Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage - 3 of 3

Dennis Prager on Same-Sex Marriage Laws- 3 of 3 cinops be gone Memorial Day- Monday, May 26, 2008
(Continued) “Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger – if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.

Traditional Jews and Christians – i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture – will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it – a man and a woman.

Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed- and this the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists – the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance.

They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, “male” and “female” are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father – the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

And what will happen after divorce – which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.” All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price.

Anticipating reactions to this column – as to all defenses of man-woman marriage – that it or its author are “homophobic,” i.e., bigoted and unworthy of respectful rejoinder, it is important to reaffirm that nothing written here is implicitly, let alone explicitly, anti-gay. I take it as axiomatic, that a gay man or woman is created in God’s image and as precious as any other human being. And I readily acknowledge that it is unfair when an adult is not allowed to marry the love of his or her choice. But social policy cannot be made solely on the basis of eradicating all of life’s unfairness. Thus, we must love the gay person – and his and or her partner as well. But we must never change the definition of marriage. The price to society and succeeding generations will be too great.
That is why Californians must amend their state Constitution.”

Prager is a practicing Jewish American orthodox believer. Tomorrow, we will have Pat Buchanan’s article posted 5/23/08 on http://ww.humanevents.com
George H. Kubeck, Duplicate and or translate into Spanish or Vietnamese.