Hat tip: 1389 Blog
From the Illinois Family Institute:
Gessen is on record as saying:
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
I once was a staunch advocate of gay rights, having both lived and worked with gays in the past and gotten along with them well enough. Even now, I believe that whatever consenting adults want to do behind closed doors is nobody's business except their own.
Be that as it may, attacks by radical gays on the nuclear family and their insistence that acceptance of homosexuality be taught at grade school levels—as in books like “Heather has Two Mommies”—has forced me to recalibrate my support for gay causes.
One conclusion that I have not seen drawn elsewhere is that there exists a fundamental hypocrisy with respect to radical gay hostility towards the nuclear family and heterosexuals in general. A simple fact:
Almost all gays are the product of heterosexual unions.
The only exception being homosexuals who are the result of artificial insemination and reared in gay households—and that number is infinitesimally small.
While there are gays with a live-and-let-live attitude, far too many of them remain silent in the face of such outrages as:
Lesbian couple seek hormone blockers and eventual sex-change for 11 year-old “son”.
Six year-old Coy Mathis being prepared for gender reassignment by his birth parents.
While the first instance is the most egregious, both cases should spark concern over prepubescent children being encouraged to make permanent and life-altering decisions or—far more disturbing—having those decisions made for them. Even the subtlest forms of coercion are unacceptable to the extent that both children in question should be placed in CPS (Child Protective Services) until they are of sufficient age (majority, perhaps) to think for themselves and make their own choices.
Sadly, in either case, the amount of damage that has already been done is probably irreversible. Yes, I use the word “damage” because there is no way in hell that either young child can remotely comprehend the consequences of the decision that they face. Compounding this is the deafening silence surrounding the issue of transgender remorse. Some statistics from the linked site:
According to studies in America and Holland, around one in 20 post-operative transsexuals changes his or her mind after surgery, and around one in ten never adjusts and often becomes deeply depressed.
The media is equally silent about transgender suicide rates.
One out of every 3 transgenders, even after undergoing a surgical gender change, will die from suicide. Gender surgery is no help in preventing or reducing transgender suicide deaths. More than 40% of transgenders will attempt suicide and 30% will not survive the attempts and die.
The gender change advocates do a lot of shouting about bullying and discrimination, but there is no sound evidence they want to prevent suicides. The transgender advocates gleefully focus all their resources on new laws for the protection and expansion of sexual freedoms. They apply no matching resources toward the prevention of suicide. Nor do they lobby the media to push for the treatment of depressive disorders, alcoholism and drug addiction in an effort to prevent transgender suicides.
After reviewing 40 years of research studies from around the world, we see that far too many transgenders are suffering from a wide range of depressive psychological disorders, driving 30% of them to commit suicide.
Once these alarming statistics are taken into account, there is a substantial case to be made for child endangerment with respect to custodial adults or birth parents who promote, advocate or otherwise encourage young children to pursue gender reassignment. Yet, as noted earlier, where is any outcry from the gay community over these serious issues of sex changes for children and transgender suicide rates?
In this—and it is certainly ironic to note—the gay community has much in common with Muslims. Neither group is particularly vocal about even the most egregious outrages that their radical factions precipitate. This silence is so consistent that it can only be construed as consent, if not deceit. Were either of these groups truly dedicated to becoming genuine mainstream participants in American culture they would feel a much stronger sense of obligation to censure or condemn those within their ranks who impede or make that assimilation impossible.
Especially strange is lack of voluble protest by the global gay community over Islam’s deadly antagonism towards homosexuals—regardless of how hypocritical that Muslim stance is rendered by such practices as bacha bazi (homosexual child exploitation). Reciprocally, neither do we see many Muslims taking an active role in objecting to such culturally corrosive issues, save when it furthers Islamic causes and not those of their Western host nations.
Beyond this, there is the further issue of gay activists using Saul Alinsky strategies to undermine and “redefine” traditional marriage. As it is, California’s own Proposition 8, banning gay marriage was overturned by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who is a homosexual.
Lawyers for supporters of the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, said the decision by Vaughn Walker, the former chief judge of Federal District Court in San Francisco, should be vacated. They maintain that he should have removed himself or disclosed his position on gay marriage in his own relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit from the verdict. [emphasis added]
While there is every appearance of judicial bias, this sort of case is almost a no-win situation because of how any judge, gay or heterosexual, can be accused of being prejudiced. It would require the ruling of a celibate eunuch to satisfy all parties and even that would probably be challenged.
This redefinition of marriage dovetails with so many other revisionist agendas that dot the landscape of Liberal politics to the point where it must be viewed as suspect. While certain previous traditions—like industrial child labor—should not be preserved, others are definitely worth conserving and that goes to the very heart of Conservatism itself. Liberals and gays seek to alter or uproot so many traditional aspects of established culture that there is no valid way of justifying such wholesale change.
As an example; when performing maintenance on a high vacuum system, only one component is changed at a time. After each exchange, the system is evacuated and tested for leak integrity before making any other repairs. If more than one alteration is made, it becomes increasingly difficult to identify the source of any leaks that may result.
It is the same with society in general. Complete upheaval of existing traditions rarely brings about productive change. Witness the French revolution and how its anarchy brought mass public executions that just as often were the settling of ancient feuds. In this, it is difficult not to view the wholesale changes advocated by many Liberals as anything but a similar settling of feuds and not an honest attempt at useful growth. It is this often-duplicitous agenda that has forced me to adopt a Conservative view and resist or dismiss much of what “progressive” elements advocate.
Someday soon, Liberals may find themselves lumped in with Muslims and Blacks in that they are making too many enemies too fast.
To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!