Hatin' on Society

By Justin Hart

October 12, 2008

Ericka Anderson started a dialogue yesterday about the American Family Association and their succesful boycott on McDonalds, entitled "Hatin' on McDonalds".  She took umbrange with the approach saying: "Its tough for me to justify spending time, money and energy trying to squash the message of a community of people that just wants to be accepted for who they are."

This shocked me a bit because Ericka is one of the most conservative people I know.  But its a common theme, especially here on C11, which boasts a good swath of younger bloggers in its ranks.  Let me say at the outset that I recognize that the next generation is growing more and more comfortable with the gay agenda.

Here's my take on why the AFA is right, why this fight is worth it and why it has nothing to do with "acceptance for who they are" and everything to do with society surviving.

First, the facts were that McDonalds had appointed a representative to the LFTB Chamber of Commerce, they also gave considerable monies to them and other gay-agenda organizations.  AFA was spot on to fight this type of endorsement and they won.  (Apparently, the customer base for Happy Meals won out. )

The problem we face with not caring about these deep and challenging moral issues is two-fold:

1) We telegraph to the next generation what is and isn't acceptable
2) We lather up the slippery slope, again. (see here)

I've spent much of my life in the theater and many of my friends are gay. While I disagree with their decisions in life I fully embrace them as friends. But I will do everything I can to keep their moral decisions from becoming legitimized in the public arena. Public morality and community values are the pillars of society, and we ignore them at our own peril. 

I have the same attitude for pre-marital sex.  I'm not interested in passing a law to ban pre-marital sex but I'm going to fight the elements of our society that try to influence that behavior and legitimize the practice.

Quick tangent: there are whole towns in Germany that have to revamp their sewer systems. Why? Because they were originally designed for a certain amount of people flushing toilets. What's the problem? There are no people to flush them. Or, at least, not enough of them.

What happened? Germany abandoned their traditional base of culture, opting instead for small families with little emphasis of morality. At least, that's my take. The same thing is happening all over Europe. Just ask Mark Steyn.  In Steyn's view, Europe is going out of business.  Culture, demography and backbone are the elements which matter here.

But lets go back to choices.

I believe that my homosexual friends do indeed have these genuine inclinations towards the same sex. But I also believe the same thing of my friends who suffer with alcoholism and pornography addiction. We are all born with challenges, temptations, inclinations, and desires and we have the choice to act on them or not. 

I'm not willing to give society a blank check to legitimize homosexuality any more than I would allow society to grow lax on alcoholism. 

Here's a scenario.

• Two men love each other and want to get married.  Any problems?  For me, yes.  I don't want that type of behavior sanctioned.
• One more variable;  One man is 60 the other is 30.  Any problems?  Not with the age difference.  That happens all the time among heterosexuals too of course.
• Last variable: The 60 year old is a father, the 30 year old is his son.  Any problems? 

Frankly, I don’t need to prove a downward slope. The left has done it for me. Take the justification of the New Jersey Supreme Court in their 2006 determination that the State can and should move closer to gay marriage. Indeed, in their minds, it’s just the natural next step.

Follow their downward leading logic in their own words:

• "New Jersey's courts and its Legislature have been at the forefront of combating sexual orientation discrimination and advancing equality of treatment toward gays and lesbians."
• "In 1992, through an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), New Jersey became the fifth state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ‘affectional or sexual orientation.’"
• "In making sexual orientation a protected category, the Legislature committed New Jersey to the goal of eradicating discrimination against gays and lesbians."
• "In 2004, the Legislature added ‘domestic partnership status’ to the categories protected by the LAD."
• "The Legislature, moreover, created the New Jersey Human Relations Council to promote educational programs aimed at reducing bias and bias-related acts, identifying sexual orientation as a protected category."
• "Legislature passed the Domestic Partnership Act, which confers certain benefits and rights on same-sex partners who enter into a partnership under the Act."
• "The Domestic Partnership Act has failed to bridge the inequality gap between committed same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples."
• "Significantly, the economic and financial inequities that are borne by same-sex domestic partners are also borne by their children."
• "Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."

“Cast in that light” has quickly become the verse, chorus and bridge for most every liberal libretto. Traditional marriage is bound to fall asunder when you cast it “in that light”. It’s high hypocrisy to claim that the Slipper Slope is a ruse and then utilize it to justify your endgame.

In short, culture matters and society will only survive as we uphold a culture that's amenable to survival.  Note, I'm not saying that gay marriage will lead to the downfall of America... but its one of the stones in the avalanche that causes serious damage.  (In truth, I think pornography is far more harmful).

But, of course, reasonable people can disagree.