Christians such as those at Stuart Heights Baptist church favor diversity across the line of sex, whereas gays favor a sterile monoculture.
By David Tulis
The vote in Chattanooga in favor of gay partner benefits for city employees is sold to the city council and the public as an expression of diversity.
Accepting the gay lifestyle is accepting diversity. The point is that since most everybody is heterosexual, the gay lifestyle offers a lively and vital counterpoint to the established and dreary norm. Homosexuality is about individual self-expression that delightfully contradicts and countermands the norm of man and woman, husband and wife. In this sense the gay lobby has a point. Homosexuality drives home the claim in a postmodern era that we create our own realities, and are free to refashion ourselves well enough for a man to become a woman if he desires such a metamorphosis.
Dullness in their hearts
Overlooked is something much more fundamental. That the gay life ways and political ideology are about homogeneity, sameness, likeness and lack of variety. Homosexualism may be a revolt against heterosexuality. But within its structure it is monotony.
Consider what homosexual unions reject.
Imagine yourself, a man, standing face to face with a female, your wife. You’re a little taller than she, with your chin about touching the upper part of her forehead. She is like you, physically, in many ways. Lungs are more or less opposite. Knees. At bottom, the soles of her feet; your knees knock hers slightly. Then you get to the middle part —her hips, your hips, facing each the other. Belly buttons are pretty close.
Here, in the middle, everything is different. The plumbing is different. And she has breasts, you don’t. From this diversity, from this contradiction of bodies, if you will, rises desire. From it, stirring up from the back of the soul and the heart and bubbling to the surface, is the cunning of Eros, of playful goose Cupid, who eludes one’s plans, who slips desire away with the jangling of the telephone or the stirring of children in the hallway on the other side of the locked parental door, but who can take the cue; yes, tonight. Tonight. Cupid spars with the lover, who is tired from a long day on the job, but who, looking over to his mate standing before her mirror, is suddenly open, and taken by a single-mindedness of purpose in desire.
The homosexual theory proposes to replace amorous exploits of man and woman, of husband and wife, of form and matter, with man and man, man and husband, with form and form.
In the legal dictionaries, marriage’s powerful claim on diversity is stated slyly. “[M]arriage is the legal status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge each to the other and the community of duties legally incumbent on those whose associations founded on the distinction of sex.”
Your union with your wife is “founded the distinction of sex.” The gay reformulation of the sexual romp of man and wife lacks, shall we say, diversity. It is not the bringing together of two opposites. It plays not upon the contradiction of body, the contrast of the man and the woman about which poets write and painters dream.
If the homosexual party in Chattanooga brings about taxpayer-funded benefits for partners, the view that will have prevailed is that of monoculture, of the hybrid. If you use hybrid seed in your garden, you are guaranteed a lovely tomato or stalk of corn, but no useable seed for the next season. Hybrids are sterile. Homosexuals who defend the ordinance in Chattanooga have celebrated the sterility of homosexuality, stating for example how wonderful it is that there won’t be children who can be drafted into America’s foreign wars.
One shares with the gays an opposition to federal imperial wars. But sterility is not a virtue; sterility contains no future. One cannot build civilization if there are no children. If there are fewer families, the prospects for a kingdom are dim. If the gay argument were ever to have its way in Chattanooga, the city would be smaller and poorer, reliant on immigrants, on imports in the labor market.
The gay lifestyle supported by otherwise decent people such as Jerry Mitchell, a swing vote on the council, is fecundophobic. It despises fecundity, or fertility; belittles it; its view is that of the eunuch, which in ancient Israel could not hold office because he, having no children, had no stake in the future, and he could not be relied upon to judge rightly as he lacked a long-term perspective (Deut. 23:1).
Why ‘no’ vote called for
My interest in capital and economic growth impel fair-minded people, for the glory of God, to protest the city ordinance favoring homosexual unions. Here is a roundup up of several points of analyses we’ve explored the past fortnight.
— City government operates under authority of a charter, which restricts the range of legal novelty allowed it.
— The proposed ordinance creates a civil union, called a domestic partnership, which it has no authority to create. The benefit is a private benefit, not a public one.
— The state constitution, being for marriage, intends to block flank attacks by homosexuals (gay marriage) and attacks from underneath (domestic unions).
— As Christians have repeatedly pointed out, homosexuality is a perversion judged by God; homosexuality is “a crime against nature,” which the law books say is a euphemism for sodomy. In all 13 colonies buggery was a capital offense. But the federal high court in Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, says sodomy joins the galaxy of rights preserved by the constitutional protection of unenumerated rights. That ruling seemingly prohibited states from exercising their police rights to enforce public morality against sodomy.
— Granting spousal benefits to live-in partners (guy-guy, gal-gal, guy-gal) is an endorsement of a view holding marriage in low estate. Marriage is above all other intimate relationships, or it’s not. Jerry Mitchell, the most reluctant of those in the yes camp, should understand his vote enunciates this principle. He should be urged to change his mind. (Ask for him at city hall, 757-5198.)
Sources: “Marriage,” Tennessee Jurisprudence; Harrel v. Directions of Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs, 70 F.R.D 444 (E.D. Tenn., 1975.
See Dr. Edwin Vieira, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (San Antonio, Texas: Vision Forum Ministries, 2005), 325 pp.
