CNN's Phillips uses Left-wing 'normal' to attack former NY Giant over position on gay marriage

If the boy bees didn't know what to do with the girl bees, in their bee-like fashion - there wouldn't be any baby bees. Soon, there wouldn't be any bees, period.

I've admitted in the past that the ability of my clock radio is limited and, as a result, my  choices of stations are somewhat limited, too. This means that I frequently wake to WGN and its quasi-liberal dribble. Such was the case the other day.

The radio announcer was asking women to call in and comment about whether it was a bad thing for him to check out women, I don't know, as they past the window on Michigan Avenue. To his credit, he seemed to concede, maybe a bit grudgingly, that there is something natural about the desire to give the ladies a glance or two.

No where is the quagmire of modern gender relations more apparent. Men ogle ladies because its a part of their nature to do so, and thank goodness for it. By chance, it just happens that the desire to do so is essential to the proliferation of the human race.

Of course, staunch feminists have identified this as a form of abuse against women. One feminist even wrote a piece proclaiming that men "own the stare." No, silly. It's not that we "own the stare;" it's that looking is as natural as breathing.

Of course, feminists feel very safe tossing about these accusations of abuse in our politically correct society. They seem utterly unaware of the role that a population of six billion people plays in their attitudes or the likelihood that anyone will listen.

Simply put, all six billion of us are not likely to suddenly stop procreating. this is another reason the Left dances with the issue of homosexuality so breezily.

Recently, David Tyree, a former receiver and Super Bowl star with the New York Giants, took a giant leap of respect in my eyes. He did so, however, at a price, which is more often the case in our PC world today.

Tyree was interviewed by CNN's Kyra Phillips, at which time he commented about the normalcy, or lack thereof, related to homosexuality. It's Tyree's opinion, an opinion I happen to share, that the adoption of legalized gay marriage will lead to the destruction of the institution as a whole. Tyree's position was faith based. But, short of pouring fuel on Phillips' fire of 'righteous indignation,' the basis of Tyree's opinion didn't matter. She hardly gave him a chance to catch his breath no less speak in support of his position.

Abandoning any pretense of journalistic credibility, weakly held at her network to begin with, she lambasted Tyree with a tirade of opinion-based pre-butals while claiming her opinion as fact.

The problem is, whether considered from a Biblical perspective or not, Tyree was right on the money. Homosexuality is not normal.

Of course, Phillips' perspective is based on the Left's fictional definition of 'normal,' which is to say that anything someone wants to do is normal because they want to do it. Only in this light would pedophiles feel safe to publicly unite in this country and 'proudly' stand up for 'their rights.'

A further problem with the Left's definition of normal is that it can be fit so easily to other 'worthy' causes - such as theft, rape and murder.

It's 'normal' that mankind has desires, illicit or otherwise. It's not 'normal' that mankind should act on every whim that crosses their minds. Nor is it 'normal' that mankind should try to recreate the world in the image of every imaginable desire. The result is a world that reflects personal desires above all else,  including reality.

Heterosexuality is normal because it has an essential purpose as pure as that which motivates the birds and the bees. A big part of the reason mankind often finds sexual activity enjoyable is that, just as men are driven by nature to look at women, enjoying sex makes it far more likely that men and women will get together to do it often enough to support the race. In a society driven by a demand for instant and constant gratification, is it surprising that the sex drive would become warped here and there?

What Phillips and her ilk might consider is that there is not a single homosexual alive today who doesn't owe his or her existence to that heterosexual desire to procreate. There's not a single straight or homosexual alive who could say the same thing about homosexuality.

True normalcy exists outside of the eye of the beholder. That's why, when Phillips defines 'normal' she's really talking about something that is only increasingly 'customary' among some in society.

I notice attractive women because it's normal that I would do so. I've accepted conformity to the 'norms' of society, to some extent. The problem is that I have a diminishing level of confidence in society's ability to define 'normal' and I'm tired of people like Phillips trying to supplant normalcy with liberal custom.

The Gay Libyan Connection - cartoon from Gary McCoy

It kind of struck me this way, too - http://www.gopusa.com/cartoons/2011/02/25/shoring-up-his-base/

Obama may be gay about Marriage Act but the Constitution is cringing

Rahm Emanuel has left the White House, at least as an official arm of the Obama administration, but his legacy lingers. Following in the former chief of staff's footsteps, his former boss, along with Attorney General Eric Holder, has used the current chaos in Wisconsin and other states, not to mention foreign upheaval in the Middle  East and North Africa, as an opportunity to slip in a little news about the Defense of Marriage Act.

Of course, the liberal media, to the degree that they can take their eyes off the ‘socialist plight’ of protesters in the Midwest and the Middle East, have heartily endorsed the decision. Obama, by executive decree, has essentially altered the law, through unconstitutional means, based on his personal perspective that the law is unconstitutional. Many Lefties admit the methodology is not exactly kosher but, since the outcome fits their agenda, well, that’s OK. What’s a little Constitutional misstep among friends?

In reality, it’s only by way of a certain, flexible perspective, that the Defense of Marriage Act can be seen as a violation of gay rights. By way of the liberal prism, marriage is redefined, after several millennia, on the whim of those who think the institution is merely based on who they are sexually attracted to.

The truth is, the sexual attraction has always been a component of marriage for one reason and that reason had nothing to do with how much fun people might have during sex. There are animals that omit odors, make unique sounds or puff up their breast feathers to induce the opposite sex to commit to an act of procreation. There are even animals that dance a little jig because the opposite sex of their species is enticed by this behavior.

For humans … well, there are a myriad of components to sexual attraction. But, all of these, come down to the basic natural premise of convincing the species that it must reproduce to continue.

Marriage is fundamentally related to the development of a family and the ability of most married couples to create offspring. Yes, there are some couples who discover they can’t have children and we should all be thankful for the possibility to fill this sense of void through adoption. But, that’s still not fulfilling the marital act of procreation. Parents who adopt can do a wonderful job of parenting and deserve a tremendous measure of respect for doing so. But, procreation is procreation. It’s that simple.

Now we have test-tube babies and artificial insemination and, who knows, maybe they’ll add legal cloning to the mix someday. Some may say that this has changed the landscape and, to a certain degree, it has. It has allowed couples who could not have children to, in some cases, have children of their own after all. So, why not gays?

First of all, in the great, big Petri dish of life, we’ve found that there are always unforeseen consequences of our actions. Television, once seen as a potential boon for education, has turned out somewhat differently. The Internet was supposed to bring us all closer together. I’ve seen that people on the other side of the planet have read my ramblings of late but I can’t tell you the last name of anyone on the block where I live (I can still tell you the names of all the neighbors on the block where I grew up). So, assuming this will result in a happier and better planet is presumptuous, at best.

But it’s more than that. The idea fails the 100-percent test. Imagine for a second that everyone was gay and from the beginning of that point where man became a subject of time, that’s how it was. First of all, that being the case, the species would have died out immediately unless there were a few in the caves, or with Adam and Eve when they left the Garden of Eden, who convinced someone to make the ‘eternal sacrifice’ of having intercourse with the opposite sex.

“I know, girls are yucky, but, if someone doesn’t do it, when we die, that’s it.”

“Ugh. But why me?”

“Sorry, you picked the short straw.”

In other words, without heterosexuals, the species would have died off long before anyone had a chance to think, “Why can’t two men or two women marry?”

What two men or two women do in the confines of their own home is none of my business. It is my business when the liberals among us attack the nature of the most sacred and vital relationship in the history of mankind because it doesn’t fit their jollies.

Tell yourselves your married. Who cares? But don’t desecrate something as intrinsically important to so many others just because it doesn’t fit your ideal. That, is the true denial of Constitutional rights.

“Sorry, your marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore other than that, if you divorce, well, it’s a binding contract.”

It’s an undeniable truth – with the approval of gay marriage we have reduced the institution as a whole to the point where it has almost no value.

Maybe that's what Obama is after - another stake to drive through the heart of America?