Excerpt from a Dennis Prager article where he hits the nail on the head yet again. He gives several examples of the kind of crap that comes with the pro-gay marriage stance many advocate here.
Quote:
So, the question is whether redefining in the most radical way ever conceived -- indeed completely changing its intended meaning -- is good for society.
It isn't.
The major reason is this: Gender increasingly no longer matters. There is a fierce battle taking place to render meaningless the man-woman distinction, the most important distinction regarding human beings' personal identity. Nothing would accomplish this as much as same-sex marriage.
The whole premise of same-sex marriage is that gender is insignificant: It doesn't matter whether you marry a man or a woman. Love, not gender, matters.
Some examples of this war on gender:
--This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.
--In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country's largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.
--Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination.
--When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.
--Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory.
Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.
--The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France.
--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.
And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.
This inalysis reflects the typical, baseless tempest in a teapot. Categorizing these things, most of which are trivial and misleading, as a war on gender is laughable.
If Harvard wants to show a modicum of respect to one of its employees by refraining from a gender-based pronoun, so be it. It can't stop all of those, who have their panties in a ball over transgenders, from slinging whatever name they want at her. Not calling the transgender "he" or "she" is no crazier than calling Prager's collection of videos a "university."
Catholic Charities was receiving public funds for its adoption services, and therefore are obligated not to discriminate unlawfully in its placement services. It could continue to operate without public funds, but voluntarily suspended adoption services in order to keep the pipelines of public money flowing.
There had been litigation in Illinois as well alleging that Catholic Charities also discriminated on the basis of race and marital status.
I don't buy the line that supporting marriage equality for gays is leading to the result that "gender is insignificant." It is certainly significant to those, who are getting married, gay or straight, and they're the ones, whose opinions matter.
