When I was eight years old, my Christmas list held one item: a bride doll. Oh, how overjoyed I was when "Santa" left under our tree that beautiful, white-veiled icon of future girl dreams. And my simple dreams included a wedding, a bride with her groom.
What will eight-year-old girls be allowed to wish for in the coming new era of "gay" marriage?
Because if "equality" advocates have their dreams fulfilled, all American children will march to a new tune. Is the U.S. Supreme Court hearing about this?
The radicals dream of connecting the dots now only marking partially-conquered territory. Like California, where by law, no schoolchildren hear any critique of homosexual or "transgender" behavior, or Massachusetts, where the Department of Education has decreed that gender confused children must have access to opposite sex restrooms and locker rooms.
In the realm of silencing opponents, this isn't nearly enough. The militants' vision is that, in every schoolroom, in the Boy Scouts, on TV and from Hollywood, all voices in the American public square unite in the same song to little children: when you grow up, you may date and marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex, or you may change your own sex, and this is good and progressive. All other views are "hate."
It's immensely frustrating to read the transcripts of the Supreme Court oral arguments on the two marriage cases and realize how tepidly man/woman marriage is defended and the consequences of same sex marriage unexplored. Our side studiously avoids the core issue: same sex marriage is wrong because homosexual behavior is wrong.
In the Hollingsworth v. Perry case, Attorney Cooper did say, "Redefining marriage will have real-world consequences," and Justice Kennedy mentioned "uncharted waters," or possibly, "a cliff." Indeed!
And no one who's thoroughly assessed the issue believes that homosexuality is inborn, a fixed status, as Attorney Olson claims. This is an enormously important point! If homosexuality is not inborn, the highest court in the land might want to seek input from the largest group of potential victims--all the children of America.
Yes, a small subset of children was mentioned. Justice Kennedy gave a hat tip to children residing in homosexual households in California, around 40,000, he says. Same sex marriage would "help" these children, he believes. Is that true? The Regnerus study, validated even after "gay" outrage, noted the decidedly harmful outcomes of homosexual parenting.
And what about the millions of other children throughout the country whose lives would be impacted by a new cultural paradigm about dating, masculinity/ femininity, courtship, future dreams and permissible sexual behavior?
Olson and others contend that sexual orientation is like race. This sweeping assumption, challenging most of the human historical record, has no hard supporting evidence.
If it's not true, children are at risk. The widespread embrace of homosexuality at the very least would mess with their minds and innocence at critical stages of development. More experimentation, even for a time, will yield more STDs, more anxiety, depression, more teen angst in general. Where's a critical risk assessment?
And even though marriage deconstruction doesn't really address the lunacy of gender confusion and its potential harm to yet-unformed bodies and minds, this agenda is a fellow traveler, bundled into the deviant "LGBT" special interest package.
Does this guaranteed revolution bother only me?
Put yourself for a moment in the minds of eight- year- old Morgan or James a few years from now. They are little children, new to all this. Homosexuality as marriage has been legalized in many states, because conservatives including the GOP failed to launch a coherent, or any, defense. Churches were mostly silent, while some heretically jumped on this gruesome bandwagon.
So it's future shock and just as now, more moderate voices will not restrain the radicals from enacting their spite-fueled plans. All schools, even Christian institutions, will be forced to teach only one sugar-coated viewpoint.
The new standards become "best practices" in teacher training degree programs and even law in many states, and every grade school child learns that his/her future may include attraction, dating and marriage to the same sex and some are born that way, so there's no choice.
Mentioning ex-homosexuals will be the equivalent of honoring the Ku Klux Klan.
The developing heart and mind of these children becomes destabilized. Morgan prefers her little girlfriends now. James thinks his buddies are much more fun. But most grown-ups are a mommy and daddy. Will I be different?
Fast forward to age twelve. Now Morgan and James know about sex through middle school sex ed that explains all in detail, including homosexual practices. They also learn from the usual route of TV, music and movies, where some teen stars are now proudly "gay" and storylines and songs now include same sex romance.
Explicit teen novels describe mutual masturbation among middle school boys, and are chosen by enlightened librarians because these are "coming of age" tales. James may believe his interest in trying this means he is "gay" or bisexual, but he has dutifully learned this is okay.
At sleepovers, Morgan and a girlfriend may experiment as well. And really, what's the harm? There's no pesky outcome of pregnancy with same sex "fooling around." And enough parents will be on board that often, kids won't even have to hide their actions. "We'll be upstairs in my room, Dad!" "Okay-have a good time!"
Indeed, what's the big deal at age twelve, or age ten, or how about age eight? How young can we start this? If it's "consensual," and among peers, and no pregnancy results, don't children have the "right" to be sexual? Pornography will fuel this trend. SIECUS, Planned Parenthood and the other "comprehensive sex education" propagators are certainly on board with explicit sex ed in middle school and many are fine with elementary school as well.
This seems like a recipe for future barbarians, proud placeholders in anarchist Occupy movements of the future. Dating patterns change. Appropriate behavior for children changes. One may think, "Oh, no, we have more sense than to permit children to be engaged in sex!" No, we don't. Are you observing lots of common sense? Sure, there's a remnant, but is it enough to stop this madness?
Most major homosexual advocacy groups, GLSEN and others, vehemently oppose abstinence-until-marriage sex education. If kids aren't abstinent, they think it's cute. All they find horrifying is pregnancy.
And we have not even begun to delve into the real possibility of more child-adult sexual encounters, that our moral outrage will be whittled away on that, too.
The evidence about where this revolution takes us is already available. Won't someone out there start to look at "gay marriage" through the eyes of our precious children?
