I stand here with the shield of faith that the humblest citizen of all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error.
I am here to defend the idea of 'normality' in the moral realm. As John Stuart Mill once said,
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple
principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the deal-
ings of society with the individual in the way of
compulsion and control, whether the means used
be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or
the moral coercion of public opinion. This Principle
is, that the sole end for which mankind are
warranted, individually or collectively in interfer-
ing with the liberty of action of any of their num-
ber, is self-protection. That the only purpose for
which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will,
is to prevent harm to others.(on Liberty)
Mill further points out a most crucial issue in this debate.
One more important argument is:
Keep in mind... Mill is arguing from a Utilitarian perspective. He does not hold to any absolute truth or revelation. But the point I am seeking to draw out, is that even from a Utilitarian view, "some rules" must be imposed by law, and if unsuitable for legal imposition...then by social pressure.. ie.. public opinion.
It is this area that I am going to focus on here. "Social Pressure"..and how it can and is being manipulated by certain pressures. One of the key elements of 'propaganda' is that most opinion is formed from suggestion rather than argument. A simple example.. A company ran two advertisements for the same product. One advert
a) listed the fine qualities of the product.. a Watch.... "it's finish...it's workmanship... it's endurance.. it's accuracy, the excellent materials used to make it."
b) The other advert simply said "A Watch to be proud of"..
The second advert was twice as successful as the first. Why? Because our minds processed the 'proud of' part as referring to i) The qualities of the product and ii) Our own self interest and satisfaction of having it.
Now..in the current social debate about "Marriage Equality" for homosexuals and lesbians, how many times have you heard this.. "Countries A, B, C have all approved gay marriage".. and "How long will Australia be left behind?" Such approaches say nothing about the medical problems associated with same sex intercourse (such as reduced life span and high risk of Anal Cancer).. they are aimed at using 'suggestion' to persuade. They are saying.. "You will be left out.. marginalized, ostracized, regarded as a dufus a dudd or a dingbat if you don't overtly approve and support this change"..
So, I am arguing for a stronger sense of morality.. as per Mills point about 'finding that limit' is essential.
IF WE FAIL TO FIND THE RIGHT LIMIT? This is the downside of the argument from irrational suggestion based approach being promoted by the homosexual and 'progressive' political parties.
If we move from our current position of prohibiting homosexual marriage.. the "line" has been moved, and by what? By political pressure and social agitation and subliminal suggestion which is the moral equivalent of 'canned laughter' used in comedy sit coms...
Obviously to the thinking person.. if such methods can (and are) be effectively used to re-shape society on this issue.. what is to stop other segments of the community from doing the same thing, using the same methods and for the same reasons... advancing their own sexual or (im)moral agenda?
To answer in a word.. *nothing*. There is nothing to stop them. The change for gay marriage will be used as leverage and an argument point by such groups. "How can you be fair if you allow group X to have their way, but not us?"
This the beginning of a very slippery slope that progressive interests so enjoy to deride and mock. But it is entirely rational and must be faced. Bi sexual 'couples' (as in a triplet) .. all manner of 'family' type which are as numerous as the capacity of your imagination to conjure up.. will all be clamouring for legal protection and social recognition. It would not only be the end of society as we know it, it would be the irreversible spiral of degeneracy that no social order has ever survived since time immemorial.
THE LIMIT FOUND. Clearly, given the importance of this matter for society's health and very survival, we must find the bravery and spirit to lay down firm rules that will never satisfy everyone. "We" is the voice of the 'will of the people'... a voice that seems be speaking with forked tongue of late, if the Media and sociala activists are to be believed. One fork is speaking louder than the other.
But I can affirm and assert the only enduring limit.. that is that "marriage" is and must forever be, between a man and a woman or a male and a female.. as per the clear law of nature.
This reality cannot be refuted by either science or sound argument. It is only objected to by deviant sexual proclivity. If such people were only interested in their own situation, we might accomodate them to the degree of tolerated nuisance. But because they are relentlessly intent on foisting their morality on all, and seeking to alter the opinions of the masses, even their way of thinking.. I suggest the masses need to wake up and realize who is messing with them/us and why!
Let it be clearly known to such degenerate interests.. that if our tolerance of your vociferousness thus far is only met with ever growing demands and space.. do not be surprised if the day comes when you are treated with the very contempt you are aiming at us and, that you clearly deserve by a renewed social order that has determined the limits spoken of by Mill as being "Thus and so".