A listener writes, regarding the Judge who overturned Prop 8: He saw a law that infringed on the rights of a minority group and ruled it unconstitutional. The majority can not take away the rights of a minority just because they don't like who or what they are.
Is that what happened? A majority of the voting population of a State simply saw something they didn't like and decided to outlaw it? No objective moral or social reasoning, just emotional reaction?
Constitutions exist to protect societies from being hijacked by virtually any person or group which decides to take it in another direction. The Framers of our Constitution did not see homosexuality as a good thing, nor even as a benign "alternative" life style.
Couched, as it is in biblical principle and philosophy, our Constitution protects us from morally destructive ideals and practices. It does not view selfish desire as an alternative to good order.
Homosexuality is not new. It's been around for millennia. It has never been identified with a morally superior culture. The cultures which embraced it eroded from within and vanished. Homosexuality has never been equated with 'good order.'
There is, as yet, no link of homosexual desire with DNA or with brain chemistry. Try as supporters might, they are left with the reality that homosexuality is a self-serving desire. A sexual desire that leaves those who practice it less stable, emotionally, less healthy, physically and less able to strengthen the society in which it exists.
When a small percentage of the population (3/5%) seek to drag the majority into moral and physical degradation, how is it that the majority has no right to protect itself? It seems to me that this is exactly what the majority should be doing.
The States that support homosexual unions have done so against the will of the majority, through legislative fiat. So, how is it that the minority has the right to take away the rights of the majority, simply because they don't like something?
Homosexuality kills! It is physically destructive, resulting in billions of dollars a year in health care costs -- to the majority.
Homosexuality destroys! It is morally and socially destructive to a society. It costs the society in terms of stability, attacking as it does, the family structure.
Homosexuality corrupts! Seen as normal, it is more likely to attract young people into the behavior, experimentally at first, but then like an addictive drug to the complete corruption of their moral fiber.
Homosexuality destroys 'good order.' A judge recently overturned the military's 'don't ask - don't tell' policy, paving the way to open homosexuality in the military. This, despite the opinion of Service Chiefs, all of which claim it will destroy good order and military effectiveness.
That otherwise intelligent human beings can't see the danger and destructiveness of this behavior, points to a moral degradation of our society. We are being conditioned to accept every human desire and behavior as 'normal.'
Do you think this will strengthen our culture? And, if it's not morally strong, do you think it can withstand a concentrated attack from a determined enemy?
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2000 mostly military personnel.
Islamic radicals attacked New York City, killing over 3000 civilians.
We conquered Japan in just over 4 years. With radical Islam, it's been 9 years and we're the bigots if we don't want them to erect a shrine to their treachery, a scant 300 yards from their greatest victory.
Other than fulfilling the sexual desire of those practicing it, homosexuality has no redeeming qualities. Let the 'parents' of this society stand up and tell the 'children' NO!
