The War Room

DOSSIER # 6 PART 1: THE ORIGIN OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Without any doubt, this has been and will continue to be the most contentious legislation we have ever encountered in my lifetime. Those in power who support Bill C-38 have declared the debate is over and have refused to address any of the concerns of those who oppose it

They have continually belittled and mocked their opponents, called them ‘bigots’ and ‘un-Canadian’ and in some cases (see Michael Coren’s column from a few weeks ago) threatened them with their lives. Of the bloggers we’ve read, Canadianna’s Place (http://canadianna.blogspot.com/) has easily done the best at describing the complexities of this issue. Journalistically, no one has done a better job than Michael Coren, the best journalist working in Canada today. We will address this issue from a point of view that has not yet been addressed: the philosophical origin of same-sex marriage. This topic is too large to address in one post, so over the next short while, we will deal exclusively with it. Assuming the bill passes we will then address the consequences, both short and long-term of Bill C-38.

The War Room is unabashedly against Bill C-38. Any conservative/libertarian who supports Bill C-38 clearly does not understand the content of the bill, its ramifications, what it seeks or most importantly, its origins.

I have been concerned with the content of this legislation for well over a decade and Jean Chrétien’s initial opposition to it was one of the few things I respected him for. The same-sex marriage debate is not one that has just started 2 years ago. The first case for it began in the late seventies during the rise and proliferation of the caucasian radical feminist movement that sought to eradicate gender roles. Eventually led by such radical feminists as Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, the new feminist movement sought not just equality between the genders with respect to payment or respect, but instead it sought to declare no less than that there were no differences at all between the genders and that the very institution of marriage itself was a form of slavery akin to what the first African slaves endured over a century ago. MacKinnon also asserts in her writings that any form of heterosexual sex is a form of ‘rape’ even if it is consensual as the very act of the man entering the woman’s body is a form of direct violation that a human being could never willfully consent to. Both of these views are offensive and insulting, the first being indeed flat out racist, but we must deal with the truth.

Radical feminists believe that marriage is a form of patriarchal oppression that was conspired by a Judeo-Christian culture that was formed expressly to oppress women. This is what I was taught for years at Queen’s University and reflects the beliefs of most university graduates from the last 15 years.

How does this beget same-sex marriage?

The logic of these feminists (i.e. NOW) is that if they can convince the public and the broader culture that marriage is about nothing but property rights and has absolutely nothing to do with gender, children, family or complimentary roles between men and women…

if they can say that a gay or a lesbian couple can rear a child as much or better than a man and woman…

if they can make biological pregnancy in women irrelevant by replacing it culturally with scientific pregnancy…

then they can achieve their goal and eradicate the differences in genders and thus teach future generations of children pan-sexuality.

That sexual pleasure can be attained through any other living being and that gender differences are irrelevant. That all gender is a mere construct (i.e. nature vs. nurture) of an oppressive patriarchal Judeo-Christian culture and that the human beings true nature is to be attracted to the sex act itself. What gender this originates from is irrelevant and so too any act of sexuality that results in an organic human pregnancy is incidental. The logical conclusion of this is that human life itself becomes incidental to the sex-act. This is irrelevant to them though. The goal is the eradication of genders. Hence if society could be convinced that the traditional masculine male role model could be seen as not only irrelevant but false, and the true male had more of an effeminate nature, gender roles could be eradicated and equality as they saw it reached.

This is why the feminists of the seventies attached themselves so closely to gay rights causes and was the origin of the same-sex marriage movement philosophically and culturally. This is also why they will never allow polygamy as polygamists acknowledge gender roles. It is also why the eradication of the ‘patriarchal’ Evangelical Christian and Catholic Church is so high on their agendas and why they have been so vocal in declaring it. Nowhere is this more true than in the legal profession and in academia. The only reason they have not so vocally opposed the Orthodox Jewish faith, Islam or others is because to them, the numbers of these groups in the West are still not high enough for them to be a concern.

Now, not every one who supports same-sex marriage agrees with this or recognizes this
philosophical origin/logic and indeed there are many gay activists who also refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriage. Noted Toronto gay icon and playwright Sky Gilbert has even questioned the need for homosexuals to marry and did so publicly in his column in eye weekly magazine.

However, make no mistake, to support same-sex marriage is to support no less than the eradication of the acknowledgement of gender differences itself and the primacy of the role of men and women in the proliferation of the species. Not only does this go against science, it goes against the very nature of humanity itself.

Next Up: How Same-Sex Marriage invalidates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

posted by Nicol DuMoulin @ 11:37 AM