A writer who used to be against gay marriage is now for it.
While David Blankenhorn tries to maintain integrity in both his prior stance against the perversity of homosexuals changing the definition of marriage and his new compromise, a reading of his article boils down to: "Please like me", and "I don't hate gays".
Blankenhorn accepts things that simply aren't true. That there is eaqual dignity in "homosexual love" as there is with regular relationships. That's not true. Never has and never will be.
Also, that the basic attack against gay marriage boils down to "the children". While that is one part of it, there are more fundamental parts.
Blankenhorn reiterates problems with the institution of marriage, and then incredibly hopes that the group of people responsible for trying to killing it, will work with him to help save it?
The problem with marriage is complex with many interlocking circles:
1. society has defined women as equal in a legal and public sense, but on a personal level most women don't want equality they want special treatment. They want to be taken care of and protected. To this day, most women want to marry a man bigger than them; stronger than them; smarter than them; makes more money than them; AND THEN get equal treatment.
2. left wingers have been attacking the institution of marriage for years. No fault divorce laws, promoting individuality within marriage (bank accounts and personal property for instance), pop cultural references, and the general de-stigmazation of alternatives: divorce, out of wedlock births, shacking up, and yes gay and other deviant relationships.
3. economic progress has allowed single people the ability to live a much better life than was possible years ago; this dovetails with the social fabric that makes "the single life" acceptable. Years ago a normal 35 year old woman would not be alone proudly or prospering so easily.
4. the feminization of men. Our laws, our culture, social evolution, etc. has made it normal for men to be weak and passive. To not be is to be an out of control violent person. Of course there is plenty of middle ground, but the playing field is tilted way toward the weak. Men proudly doing femine activities with their daughters, and not being tough on their sons is just one example.
So it is ridiculous to ask the people who have been working for generations to change not only the definition of marriage to broaden it and reshape towards no relevant meaning, but also to attack the natural order of life in many other realms, to help change it back?!!!
The radical gay rights movement doesn't believe in marriage.
Gay marriage is a means to gain wider acceptance of homosexuals as being normal.
It's about further breaking down the old order of society by any means necessary.
It is about social anarchy in that "rules" in and of themselves are bad.
Blankenhorn were he trying to compromise should have stuck to his principles and offered ideas that those on the other side should accept if they were really interested in gay marriage.
While still opposing gay marriage ask:
where are the gay rights advocates who are against gay divorce? Who is for one man and one man for life? or One woman and One woman for life?
I assert they are all about their deviant urges for the moment with the notion they can move on at any time. They could shatter my argument.
where are the gay rights advocates who want equal rights that will define a higher level of commitment and stability as being better than an unstable situation for all involved?
While Blankenhorn does hint at this in terms of marriage being better for children, he does so as an afterthought, after he has surrended.
I have wondered what would be the right thing to do if there were honest homosexuals interested in
helping the world prosper, rather than promoting hedonism.
If we allow that my feelings or your feelings should rule the day, what about the next person's? Why can't they do what makes them happy? It doesn't stop until there's complete chaos and turmoil.
Look at what has happened to the nuclear family over the past 50 years. At the destruction in our daily lives. At the lack of family cohesion. At the celebration of deviancy.
You can't cut a unilateral deal with the fox who's been stealing the hens.