow suit and even to expand the idea
in other jurisdictions. Court cases in other states have sought to
legalize the union of same-sex couples and some even of three persons,
two of which were of the same sex. The ancient definition of marriage
as being the union of two persons of opposite sex, united under the
law, to procreate and establish a family unit, is under severe attack
from many quarters. If this definition is changed, where will it stop?
Marriages of two persons of the same sex is only the first step; what
about three persons, or perhaps four or five?
The same-sex
marriage idea was brutally defeated here in the United States, in all
of eleven states where the question appeared on the ballot during the
election last November. This however, is not enough to defeat its
proponents. A phenomenon of our lifetimes has been the systematic
attack on our institutions and individual thinking.
Ever since
the Frankfurt Institute developed its doctrine of "Political
Correctness" in 1923, its adoption by the liberal academia, politicians
and mass media, have taught generations that their thinking has to
conform to certain rules; that their thinking and more to the point,
the expression of their thoughts, have to be "politically correct."
But, what about the expression of one's real thoughts? What about
individuality? What about the values that we hold sacred, as did our
parents and grandparents before us? Our major universities teach their
students not to express them, to conform to the accepted views, as
shaped by themselves, the liberal politicians and mass media.
Charlton Hesston beautifully expressed these thoughts in a speech he
gave before the law students at Harvard in 1999. He bluntly told them
that their grandparents would be ashamed if they could see what they
had become.
The dilemma even reached the formerly conservative Spain.
The Congress in Spain has just passed, in a vote of 186 in favor, 136
against and 6 abstentions, a reform of their civil code to permit
same-sex marriages. They merely changed the definition of marriage from
being between "a man and a woman" to being "between two persons" and in
a different instance, to being between "spouses."
Only the PP
(Partido Popular or "Popular Party") voted against it, in addition to
three delegates from Cataluņa. Luckily, the bill now goes to the
Senate, where the PP is a majority.
Where will this lead, in
Europe, America and elsewhere? God only knows! Many people who would
defend the definition of marriage as we know it, opt for silence, not
to provoke criticism and being branded as "gay bashers." The doctrine
of political correctness has already convinced many that it is better
to be silent or to tone down one's comments, rather than to provoke the
criticism of those poised to pounce at the slightest manifestation of
individuality.
To my way of thinking, it is not "gay bashing."
I have nothing against gays; have good friends who happen to be gay.
Still, while not condemning the gay person, I must defend the ancient,
traditional and holy definition of marriage, as being the base of our
society as we know it. Let's hope it stays the same forever.
But for that to happen, we need for each of you to raise your voice and
lift your pen to state your true feelings on the matter, regardless of
whether or not is "politically correct."
|
Some of our content may be related to gambling.    |