Final Outpost

In Isaac Asimov’s popular Foundation Trilogy he wrote on several occasions “Violence is the final outpost of the incompetent”. I may take some poetic license and modify this to say “Name-calling is the final outpost of the incompetent” which seems to be the current journalistic attitude when someone makes a disagreeable statement. Most recently I have been infuriated by the furor over Miss California’s statement that “Not to offend others that may feel differently, I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman”. Imagine making such an outrageous and divisive statement in this country. One would think there were some sort of right to free speech. I do not mind people disagreeing with her opinion. I highly mind people disrespecting her without engaging her stated opinion. All I’ve heard from the news, blogs and papers is ‘how dumb she is’. I am reminded of a YouTube video of a song entitled “Bush was right”. The song detailed many specific accomplishments of the Bush administration. When I looked at it, it had over 500 comments. I skimmed through the first 100 or so which were just vitriolic attacks on the band and how ‘stupid’ they were – and those were the intelligent replies. Most started and ended with many expletives, but what was never addressed in any comment I saw were the specifics of the song. Here’s a number of points which seem to indicate Bush made some good decisions.   Now you may disagree, and I wish someone would have and pointed some fact out that was incorrect, or have given a second opinion about why this particular item was a mistake by Bush. But none of that occurred just name-calling. Similarly with Miss California, newscaster 1 “Boy is she dumb. Telling (whoever the judge was) that marriage should be between a man and a woman…yuck yuck yuck” Newscaster 2 “Yeah marriage should be between a man and a woman and her silicon…yuck yuck yuck” Newcaster 1 “Yeah she’s so stupid”. Now what Miss California’s IQ is I can not guess from her statement. I’m not a fan of beauty pageants and so had not seen her or any of the other responses but let’s just assume she is an American and entitled to an opinion, especially since she was specifically asked her opinion. Answering that marriage should be between a man and a woman does not seem like an outrageous opinion. If one is Jewish, Christian or Islamic one must be opposed to homosexuality. It is clearly condemned in the Bible and the Koran. I know there seems to be some misquided people calling themselves gay Christians but this is contradictory. Much like saying I’m a murdering Christian or an Adulterous Christian or a lying Christian. One could say I am Christian but am fighting my urge to Murder, cheat on my wife, lie, steal, or have a homosexual relationship. Christians are not perfect and give in to temptation often but it is foolhardy to pretend that sin is not sin and that God is okay with that. If you are homosexual and a Christian that doesn’t make homosexuality okay because you are drawn to it. Everyone is drawn to sin that’s why it’s called temptation. It requires will to fight temptation. If you are homosexual you are being called to a life of chastity and you should explore why God is calling you to that. But point one marriage between a man and a woman has been decreed by God – if you are a believer the statement can not be considered dumb without risk of offending the Almighty.

            Another point of view would be to observe Natural Law. Clearly marriage between a man and a woman fits perfectly within natural law whereas same-sex marriage clearly does not. Most obviously the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is a barren relationship. There can be no children from such a union. Therefore natural law would argue against this. Also there is a natural union between all things male and female. Male/male or female/female is clearly unnatural. If there is any question pick up some male/female jacks at the audio store and see how naturally you can create a good, positive union. Now try two male or two female jacks…Oh well…I’m not advocating hate crimes or osterizing  homosexuals. I have homosexual friends and would not want to have them harassed in any way. This is a free and an understanding country but that has to flow in both directions.

            Finally we have the onerous weight of all recorded history certifying marriage between a man and a woman. We can certainly mess with this principle but we should proceed with extreme caution.  This is an institution that has been around since the beginning of time itself. We counteract it with great peril. We should approach it, if we decide to at all, with great fear and trembling.

            So on Miss California’s side is religion, natural law and history. I have yet to hear from all her detractors. I agree there is a lot of stupidity that has come out over her statement. Whether she is dumb or not I couldn’t say but clearly her opinion in this matter is not dumb. If heterosexuality is dumb can some of the news commentators please explain why? And they might want to explain how they came to be while they’re at it. Next if same sex marriage is so intelligent can some please explain why? It is one thing to call someone dumb and then prove why but merely calling someone dumb doesn’t make it so. I have yet to hear a cohesive argument for same-sex marriage that explains the ‘common good’ we should expect. I understand from a homosexual standpoint that one might like to marry. Perhaps I as a man would like to experience being pregnant. Perhaps I’d like to be a billionaire. Perhaps I’d like to murder someone or rape someone.  That doesn’t mean I can or should be allowed to do any of these things (assuming it were possible). There is a strange wave of compassion that has come over this country that seems to believe no one should ever be unhappy and that everyone should get whatever they want. Life is not that way. If same sex marriage is a good idea, it should be good for everyone not just select people. One might argue – how is heterosexual marriage good for homosexuals? My answer is so simple it is likely to evoke a smile but simply put homosexuals owe their very life to heterosexuality. How’s that for a benefit?