I have been distracted lately, and my political blog and writing have been curtailed.  Aside from the uneasy feeling that the country is sliding into a financial and moral abyss that we are powerless to prevent, personal issues have erupted. 

In the crash of 2008, my wife and I lost most of our wealth.  In 2011 we lost our house and possessions to an upstairs water leak caused by a counterfeit Chinese toilet nut that spontaneously broke while we were away.  Don't get me started on that subject.  These plastic nuts lack proper phenol content, and have destroyed tens of thousands of homes in the US so far.  They are ticking time-bombs in perhaps millions of other homes.  I've written previously about the insidious dangers of Chinese counterfeiting.

All is well today, however.  We have clawed our way back up financially, and the forced downsizing of our lives has provided some unforeseen solace to us.  Moving back up Maslow's hierarchy has allowed me to ruminate about more esoteric topics, such as whether or not I am a homophobic bigot.

I admit that I find physical acts of homosexual sex repulsive.  I am repulsed by some other sexual proclivities, as well.  I am also repulsed by someone who eats live worms in front of me.  That said, I want to categorically deny that I am a worm-eating bigot.  Worm-eaters are great people.  They are intelligent, witty, creative, and fun to talk to at cocktail parties.  I just don't want them eating their favorite food in front of me and demanding that live worms be put on all the restaurant menus in town as a civil rights issue.  Does that make me a bad person?

Homophobic bigots may exist, but I don't believe I am one of them.  Bigotry only applies to hatred of humans, not behaviors.  Homosexuality is a sexual proclivity, it is not a human being.  No homosexual gene has been discovered, and many studies show that it is likely a proclivity developed in early childhood, as the time when most of our mores and beliefs get hard-wired into our brains.

Universal legal acceptance of "gay marriage" appears inevitable.  It's a component of that moral abyss we are sliding into.  The Constitutional arguments against it are weak.  "Heterosexual marriage" is not specifically protected.  The Framers never considered the possibility that marriage could be defined in any other way.  On the other hand, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are espoused in our Declaration of Independence, which supports the gay position. 

As conservatives, the primary argument we make is a moral one, i.e., the "sanctity" of marriage.  Marriage is one of the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church, also known as Holy Matrimony.  It "sanctifies" the relationship between a man and a woman.  Matrimony is derived from the Latin mﾄ》er, or mother.  In other words, the purpose of matrimony is to create mothers and produce children.

All of this falls on the deaf ears of our contemporary secular society.  Morality is not a credible argument.  It is derided and spat upon.  To the progressive, neither morality nor human rights are endowed by our Creator.  They are defined as needed by civil forces, and are situational and relative.

Once marriage is no longer defined as the sacred bond between a man and a woman, it no longer exists.  All marriages become civil unions, and the moral component disappears.  This is the Pandora's Box of societal deconstruction that will be opened.

Have you seen those little blue and yellow "equal" sign stickers on car bumpers?  That symbol is a call for homosexual equality.  However, the goal of gay marriage is not human equality or even legal equality.  Those can be achieved through civil unions and small adjustments in existing laws.  That is not what they are pursuing.  That little equal sign sticker means moral equality.  It's amazingly ironic that they desire exactly what they deride.  The ultimate irony is that once they achieve it, it will no longer exist.

Andrew Thomas blogs at darkangelpolitics.com