Tag Archives: Supreme Court

The coming Day of Sobriety for gay activists

Drunk with power after the Supreme Court misruling on same-sex marriage, the gay activists have not reacted all that well. As one writer noted, they were mean. In addition, we watched in April as German homosexuals used pages of the Bible as toilet paper and were tossing their own excrement at Christians protesting a new sexual diversity curriculum . Social media filled up with those type of images and reminders of the hostile and deviant side of this movement. Usually support for the winning side increases after a Supreme Court ruling, but support for same-sex marriage has declined. The public has awakened to the nature of the activists and have recognized the coming assault on religion and free speech.

The Coming Sobriety

For a time there will be residual euphoria. Same-sex weddings will take place in droves. There are lots of decisions to make, guests to invite, gifts to wrap, and honeymoons to plan. Then the time after the “I dos” sets in and that is when the sobriety will begin to appear. Fantasy meets reality. They will wake up one day and look at their “spouse” and realize, “We’re still only around 2% of the overall population. We’re still viewed as sinners by most religions. We still can’t have children with each other. We’re still not really ‘accepted’. We’re still not normal. We’re still gay.” Then the angst returns.

A Fool’s Paradise

Some people have naively thought that “marriage” would somehow end the angst. Once the nation was forced to allow same-sex marriage, that would be the end of the internal unrest. It was a fool’s paradise. In the end, the angst is because they are homosexuals and out of step with mainstream society. The fundamental problem has not been acknowledged much less addressed. They are still a tiny minority of the population. They are still viewed as odd by the majority of people. All the social dynamics that were in place before are still in place and they are still the same people they were before. The paperwork and legal fiction of “marriage” did not solve anything.

One of my friends in the legal profession wrote a little note on Facebook that warned her homosexual friends that things had changed. Marriage was a different legal beast. There was no more “moving in and moving out” as they were accustomed to doing when they have spats. We will learn in the future how many homosexuals actually choose to marry. It may not be all that many since unstable relationship status is a hallmark of the homosexual community.

Unstable Relationships

That’s right. I said it. Homosexual relationships are unstable. By comparison to heterosexuals, they are a very promiscuous lot. They go through many more sexual partners on average than their heterosexual counterparts. Their marriages and relationships don’t last as long as those of heterosexuals. In fact, stable homosexual families are rare (see this for a brief recounting of some facts). Lesbian relationships only last on average about five years. This seems counter-intuitive as females are perceived to be family and relationship oriented but the reality is somewhat different. With two women comprising the household there is a higher dissatisfaction rate within the relationship than with a male/female relationship. Consequently, such arrangements do not last as long. Male homosexual relationships last longer but are rarely monogamous. They are almost always “open” marriages. That means that the two men have other sexual partners during the marriage in order to satisfy their sexual desires. Naturally, this leads to dozens or hundreds of partners over a lifetime for most males, lots of cheap sexual encounters, exposure to diseases, and a shortened lifespan.

Much of the above is a brief summary of data from The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon from the subsection The Dearth of Lifelong,Monogamous Homosexual Relationships (2001, pp. 452-460). While the data in that section is being replaced and updated with more recent and long-term studies, the general pattern is still clear: heterosexuals have fewer sex partners over a lifetime; have longer, more stable relationships, and have much, much higher levels of fidelity within the marriage.

One of the ways that homosexual marriages do damage to the institution of marriage is that they severely degrade it by their brevity and instability. Think about all the flack that marriage has taken with the erroneous myth that fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. That number is false to begin with, but by comparison to homosexual marriages it looks stellar!

Sexual Fluidity

Sexual fluidity is not something that homosexual advocates like to talk about or even acknowledge. I’ll quote from Dr. Gagnon’s book what is still the observed truth: homosexuality is not an immutable condition. People can and do change. Dr. Gagnon writes, “The evidence to date, however, points to considerable fluidity in a spectrum from heterosexual to homosexual. People who at one time or another experience homosexual impulses do so at different times of life, and for periods of different duration. Many exclusive homosexuals come to the ‘realization’ about their ‘true’ sexual identity relatively late in life. Many who identify themselves as exclusively homosexual early in life subsequently become predominantly or exclusively heterosexual later in life. None of this corresponds to a doctrine of biological determinism” (p. 418). In fact, over 90% of people who have had homosexual encounters have also had heterosexual encounters. For women the number approaches 95%. In fact, studies have shown that people can and do shift across the Kinsey spectrum of sexuality one, two, or even three times in some cases (Gagnon, pp. 419-20).

Fluidity indicates that sexuality is not a fixed, and immutable trait and it contributes to the relational instability. Additional factors argue that it is not a trait that is good, healthy, or worthy of societal support.

Mental Disorders

Homosexuals will still continue to have higher percentages of mental illness than heterosexuals. The open marriage lifestyle that gay men live is not mentally healthy. It is inherently unstable, dangerous, and cheap. The need for exogamous sexual partners is not the sign of a healthy, bonded relationship equivalent to heterosexual bonding.

The conscious fact that they are abnormal in society weighs on the mind. Even in the case of a same-sex marriage where children are involved, the simple fact of the matter is that the same-sex “parents” will be the minority at the average school “Family Night”. They are still square pegs trying to fit into a round hole.

There is also the rarely-discussed psychological reality that two same-sex people are not opposites psychologically and emotionally. There is no real complementarity to counterbalance the other person. At the most, you get either a highly feminized male or a highly masculinized female in terms of body style, clothing, mannerisms, and make-up. These are attempts at supplying what is lacking in the complementarity but they are not and cannot truly reach that goal.

Dare I say that the type of sexual activity necessary for a same-sex partner cannot be equated to true gender complementarity? The peculiarities involved in the types of so-called “intercourse” that homosexuals must engage in are not complementary. It is perhaps in this most intimate relationship that homosexuals inwardly realize their dissimilarity to the heterosexual world. Women must use artificial male substitute devices; men must penetrate parts of the body not designed for reproduction and not designed to take the abuse of rigorous sexual activity. There are no procreative options so the primary goal has to be turned to the gratification of the participants. Let it suffice to say that the cumulative weight of all this does damage to the mental health of the average homosexual.

A Hollow Victory

The victory is hollow. It was won with intellectually vacant ideology; it was won only by circumventing the democratic process (which was 32-2 against it); it was won only by illegal judicial activism in violation of the Constitution. So, it is a very shallow victory indeed. The day of “sobriety” is coming. The pain and suffering will continue and it will spread to others through family courts and religious persecution because at the heart of the matter is “sin”. Homosexual activists don’t like to be called “sinners” and that is what the Bible calls them. Legally married or not, they are still sinners.

God, injustice, and gay marriage

God Hates Injustice

One does not have to read very far into the Bible to understand that God hates injustice. Humanity is warned in the second chapter of the Bible not to eat from the forbidden fruit. Yet, in the very next chapter the fruit is eaten and God imposes His justice.

The prophets are quite emphatic about justice. It seems that the rich and powerful were corrupting justice (imagine that!). Merchants were using scales set to rob their clients. The poor, the widowed, and the orphaned were exploited and robbed.

 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.

Isaiah 10:1-2

It is from passages such as these that we know that God hates the Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage decision giving a veil of legality to the mockery that is homosexual “marriage”. This decision is in the category of “unjust laws” which Isaiah describes.

Against the Constitution

As the minority correctly noted, this decision had nothing to do with the Constitution. It was completely lawless. In fact, just two years prior the same court split the same way over the DOMA law (Defense of Marriage Act) where the majority argued that the Supreme Court had traditionally left almost everything about defining marriage up to the individual states. Had there been any consistency within the Court it would have dismissed this case as being unworthy of hearing on the grounds that the states have historically been left to define marriage on their own. In fact, 32 states had defined marriage on their own and decided it was between a man and woman. Two states recently had decided by vote to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. The process was at work.

This ruling is judicial activism at its worst (see Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon’s insightful comments). It usurps the democratic process put forth by the states and it usurps the development and passage of law through the congressional branch and the legislative branch. As such, it is” legislating from the bench” which is fundamentally unconstitutional. Such bad laws have been overlooked in the past, such as the Dred Scott decision. Abraham Lincoln acted as if it didn’t exist. The Supreme Court is only one-third of the government and yet in the 20th century it has been granted the imaginary power of supreme authority. It was not so in the beginning and never intended to be so by our Founders. This is simply an unconstitutional decision in abeyance of the law which was made for the purpose of pushing a social agenda.

Against History

In addition, there is no support for homosexual marriage in any country in all of human history prior to the late 20th century. It is one of the universal truths that marriage has always been between a heterosexual couple or in the case of polygamists between a heterosexual male or female and their heterosexual wives or husbands. In either event it was a coupling of heterosexuals together. Marriage was not created in the United States. It was not created by any government. It developed as an arrangement between parents for their children and was simply recognized by governments over time. The number of people and the age for marriage have been somewhat fluid across cultures but the fact that marriage was a heterosexual affair was never questioned. So to flout all of human history shows the arrogance of the majority and their complete divorce from the evidence of the universal worldwide precedence. .

Against Biology

Similarly, the Court proclaimed that there is no fundamental difference between males and females. A male or female marriage partner can be interchanged at will. The idea that anal or oral intercourse is the same as vaginal intercourse is bizarre. Only one has procreative powers. Only one provides gender complementarity. It is even more bizarre than Bruce Jenner claiming he has become female with a few nips and tucks, some makeup, and a new wardrobe. This decision is an abomination of the biology of the human body on par with a man claiming that he is a deciduous tree. In any sane world this would be considered crazy and its advocates certifiably insane. There is a basic biological component to marriage that has always existed. Couples married with the primary intent and expectation of raising a family and providing themselves as models for future generations. “I want a girl just like the girl that married dear old dad” is a line from a song but it expresses the way children learn from their parents and shape their expectations and goals for the future. Homosexuality is a dead-end street in this regard. There is no “next generation” without heterosexuality. Such “marriage” is removed from the possibility of naturally producing any children which means that legal benefits and selfish sexual lusts are the only reasons remaining to justify the marriage. So the Court decided, without any biological credibility, to proclaim a rural dead-end street the same thing as an urban super-highway.

Against Religions

Marriage has historically been valued across every major religion. Why? Because they have recognized that the family unit was crucial to sustaining society. This has been so widely agreed upon that we can call it a fundamental and universal religious tenet. The Judeo-Christian religions and their offshoots have held that it was the Divine will of God since creation for men and women to marry. Religions that recognized the New Testament as authoritative have even limited marriage to that of a single man and a single woman. It is upon this model that Western civilization has turned. To turn away from the sound advice of such broad religious history is ill-advised at best and diabolical at it worst. In fact, with this Court, it seems that diabolical is the best description because it contravened Western civilization’s fundamental religious doctrine that homosexuality should not be practiced, drew it up from the gutter, glorified it, and raised it to the same level as traditional marriage. When religious people across denominations and theisms agree that traditional marriage is a good and noble thing the Court should pay attention. But attention is the last thing in which this Court was interested. Had they paid attention to the religious community, to the biology, to the heterosexual nature of marriage, or to the Constitution they would have unanimously ruled to support traditional marriage. Instead, the majority decided to legalize perversion. It’s not marriage. It is a mockery at every level and the height of injustice.  “Woe to those who make unjust laws.”  God is not pleased.