Marriage Divide

April 16, 2009

Wow, can’t believe I’m trapping myself into this discussion. However, I’m being reminded that “I Stand 4” speaking on issues where “flat earth idolatry” is most conspicuous. So then, if I truly stand for what I confess then I must confess a stand! 

I have a saying which you may find interesting, however a fair warning! It is one of those true statements that possess a great deal of tension:  it’s that true!

“Often one finds contempt in their heart for another only to find the torment being that of your own conscience, staring at you in disgust!”

I believe that the great fuel that feeds the divisive fire of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) is largely a product of this very statement.  It is, to be sure, only made worse by a Political Organism that seeks to advantage itself by placing a stake in this claim. Doing so increases the efficiency of this Organism by augmentation whereby the frequency necessary to “overwhelm the system,” in its divide an conquer campaign, is further enhanced.

I should like to point out that despite the attestations of the proponents, this is not a conspicuous indication of a Free and Just Society, it is, however, to be blunt, only further proof of its dysfunction.

Due to the fact that the subject of SSM is only on the radar due to the concept of “Alternate Lifestyles” let me lay my cards on the table: 

  1. Yes it is true, I don’t agree with the concept of Alternate Lifestyles frankly, because I don’t understand it.  I’ve studied the various discussions, periodicals and medical commentaries and the tortured dialogue of HIV/AID’s victims and it breaks my heart to observe their pain and torment.  Still, I have an irreconcilable conflict in my mind and it revolves, primarily, on the issue of self-determination.
  2. That being said, because I cannot see a human being as anything other than a human being, I can no sooner see or define a person as having an identity other than that. I understand the intent that lies back of creating the distinction, not unlike, smokers, alcoholics, pedophiles, meth-addicts, hemophiliacs, face-jumpers, persons with disabilities, polygamists, attorneys and so on. I can see no meritorious reasons for refining the premise to accommodate this specified ambition. To do so not only requires a complete reformation of thought, it summarily lays to waste clinical reality of the human species.
  3. Yes, I have many friends who are in same sex relationships however our friendships are not based on their orientation, they are based on the value of the Individual and I hold them dearly. We have many rigorous conversations of all types, our discussions are no more about my heterosexuality any more than they are discussions relating to their own preferences. It should be interesting to note that on the foundation of “self-determination”, i.e., the principal that our actions are always preceded by the option of choice, and understanding that these are “sharp” individuals, they will quickly disengage from the discussion.  So long as the associate consequences of our choice are confined to our corporal form, none should be the subject of judgment or of Government sanction.
  4. I am of the opinion that the SSM issue is not an issue of emancipation at all but rather one of defiance. A statement of conquest, not a function of virtue.  A proclamation of convenient and inchoate doctrine, not one of forthright and considerate rational thought.
  5. Final point.  As is the case with most humans, excluding those with congenital birth related issues, we accumulate, likely, a near infinite number of sensory registrations that are stored in the ether of conscious and sub-conscious thought. The result of this being that we are, supremely, “meaning making machines”.  We are in constant search for remedial restitution and positioning of thought which seek residency with identifiers we choose or with those which appear to explain or mediate a specific thought (like attracts like).  More and more I’ve come to believe that we confuse “thoughts floating freely” (impulse) with the ability to freely express thought through action. As I said, we are “meaning making machines” which includes the possible outcome associated with the fact that we are also free to make meanings mean whatever we want them to mean and craft the means to do so.  Thus, another version of my self-coined phrase, “flat earth idolatry”.

Now that we’ve set all this aside and erased any suppositions of bias, let us move to more engaging dialogue.

To be fair to reason and good form, let’s break the SSM argument down, at least initially, to one that has the most conspicuous common denominator, i.e., anthropological in nature, so as to void any specious matter. So from the argument of organic origins, those which are clearly defined as either male or female, let us consider a few historical biases that are often used as part of the SSM argument.  I will phrase these as a refined conclusion versus a query in order to accelerate the point.

For example, women were not kept from exercising the right to voting because they chose to be women any more than individuals chose to be of African origins or descent so they  might be enslaved. (This is often the initial approach the goal of which is to define sexual orientation and preference as a “racial group or sex”.  Yes, I agree, I’m not clear on the premise either.)

No, these are each prohibitions that existed specifically related to anthropological origins and not prohibitions of choice or as we might say, not those from or whose origins reside in or from a life choice (as stated in the previous paragraph). To that end, it can only be in or about the frame work of anthropological or ontological reference that a Constitutional remedy, on the grounds of any inalienable right, can be adjudicated on the grounds of relevance or “standing” before the Court as an extension of its jurisdiction.

To merge the supervenient argument on the grounds of discrimination, which results from ones discriminate or indiscriminant choice, is not at all the equal to the foundation of the arguments assertion. This (argument) being that a constitutionally protected inalienable right is being violated, i.e., on the grounds of sex or race.

If the Court is to provide “standing”, on Constitutional grounds, how is possible to reconcile the disparate premise? On what basis do we make the leap from this inanimate extension of though and bring to life or animate the notion that indulgence of impulse constitutes a relevant foundation or relationship to the Ideals of Freedom as expressed in the founding documents? Further, without any additional breach of sound reasoning, how then do we equate the principals of Due Process and Equal Protection to an inanimate notion existing only as a function of choice?  It boggles the mind! Is there no dissonance emanating form the process which attempts to draw a parallel with freedom to have indulgence of impulse and expecting that to be a protected Liberty despite the consequence this integrity-breach constitutes? What act of any human, as an expression of choice, would then not covet the same protection?

The test, perhaps, should rest on both Constitutional Jurisdiction/Standing and then upon the merits of aggregate enhancement, i.e., is the claim an expression of an inalienable right such that its inclusion (protection) further perfects the universal application of these very same inalienable rights. Is the claim universally self-propagating/self-fulfilling? If found to be none other than indulgent in nature or as what may only be an expression of what one may be at liberty to do but which may not be equal to a right as an expression of Freedom and Freedom to do, then the breach of reasoning is unrecoverable.

I would accept the argument that could possibly be tendered that this same “test” could be applied to “heterosexual” marriage and I would agree save for one critical point: the bound is a well documented sanctum where the procreative function may gestate.  To suggest that SSM can equal this function is, once again, to rest the argument on a false premise of “equal to”.

So there you have it, on various levels and filtered through my own personal process, the perspective of my thinking.

In the end, if for no other reason than on dominant Constitutional Grounds, let the Will of the People and not the Mob, prevail!  After all, it is as it should be!

Redefining principal may be one preference, yet truth will forever remain unchanged!  That’s just the way it is!

Curtis C. Greco, Founder

This entry was posted in On Point, Poli-Philos, Stand 4 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *