[ab-uh-rey-shuh n]
1.
the act of departing from the right, normal, or usual course.
2.
the act of deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type.
3.
deviation from truth or moral rectitude.
4.
mental irregularity or disorder, especially of a minor or temporary nature ; lapse from a sound mental state.
With the argument before the Supreme court looming large in the news and the minds of the country, this is the word that comes to mind. Because, for me , I would say that same sex marriage is an aberration. The first three definitions appear to fit exactly. The fourth addresses a mental disorder or a lapse in judgement. Still applicable to what I am talking about. With somewhere between three and perhaps as much as ten per cent of the population identifying themselves as " gay " I believe that fits into the aberrant behavior category. So, as a consequence gay marriage would have to be an aberration.
Let us consider the justification of this aberrant behavior. The primary justification I hear is, love. That they love one another. Nothing aberrant about love, happens all the time. I do not marry everyone I love however. Marriage is a union. A joining of forces so to speak. It's purpose is to propagate the species. It is our moral rectitude that limits us to one man, one woman in a marriage. To abandon that is to redefine what is moral behavior. The confusion comes in when people think morality and religion are the same thing. Whereas they are close relatives, they are not the same thing. The majority of the world's population agree that one man, one woman is a marriage, is the right way. It is what is normal. It is the usual course.
Setting aside the moral aspects of this discussion the case for aberrant behavior can still be substantiated. It is not what is normal or usual. The Netherlands was the first country to allow same sex marriages in 2000. The first in two thousand years ! I would classify that as aberrant. There has been and still are cultures that allow all types of aberrant behavior, at least it is outside of that society. I, of course am only considering the society I live in. So, if we allow same sex marriage than we are also redefining our societal norms. A very serious business. This is especially true when you wish to change a fundamental component of that society. On the surface it may appear, or be presented as, a personal choice, but in fact it is a societal change.
Another popular justification for this aberration is the argument that I was born this way. I may have been born with an addiction as a result of my Mom's aberrant behavior, does that then mean I should continue with that addiction ? There are those born with a propensity for violence, is that behavior to be endorsed ? No, and why not, they were born that way. The point being an aberration is an aberration no matter the cause. It is still a deviation from what is normal or expected.
As to the question of same sex marriage it has nothing to do with homosexuality, lesbianism or any other aberrant sexual behavior. Although the politically correct would like to argue otherwise, the LGBT community is a community that endorses what is aberrant behavior. Perhaps that is an inconvenient truth.
That is not to say that all aberrations are wrong. I am not saying that. I am saying that it is not normal, usual or what is expected. It's different ! It being a different " normal " should it not have it's own name ? It should have it's own definition. In the big picture that is what I see as the major stumbling block, the defining of this. To label it a marriage is offensive to those adhering to the traditional definition of marriage. You can not label an aberration as a societal norm. It is not and no matter how you wish to label it, it will remain an aberration.
I have said this same statement many times and it remains true. You can not legislate morality. Should the supreme court rule in favor of same sex marriage that will not change the perception of marriage. It will not change the moral rectitude of what I believe to be the majority in our society. That doesn't mean because I believe it to be morally wrong you shouldn't be allowed to do that. What it does mean is, I do not believe that it is a normal thing and should not be called as such. I do find it telling that the LGBT community has taken it to the supreme court for only one reason. That reason being, they wish to fit the definition of what is normal,usual or expected in this society. They are not and are attempting to legislate that into reality. It will not happen. Even if the supreme court gives their opinion in favor of allowing such " marriages " it will not change the perception.
I hear the reasoning that a lot of people do it. The excuse that a number of individuals are participating in an activity. That in and of itself does that justify that action. It does not make it right. People riot, is that correct ? The flaw in that reasoning is obvious. Another variation to this reasoning is moral surrender. If I can't change it I should just accept it. That still doesn't change the character of the act. Still another I hear quite often is a Biblical passage, judge not lest you be judged. This passage is taken out of context and greatly misunderstood. Those using it are trying to imply that you should not judge, but is the object of that judgement that is of importance. It is their ethical/moral actions that we should judge. The judgement of the person is beyond the capacity of man. Those seeking approval must be judged, as judgement determines approval or disapproval. You just can't have one without the other. Disapproval of an action is not condemnation of the person.
In conclusion I will say that I am watching with great interest to hear what the courts opinion is. I think it safe to say you know where I fall on this particular topic. I oppose it on moral grounds as well as ethical grounds. I do not believe you can redefine an institution that has existed for over two thousand years. Perhaps you may create a " new " institution. Maybe that will become the " norm. " It is just that in my opinion you can not legislate that. Laws are meant to define the ethics, and to a degree the morality of a society. Laws are not meant to establish those things. A distinction I feel is being lost in the argument.
Another popular justification for this aberration is the argument that I was born this way. I may have been born with an addiction as a result of my Mom's aberrant behavior, does that then mean I should continue with that addiction ? There are those born with a propensity for violence, is that behavior to be endorsed ? No, and why not, they were born that way. The point being an aberration is an aberration no matter the cause. It is still a deviation from what is normal or expected.
As to the question of same sex marriage it has nothing to do with homosexuality, lesbianism or any other aberrant sexual behavior. Although the politically correct would like to argue otherwise, the LGBT community is a community that endorses what is aberrant behavior. Perhaps that is an inconvenient truth.
That is not to say that all aberrations are wrong. I am not saying that. I am saying that it is not normal, usual or what is expected. It's different ! It being a different " normal " should it not have it's own name ? It should have it's own definition. In the big picture that is what I see as the major stumbling block, the defining of this. To label it a marriage is offensive to those adhering to the traditional definition of marriage. You can not label an aberration as a societal norm. It is not and no matter how you wish to label it, it will remain an aberration.
I have said this same statement many times and it remains true. You can not legislate morality. Should the supreme court rule in favor of same sex marriage that will not change the perception of marriage. It will not change the moral rectitude of what I believe to be the majority in our society. That doesn't mean because I believe it to be morally wrong you shouldn't be allowed to do that. What it does mean is, I do not believe that it is a normal thing and should not be called as such. I do find it telling that the LGBT community has taken it to the supreme court for only one reason. That reason being, they wish to fit the definition of what is normal,usual or expected in this society. They are not and are attempting to legislate that into reality. It will not happen. Even if the supreme court gives their opinion in favor of allowing such " marriages " it will not change the perception.
I hear the reasoning that a lot of people do it. The excuse that a number of individuals are participating in an activity. That in and of itself does that justify that action. It does not make it right. People riot, is that correct ? The flaw in that reasoning is obvious. Another variation to this reasoning is moral surrender. If I can't change it I should just accept it. That still doesn't change the character of the act. Still another I hear quite often is a Biblical passage, judge not lest you be judged. This passage is taken out of context and greatly misunderstood. Those using it are trying to imply that you should not judge, but is the object of that judgement that is of importance. It is their ethical/moral actions that we should judge. The judgement of the person is beyond the capacity of man. Those seeking approval must be judged, as judgement determines approval or disapproval. You just can't have one without the other. Disapproval of an action is not condemnation of the person.
In conclusion I will say that I am watching with great interest to hear what the courts opinion is. I think it safe to say you know where I fall on this particular topic. I oppose it on moral grounds as well as ethical grounds. I do not believe you can redefine an institution that has existed for over two thousand years. Perhaps you may create a " new " institution. Maybe that will become the " norm. " It is just that in my opinion you can not legislate that. Laws are meant to define the ethics, and to a degree the morality of a society. Laws are not meant to establish those things. A distinction I feel is being lost in the argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment