Why Gay Unions Are Not Marriages

WHY “GAY UNIONS” ARE NOT “GAY MARRIAGES”

My position on gays is: (1) they are entitled to the protection of our laws but (2) they are not entitled to change the definition of our institutions to suit their own needs. Since “marriage” is the contentious issue of the day, I begin with the question:

Q. What is the definition of marriage?

My answer is:

A. Marriage is a social union between a man and a woman that has as a common by-product, the propagation of the species. Put another way, marriages can and do produce the children that are necessary for the continuation of our society and indeed, our species.

Q. And why are gay unions not ‘marriages’?

A. Because gay unions are anti-social.

Q, And why are gay unions anti-social?

A. Because they have no such output and no such purpose. If we were all to invest in such unions, our society and our species would both terminate; hence, gay unions are anti-social.

This is the rule that applies: the judgement of a behavior is what would be the result of that behavior if it were adopted by all. If the result of such behavior is to be desired, the behavior is socially acceptable; if the result of that behavior is not to be desired, the behavior is socially unacceptable. Since the failure to produce children can never be an acceptable goal of society, any union that prohibits the desired goal is anti-social.

Note: The term “anti-social” as used herein is not used or intended to be used in a pejorative way but rather as a statement of the reality, to wit: what societal behavior benefits a society is social and what societal behavior harms or potentially harms a society is anti-social.

Gays engage in an “abnormal” practice. By that I mean a practice that is out of the norm, out of the ordinary, not in step with most of their contemporaries. Statistics show that 8% of us are gay while 92% of us are not. Hence, like it or not, a gay lifestyle is not the norm and is therefore very properly described as “abnormal”. (If gays object to the word “abnormal”, I will gladly substitute the word different. That works as well. a gay lifestyle is “different”.)

Just as English is spoken by most Americans and Christianity is the religion of choice for most Americans and July 4th and December 25th are holidays for most Americans - “marriage” for most Americans and to most Americans is the definition of the union between a male and a female which is the basis for family.
In America, minorities have their rights. But in America, majorities do too. I have begun to think that some of our citizens and some of our activist judges – in their zeal to protect minority rights – have forgotten that the majority also has its rights.


Now certainly I can understand the desire on the part of gay Americans to want to be seen as just another group of choice, in no way or manner different from any other but that is simply not the case. The fact is that gays are different. They practice an unusual lifestyle and they really can’t expect everyone else to close his eyes to the truth just so they can rationalize their own behavior. (If rationalization weren’t the case, they wouldn’t care what anyone else calls their unions since the legal rights of partners in gay unions are not in question here.)

Notwithstanding all this, “we” the majority, have rights too, among which is the right to determine the parameters and limits of our society. These majority rights can be seen on display regularly in Washington, DC. in the Congress of the United States. Every time a bill comes to the floor it is decided upon by vote and the majority vote normally wins. If your side gets the most votes, you win, if not you lose but in the end, whether you win or lose doesn’t matter because you still have to obey the new law which has come into effect by the vote of the majority.

That’s the way this nation – and all nations - function. It is the only way a nation can function. Most of the people have most of the say.

In the final analysis, what most of the people want is what most of the people get. So while the majority does not dictate, it generally does persevere.

When the vote was taken to declare America’s independence from England, you must know that not every individual state voted in favor – but the majority did and so the United States of America was born by a majority vote. Were the minority allowed to interfere with the will of the majority as is done so often today? No they were not. Had that been allowed there would be no United States of America.

It would be well for our judiciary to remember that and this: governments derive their power from the will of the governed. That would be the will of the majority of the governed not the minority.

Too often in America today, we see the tail being allowed to wag the dog and in the end that misfortune will destroy us. After all, it is majority rather than minority acquiescence that makes law and order possible. Without it, we would have anarchy.

The guiding axiom must be: while minorities have rights, majorities have greater rights. It is the only way a democracy can survive.

Joey

Obama's John Kerry Apology Tour

And did you see the picture of Obama and Chavez shaking hands? Was that a special kind of handshake between friends? Our President and Dictator-for-Life Hugo Chavez???? Oh yes, Obama is good for America alright. But which America? North or South? Last week, someone in this adminsitration said America will be better off when it's not so strong or powerful and can become more 'stable'. Yep, when those other countries have more to say than we do. And Americans smile as their hard-won heritage is being stolen from them. I thought Dopey was just a fictional character.

An open letter to the President of the United States:

“Dear Mr. President: It is not America that is arrogant; it is you who are arrogant. That has become increasingly obvious with each of your public appearances. It might nevertheless be a good idea for you to take a moment to review American and World History since you seem to be somewhat lacking in historical perspective. To assist you in this undertaking, l will take a moment here to review specific examples of world-power arrogance and together we can see how America shapes up. It might be illuminating.

England: The English Colonial Empire extended around the world and into North America for centuries. To say England was arrogant on the world scene would be a gross understatement. If arrogance is defined as acting without regard to the opinion of others, then the English may have invented arrogance. Even so, it was certainly not limited to England. Most European countries at one time or other have been arrogant ranging from the Greeks to the Roman Empire to the Ottomans. World powers usually do that, act without the permission of others.

France: France is another example of a country that has acted arrogantly in its past. Study the conduct of the French in North Africa and see whether their conduct would properly be classed as arrogant. I'd say it would be. (By the way they also sent their fleet half way around the world to assist the fledging United States of America because of their hatred of the British. (A good example of national arrogance even if it did benefit America.) And would it be superflous to point to Napolean Bonaparte as an example of extreme national arrogance? I think not.

Germany: This would be funny if the subject matter wasn't so serious. Germany started two world wars that resulted in the death of eighty million people. Were they sensitive to the feelings of other nations? Give me break. America left 350,000 dead soldiers on European soil, boys sent there to defend EUROPE – not America - from that arrogance. (By the way, no one objected when our troops landed in Europe to save those Europeans from a German dictator but they did object when we landed in Iraq to save the Iraqis from an Iraqi dictator. If the shoe fits –)

Spain: Has everyone forgotten the history of the Spanish in the Western Hemisphere? The Spanish Armada or the brutal colonization of the New World by Spain? Arrogance anyone?

Russia: Would you call it arrogant when a people’s government decides to kill tens of millions of their own citizens as well as millions of citizens of other countries in order to create communist states? Did they ask the permission of any other nations before they acted? Did they care what anyone else thought of their activities around the world? No, I don’t think so. They just did what they wanted to do and slaughtered whomever they wanted to slaughter.

China: Mao Tse Tung and Chou En-Lai killed many tens of millions of their own people to install communism and then invaded peaceful Tibet. In doing so, they ignored the complaints of all other nations. I call that arrogance personified.

Japan: How arrogant was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or their treatment of America prisoners of war in the South Seas? And what about their brutal, arrogant and vicious attacks on China before that? How much did they care about world opinion when they decided to act militarily against their neighbors? None at all.

Iraq: Would you call gassing 300,00 of your own people in order to establish and maintain a dictatorship, acting arrogantly? What about attacks on your neighbors and ignoring UN mandates? Would your call Hussein an arrogant dictator? will leave that one to you.

Who have I missed? Castro? Chavez’ Peron? How about Hannibal, Alexander and the Moors?

It would seem to me that arrogance is a staple of world superpowers and always has been. Why even recently, England sent warships half way around the world to fight the Argentines over Islands off the shore of Argentina. That seems to have been colonialism at its worst. You see, arrogance is acting without caring much for the opinion of others and by that definition, every one of these countries has acted arrogantly when it suited their purpose.

But you, Mr. President, never mentioned their histories. For some reason, all you could think to criticize was America. So tell me specifically sir, where and how America was so arrogant that you felt the need to apologize. As you do, keep in mind:

It was America that suffered on 9/11.
It was America that suffered from terrorist attacks that killed 250 of its Marines in Beirut.
It was America that was the victim when the US Cole was the target of terrorists.
It was America that was attacked in 1991 when the first WTC bombing occurred.

So Mr. President, it is obvious that we were provoked. So with that in mind, please point out where America was so arrogant and what did we gain from that behavior.

We went into Viet Nam but that was to aid the French who were there and stave off communist expansion as the French retreated (which they do so well). Did America have a national interest there? No, the French did. America went in to halt the takeover of South Vietnam by communist North Vietnam.

What about Korea? Was that an example of American arrogance? I think North Korea attacked South Korea and we entered the fray once again to halt the spread of a ruthless and despotic North Korean communist government. We had no other interest there and when we left, we took nothing with us. And what did we gain personally from that war? Nothing. What did we take away with us from that war. Nothing. Nothing that is except our wounded.

So exactly where was America arrogant? And who says so besides you? Is it your position that it's arrogant for a world power to act in its own self-interest and if so, what are we doing in Afghanistan and what are our troops doing around the world defending those who do not wish to defend themselves. Is that more American arrogance?

Perhaps, Mr. President, you should go back and re-read a bit of history before you rip America.

So that takes us to Iraq, your long personal whipping boy and Democratic Talking Point (until you got elected). As I look back on Iraq, I see a dictator vanquished and a country that has now held three consecutive free elections for the first time in its long history. Remember those nine million Iraqis who risked their lives to vote? Remember how proud they were? Remember how they held up their green fingers. We did that.

So Iraq now has freedom for the first time along with a freely elected government. Hopefully they can keep it but we gave it to them. We suffered and died giving them freedom. No one wanted to help so WE are arrogant???? Would this freedom have occurred had we listened to Europe?

America put up the blood and the money to depose the madman Saddam Hussein. And what did we get out of it? How did we personally gain from it? What did we take home from Iraq to compensate for our sacrifice?

Nothing, sir. And what do you see that was arrogant in that? Or do you mean we were arrogant because others - particularly in Europe - didn’t want to fight there and so we did it ourselves. Was that arrogant, Mr. President? Should we have left when Germany, France and Russia refused to help out? Is that what you think should have been done?

Are other countries now going to make policy decisions for America during your administration? Is that how you plan to run our great country? Didn’t John Kerry once say he would do that if elected, visit every country (including anti-American countries) to ask if they approved of some contemplated US move? Just to make sure it was okay with them? Isn't that what he said, Mr. President and is that where you got the idea?:

Now tell me, sir, which European power had done that in the past? When have they checked with us before taking actions they felt were in their own self-interest? If they did, I must have missed it.

Today we are in Afghanistan fighting another war and none of those European powers that wouldn't help Bush is going to help you either. Know why? Because you are arrogant, sir. Look in the mirror. You just added more American troops to Afghanistan and so far none of the countries you have apologized to, has offered to send troops to help out. Same as with Bush. Therefore, to use your own logic, you must be arrogant.

Your speeches were ridiculous and ill-considered. Personally, I don’t think you know much about world history and I don’t think you know what you are talking about and were it not for the utter stupidity of so many American voters, you would still be working as a community organizer. But sadly, you are not. You now are leading the greatest country in the world. But where you are leading her is the big question.

So we were arrogant in Iraq because Germany, France and Russia refused to come in and help us to depose Hussein? Why when everyone knows these three countries were in bed with the guy. They were the primary markets for his oil. They were participants in his food-for-oil scam. They traded with the Middle East entire region and it was that which motivated their disinterest. Or did you think their lack of involvement was based on principal or simple altruism? Don’t make me laugh. They were all busy serving their own self-interest. Would you call that arrogance, Mr President? I dame sure would.

Finally, Mr. President let me look at something you said once in a speech, something about despots and dictators. You said we don’t have to fight them, we can let them ‘rust out’ or ‘run out of time’, words to that effect. In other words you can wait them out rather than go in and root them out. Of course many would die in the waiting, but you seemed to think that was the way to handle them.

I suppose this would indeed be the non-arrogant approach. But would it work? Can you really get rid of dictators by waiting them out? Let’s check on a few.

Castro President for Life
Peron President for Life
Chavez President for Life
Duvalier President for Life (Papa Doc)
Duvalier President for Life (Baby Doc)
Chou En Lai President for Life
Mao Tse Tung President for Life
Stalin President for Life
Hitler President for Life (Killed)
Mussolini President for Life (Killed)

The list goes on and on. Dictators don’t quit any more than their powerless people remove them. That almost never happens. Either someone else comes in and removes them or they don’t get removed. Your comment was pacifist nonsense. You recommend the gutless approach which itself is very self-serving.

What arrogance means to Europeans is that we fought in Iraq when Germany, France and Russia would not. They were against our being in there but we went in anyway. That’s why we were arrogant. Because we did what we thought had to be done – just as they have done throughout history.

Keep in mind, Mr. President, these same countries were not against us coming to Europe and leaving 350,000 dead American kids on European soil to save their butts in two World Wars. Coming in and using our power to save them could have been seen by some as acting arrogantly, but it was not because they needed us. Definitions can be flexible depending upon circumstances – and politics.

Your comment to Europeans that we are an arrogant nation played into their bruised psyches and they ate it up. What you said and where your said it and to whom, acted to elevate them at our expense. For that you should be taken to task since you are President of the United States and not of Europe. More to the point, what you said was dead wrong. You have no pride in America and it’s obvious. Your view is that of a one-worlder and Americans better understand that before you do irrevocable harm to our country.

Tell me, sir, America fought in Europe twice, in Iraq, in Viet Nam, and in Korea all in this century. What did we take home with us? What did we personally gain from those battles? What plunder did we amass as the Russians did in World War II or England and France and Spain did in their heydays. What plunder did America take home with us for our sacrifices?

The answer is nothing. That’s what we took home. When you were in Harvard, did they bother to teach you American history at all??? Or wasn’t American history all that important to them?

In all those wars, America fought for someone else or for freedom for someone else. We were not protecting anything we had from someone who wanted to take it from us. They were not wars of conquest. We fought to make life better for others. We fought to save Europe and the world from Nazi domination. We fought to save the South Koreans from the communist North. We fought to save the South Vietnamese from the communist North.

What selfishness! What arrogance!

America took nothing home from their victories. Nor did we occupy lands or rob national treasures. We did none of the things most victors do to the vanquished.

Yes, we’re the bad guys Mr. Turncoat President Obama. We’re the arrogant ones all right; not the European leaders that refused to fight Dictator Hussein for political and economic reasons. Who could care less about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis he murdered or the young women he took off the streets and raped. They didn’t care. We cared enough to fight but they didn’t. And you call us arrogant?

According to you, MR. PRESIDENT, it was America that was arrogant, self-serving, and dictatorial. Well sir, you are lucky we have such a dishonest American press today otherwise you would be roasted on every front page in America. But you won't be because they are arrogant in their politics and diseased in their dishonesty. Integrity is no longer a part of American journalism so your little gaffe will be largely ignored. But not to worry, you will repeat it because you believe it and in that will lie your undoing.

America is the best country this world has ever seen. Not perfect but the best. Someone ought to have told you that before you decided to run for the Presidency.
It might have helped you preserve her.

Joey