Dennis Prager has a good column discussing what will be, in his view, the ramifications of the California Supreme Court decision creating a new right out of thin air. One of the points he makes is that, in the future, to avoid charges of discrimination, homosexual relationships will have to be promoted equally with heterosexual relationships. Schools that once had books about boys and girls meeting and starting a family, will now have to have an equal number of books for little kids showing same sex couples meeting and starting families. That thinking will have to permeate every reference to marriage and relationships, and this trend will appear in every aspect of life.
While Prager doesn’t say it in his article, on his show yesterday, he mentioned that this inevitable trend (which will be legally mandated on discrimination grounds) will create a rather unexpected fall-out, one that I’d already figured out on my own: parents who have previously encouraged their children not to be discriminatory against gays will, when faced with a society that is required to promote homosexuality equally with hetereosexuality, begin preaching against homosexual behavior in the home.
Many of these parents will be like me: They will recognize that a small percentage of people are homosexual out of the box. However, they will also know that, as in ancient Greece where popular culture encouraged homosexual relationships for pleasure and heterosexual relationships solely for procreation, people in the great middle can have their sexuality manipulated.
Lastly, these parents will know that, while there are gays and lesbians live the same stolid (and solid) middle class life that I do (which is what I want for my children), a large number — especially men — enjoy the promiscuity that comes from (a) no worries about pregnancy and (b) dealing with sexual partners who match them testosterone for testosterone. Sadly, the evidence shows that, with this type of promiscuity, you also get rampant diseases and statistically increased substance abuse and domestic violence.
I actually don’t need studies to know about these problems. I grew up in the SF Bay Area and, until I switched from urban life to suburban domesticity, had many gay friends — and these were people whom I valued greatly and whose friendships I cherished. Nevertheless, even then I saw them going down a life trajectory antithetical to what I hoped for myself — one of unbridled, although often classy and beautiful, hedonism. And so many of them died of AIDS. It wasn’t AIDS they got at the dentist or from a blood transfusion or from one unlucky coupling. It was AIDS they got at the orgies they used to boast about attending. Only two men I know who were monogamous got AIDS and, in both cases, it was because their partners were incredibly promiscuous — something my friends knew about and tolerated.
Without passing any judgment on homosexuality itself, this is not the lifestyle I want for my children. Therefore, if the state is promoting homosexuality because it is required to do so, it’s my responsibility as a parent to push back, not because I don’t like gays, but because I fear the consequences of a lifestyle that has too many negative consequences for my children.Email This Post To A Friend
19 Responses to “A weird little potential backlash from the Calif. Sup. Ct. ruling”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.