SEXUAL EXTREMISM BENEFITS
NO ONE (29 06 03)
Sexual liberation is a slow
process. In the 50’s it was still illegal to sell contraceptives
in Canada (Condoms were available as prophylactis--not as contraceptives).
Contraceptives are still illegal in many developing countries
today. Mere possession of sexually-explicit photos could land
a person in prison. Less than forty years ago abortion was not
a right but a crime and adultery was commonly faked as the only
way to obtain a divorce and even then the offended spouse could
keep the other in marital bondage by refusing to take legal action.
In Canada all this changed
after Pierre Elliot Trudeau became justice minister and later
prime minister. Trudeau did more to change laws and public attitudes
towards sex than anyone else in Canada with his statement that
"the govenment has no business in the nation’s bedrooms."
That point of view is now the basis for current court decisions
on both sides of the 49th parallel.
Homosexual and lesbian couples scored two major victories inside
a week: one in Canada and one in the US. On June 20 an Ontario
Appeals Court ruled against a ban on same-sex marriages. On June
26 the US Supreme Court made a 6-3 landmark decision to decriminalize
homosexual acts conducted in private by consenting adults. (Alabama,
Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, N.Carolina, S.Carolina,
Utah, Virginia - ban sodomy between consenting adults. Texas,
Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri - ban gay couple sex. In several states
in the US it is even illegal for heterosexual married couples
to have oral sex!).
But these major legal developments
are very divisive. What is seen as progress and victory by one
side is regarded as a defeat and affront by the other--both in
Canada and the US. Part of the problem is semantics. For example,
homosexual and lesbian relationships are commonly presented as
a form of love. Few people would object if that was all there
is to it. Love between two men or two women is common in our
society: for example, love between two brothers or sisters, or
between a father and son and mother and daughter. When it comes
to sex words are often used not to express an idea, but to mask
it. For example, the expression of sleeping together to describe
sexual intercourse which usually requires people to be awake.
Most people do not object
if same-sex couples live together nor if they want to formalize
their relationship as a partnership or loving union. It is when
such couples want to adopt customs that for centuries have been
the exclusive prerogative of heterosexual couples that strong
objections are voiced by many people. Issues that inflame passions
include same-sex marriage and raising children by same-sex couples.
Some members in the homosexual
community deliberately provoke people who cherish traditional
values. This view is not exclusive to heterosexuals. A national
homosexual group says it is "selfish and rude" for
the gay community to push for same-sex marriage legislation.
John McKellar, executive director
of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE), said in Calgary
on June 19, that only two to four per cent of the population
is gay or lesbian, despite the popular belief that the figure
is as high as 10 per cent. He added: "Within that two to
four per cent minority, less than one per cent are interested
in same-sex marriage or even domestic partnership legislation.
Traditional values are being compromised just to appease a tiny,
self-anointed clique."
Since in Canada and the US
about half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce and less
than 20 per cent of all married people would marry the same spouse
if they could live their lives over again, any objective observer
would similarly question the real motive of some of the more
radical members of the homosexual community. It is indeed suspect
that homosexuals who take pride in being different nevertheless
want the same traditional ceremonies and family structures as
their heterosexual counterparts.
It is claimed that same-sex
partners can raise children as well as heterosexual parents.
What is overlooked is that children benefit from both male and
female guidance. They are deprived of this dual influence when
growing up with a single parent and they are similarly denied
this influence by same-sex partners.
In addition there is the social
stigma of "abnormality" young children suffer among
their "normal" classmates who have a father and a mother
as parents instead of two gay men or two lesbian women.
Tolerance and acceptance are
ill-served by extremism. If heterosexual people would dress and
behave obscenely in public --as some gay and lesbian people do--
they would be widely condemned. If the latter have their "in
your face" parades they are not advancing their cause. Licentious
behaviour should not be confused with freedom for freedom of
expression respects community standards such as common decency.
Freedom without restraints will inevitably deteriorate into moral
turpitude where anything goes. Even now there are people who
favour sex with children and intercourse in public. For an example
of sex in public under the guise of art go to:
http://www.theartofloving.ca/press_cadpress_june27_smallcrowdjams.asp#top
While it is true that sex can exist without love as love can
exist without sex, the fact remains that the human sex act is
the epitome of intimacy between two consenting adults. It must
not be cheapened by anyone regardless of their sexual orientation.
