Since Massachusetts began allowing gay “marriages”, much debate has been brought up on the issue on both sides of the political spectrum. There are a few people who are all for gay couples to be allowed to marry, but I think that there are many more who are against it. Those who are against it, however aren’t, for the most part, making a very big deal of it, most likely because they fear being “politically incorrect”. Well, that isn’t the case with this article. As always you can count on me to give you my opinion without the unnecessary burden of political correctness.Now much of the anti-gay marriage debate talks about the religious point of view, and what the bible talks about has to say on the issue. That’s not the issue I wish to take up here. What I want to talk about is the effects of gay marriage on society, especially children.

For a while now, gay activists have been trying to corrupt young minds, by trying to make it socially acceptable to be gay. Their tactics seem to be very similar to the way Hitler infiltrated the German public through his “Hitler Youth” program. Both Hitler and gay activists realize that the younger generations are our future. If they can change the way they think, then it will be much easier to change social norms.

In schools across the country, there are programs promoting homosexuality, bisexuality and any other sexually deviant behavior that you can think of as being a socially acceptable behavior. Private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts have also been corrupted by homosexuals trying to become a part of the organization, even though the Scouts have guidelines strictly prohibiting them. Television shows, movies, and music videos can also be found with often times loveable and funny homosexuals. “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” is a show where straight men get a makeover from the “Fab Five”, a group of gay men who specialize in several areas like fashion and culture, to make the straight guys, well, gay. The show seems to suggest that it isn’t even acceptable to live a straight lifestyle. I can just imagine their next season, where they’ll have a 6th member of the group who will actually turn the straight guys into full out gay guys. Then there was the Madonna and Britney Spears kiss that got so much media attention, while almost none of it was negative. All of these efforts, are not just ways to entertain people, they’re ways of getting society as a whole to accept homosexual behavior as a norm. Whether they know it or not, these people are ruining the country’s morals.

Children who are raised in homosexual family environments, are shown that homosexual behavior is normal. They are further hurt, by not having the benefit of growing up in a heterosexual family environment. There are certain things that every child learns from their mother figure that they can’t (or typically don’t) learn from their father figure, and vice versa. The traditional heterosexual marital union, between a man and a woman serves several functions. First, it allows for procreation, something that homosexual unions cannot produce. They also serve the function of passing moral, religious, cultural and social norms of society to future generations. This cannot be effectively be done in homosexual unions because they falsify a social norm by teaching their adopted children that homosexual behavior is acceptable in our society. While it is acceptable with some, our society as a whole generally frowns upon the behavior.

The arguments made for allowing homosexual marriages often deal with the civil rights issue. They compare their cause to the civil rights movement that took place over 50 years ago. What they have to realize, however, is that their cause is not about a right that they have to get married. No one is taking that right away, because it never existed. The bottom line with this argument is that there is no civil right to two homosexuals to get married. Marriage, by definition is between a man and a woman. If you are to now say that it is automatically going to include unions between two men or two women, the very definition of the word “marriage” will be changed. It’s almost like saying that while the color of the sky is blue, the word used to describe the color of your grass is now going to also be “blue”. They are two totally separate colors, and therefore can’t be accurately described using the same word. The same holds true for unions between a man and a woman, or between 2 men or 2 women. The word to describe them can’t be the same, because they are simply two totally different things. It is true, however that the union of two homosexuals is an important symbolic event between the couple involved. But they can make any private commitment that they want. There are ways that they can jointly own property, or even name each other as beneficiaries on life insurance policies or their wills. Living wills can be drafted to ensure that if one of the partners becomes incapacitated, the other one will be able to make medical decisions on his or her behalf.

There has been talk in favor of a constitutional amendment, which would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I do not support this action, because as I said before, that definition is already defined as a union between a man and a woman. Again, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be like a constitutional amendment defining what the color of your lawn is. It is ridiculous to even think that we need to tarnish our constitution to define something that is as basic as marriage.

What this whole debate boils down to, is a small group of individuals who wish to change society’s perception of a sexually deviant behavior. Years ago, the courts ruled that sodomy could not be illegal, if done in the privacy of one’s own home, because it would otherwise intrude on the participant’s privacy. This makes me wonder, what’s next? Will a police officer accidentally discover an act of incest or pedophilia being preformed behind closed doors, and later have a judge determine that it is acceptable if it is done behind closed doors, in the privacy of one’s home? Or what if a group of 3 or 4 or more people decides that they want to get married? Or even if some lonely farmer falls in love with his goat and wants to marry it? If gay marriages become socially acceptable, I’m sure these types of unions aren’t too far down the road. Just think, 20 years ago, if someone said to you that in the year 2004, gay couples will legally be able to get married, you’d probably laugh in their face. I just fear what the future holds for younger generations.

• Where Should the Blame be Placed? I was watching a stand up comedian the other night...
• Are We Headed for a Welfare State? With the proposed programs in the Obama administration's budget, it...

• Gay Marriage: Part 3 See the guy on the left? His name is Senator...
• Google Hates Links Pages Many small business websites have a links page. Links pages...