Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Marriage Laws’

PennsylvaniaSealA column in the Philadelphia Daily News reports that the State of Pennsylvania, like nearly the rest of the United States, is taking a stand for marriage and children. According to recent polling, support for legal protections of the biological family in that state crosses race and religion, as a majority of Catholics, African Americans, seniors, and evangelicals stand in solidarity for natural marriage. 

Indeed, the Keystone State may be soon be joining states like California that have by democratic processes granted marriage constitutional protection as a unique contract between men and women only. Republican state Sen. John Eichelberger is reportedly introducing an amendment to the state constitution that would prevent a small panel of anti-democratic judges from imposing their same-sex marriage preferences upon the vast majority of citizens, as tragically occurred in Iowa last April.

The polling trends in Pennsylvania, while consistent with those across much of the United States, are driving some anti-marriage activists into a slanderous tizzy. “Clearly, Pennsylvania is among Alabama and Mississippi in terms of gay rights,” said Malcolm Lazin, who heads up a gay group in Philadelphia.

Dishing hateful spite on marriage supporters is standard rhetorical strategy for gay activists, and, in one form or another, the Philadelphia Daily News column labels Pennsylvania’s stand for families and children as a view of the uneducated, the aged, or the bigoted. 

Far from ignorance and bigotry, reason and common sense prove over and over that marriage is a unique contract among complementary sexes. The need for this long-range contract arises from the fact of biological fertility and the long-term project of raising families. If humans reproduced asexually, or if children were born as mature self-sustaining adults, the contract of marriage would never have come into existence. Contracts pertain to partnerships involving grave economic risk, and heterosexual sex, with its wildly reproductive orgasms, presents long-range economic risk to active heterosexual partners. In contrast, gay sex is infertile and does not produce the citizenry–and thus requires no social contract.

Sadly, gay activists are left with only name calling. But rhetorical bullying is not only a losing strategy, it’s a strategy of losers. It’s a train wreck when a fumbling debater proves desperate and resorts to ad homimen, bad logic, and venomous hatred.

So long as haters like Perez Hilton and Malcolm Lazin continue to disparage good Americans with whom they disagree, it is likely that the public will grow increasingly impatient with the gay marriage movement and its bitter spokespersons.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »