Making a Right

You've heard it. Your mom probably said it. "Two wrongs don't make a right." And you know it's true. Well, until now.

Now we're told that homosexual behavior -- which common morality, the nature of things, and the Bible all agreed was immoral -- and stripping away the definition that all of history and cultures have applied to the concept of "marriage" comprise two wrongs that make a right. You see, now the entire discussion on the subject of both homosexual behavior and marriage is predicated on the concept of "civil rights", not morality or accuracy. The Supreme Court has decided that marriage is not worth defending and that doing so violates the Bill of Rights, specifically, the Fifth Amendment. (Idly musing: How can we deprive someone of "property" they never had?)

We should have seen this coming. In the 20th century the concept of "homosexual behavior" was universally viewed as immoral, even in the age of the sexual revolution. It wasn't "normal". It wasn't "right". Even among its practitioners the language was "straight" and "queer". I mean, sexual relations between folks of opposite sex could proceed almost without restriction, but they were all still pretty sure that same-sex sexual relations were wrong. Trying to normalize those relations wasn't working very well, so the strategy changed.

Step 1: Argue that we're "born that way". This throws off the blanket of morality because obviously if you're "born that way", you can't help it and it must be good and moral. (Never mind that this is, first, patently illogical and, ultimately, a dangerous path to follow.)

Step 2: Having persuaded people without evidence or even argument that it is a birth condition, classify these people as a group, a "minority". (Seriously, look up "sexual minority" sometime.) Ah, see? Now you have a minority class of citizens who deserve, in a kind and benevolent society, the special protection of the government and the people. The underdog, you know? Whatever you do, do not bring up "sex" in this strategy. That's just too disturbing. Make it about a class of citizens who deserve their civil rights. People are just not very accepting of the mental picture of homosexual sex or the sexual norms of the homosexual community, so let's leave that out.

Step 3: With the proliferation of pornography as widely available and widely acceptable and the inculcation of society via the mainstream media with homosexual characters on popular movies and TV shows, now we can begin to eliminate the whole question of "that's nasty".

Step 4: Move religion out of the public arena. As in the "civil rights" concept, start with a legal approach ... you know, "separation of Church and State", that sort of nonsense. As the religious voices are moved farther out, portray them as farther "right" or, more importantly, farther "out there". Because, after all, we've moved them out there. Having shifted the societal view from moral to civil and warmed up the audience to the concept of "civil rights" rather than "what is right", we can now label dissenters as "homophobic", "haters", "anti-gay", that sort of thing. Epithets need not be accurate or even reasonable to be useful in casting a negative light on those who would retain that original question, "Is it right?"

Well, we're there, now. We're no longer asking "Is it right?" We largely affirm that the choice to engage in immoral behavior is morally good simply because of the unproven assumption that they're "born that way" and, therefore, have the "civil right" to choose immoral behavior and call it "good". Or, "It is morally acceptable, nay, commendable to pursue this sexual relationship based on the fact that I want to." The courts have decided that the second "wrong" -- radically redefining marriage to include something it never has for the purpose of eliminating the concept entirely -- is their right as well.

So ... what do you do when "rights" are wrong? And now that two wrongs do make a right -- a right to define marriage into oblivion based on one's own personal desires, to take something (marriage) from its original place and make it whatever you wish, a right to do as you please with the protection of the courts -- what else shall we rearrange in society? A recent car commercial said, "Progress isn't about where you've been, but where you're going." I don't think anyone is looking that direction, because our recent version of "progress" seems to be a rocket sled with a brick wall at the end. I hope you're prepared for radical paradigm shifts in a cultural worldview, because they're upon us now.