GAY: Should appreciate roles
If necessity is the mother of invention then recession must be the father of reinvention, i.e., traditional marriage. State legislators must be bored with trying to assist their jobless and homeless, so they’ve given considerable audience to the social engineers hell bent on redefining holy matrimony, most recently in Washington state.
Shouldn’t this definition also include the marriage of a woman to a building as we also recently read in another Washington headline? Or the young men in the fast-food commercial waiting at the altar to wed his beloved bacon? If we are going to tamper with centuries-old foundational institutions, why limit their exclusivity?
If who we love or hate (marriage and divorce, gay or straight) are moral issues, and morality, which by contemporary default always seems to be reduced to the common denominator of relativism, then objectivity has been lost to ambiguity, now making anyone’s definition of right… right! Some may call this situational ethics or post-modernism. If this be the case, then I guess it was morally acceptable for Jerry Sandusky to do what he did to the boys in the shower; likewise Bernie Madoff and all that money.
How can the courts, without extreme prejudice, establish new legal precedent that haphazardly recognizes the whims of the exception (homosexuality) without denigrating the significance of the rule (heterosexuality), especially since the rule (heterosexuality) is absolute in its necessity, not only for the propagation of the species, but for the balance and stability of the human race?
It has been time-tested that children raised in a two-parent, male and female family unit in our democratic America are better adjusted academically, socially, financially and spiritually (no affront intended to single or divorced individuals). If heterosexuality was fortuitous in its inception, then these arbitrary redefinitions of this prized institution wouldn’t engender such a divisive resentment that has truly become the antithesis of community.
Folks get grumpy when someone toys with working absolutisms. Heterosexuals are not naive, just more complimentary of their gender opposites. And if by confidently embracing that better working model they seem intolerant then so be it. “Chic” surrogation is not disingenuous, just second rate. And contrary to gay remonstrations, the palliating of “alternative lifestyles and marriages” redefinition (does) devalue the consecrated grandeur of the original. The current administration also playing the detractor, now deeming it necessary to use $3 million U.S. taxpayer dollars for sensitivity training to aid receiving foreign countries to insure gays overseas are not discriminated against! Talk about shoving values down someone’s throat. That money would have put a lot of Idahoans to work.
Consequently, feelings do not determine gender anymore than wearing clothes of the opposite sex does. This state sanctioned affirmation of a class of people based on divergent lifestyle “choices” is not only a precarious can of legal worms, but would be unbecoming of the great state of Idaho. Californians do not move here by the droves because this “traditionalists” bastion is like their home state.
Did our founders really pen our sacred documents with sexual aberrance in mind? Leopards can’t change their spots, but we have free will. In life there are no unreroutable trains. However, if San Franciscans can choose their lifestyle, so can we! Esto Perpetua!
DAN COOPER
Post Falls