ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

How Crazy Becomes Normal

Updated on November 7, 2016

Morally Speaking

“I mean, it’s strange how over time, what is crazy gets normalized . . . ”

These words were lifted from a speech that President Obama delivered in North Carolina on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 while stomping for his democratic ally Hillary Clinton. Two weeks ago, I promised myself that I wasn't going to comment any further on the characters involved in this year's Presidential election. But when I heard President Obama using these words to describe Donald Trump, I could not restrain myself.


As a Christian, I thought about the moral conditions in the city of Jerusalem during the 8th century B.C. They were so deplorable until the situation prompted the Prophet Isaiah to say "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 5:20)! Then my thoughts gravitated to the moral implications of what President Obama was saying. He stated that we live in a world where crazy has become the new norm and that Donald Trump is a perfect example of crazy being internalized as the new normal. Well, I thought about what the President said, and he was right. In America, crazy is the new norm. Take for instance, the moral foolishness of the Supreme Court to place same-sex marriages on the same legal footing as heterosexual marriages.


America has long suffered to legislate morality. It did so with the institution of marriage. Tried, as it did, individual states and the federal government could not prevent people from committing adultery. According to one writer, the institution of marriage should have stayed under the domain of the Church. But since marriage is an institution I see nothing wrong with the state developing a set of standardized guidelines by which to record and administer the formal contractual side of a marriage. Though the concept of marriage has evolved, traditional marriage and the family that it produces, is the cornerstone of Christianity and the benchmark of a moral nation.


For sure no amount of legislation can control or dictate human sexuality. With or without the law, people will have sex with whomever they desire. For instance, we know that Thomas Jefferson fathered children by a slave girl. We know that White men raped Black women with impunity. We know that Black men were lynched for allegedly having sex with a White woman, or in some cases, for even looking or whistling at a White woman. We know that there were laws on the books against miscegenation of the races. Nonetheless, Blacks found ways to copulate with Whites and Whites frequently used their power to copulate with Blacks.


Furthermore, we know that homosexuality is not a new sexual phenomenon. We conceded that among the Founding Fathers there might have been one or two of them who were secretly involved in homosexual relationships. But never did a moral or legal theory exist within the minds of the Framers of the Articles of Confederation or in the minds of the Framers of the Constitution that led them to believe that laws could be enacted whereby an individual or a group of individuals could petitioned the courts for the legal right to marry an individual of the same sex. So, too, it never entered into the minds of the Framers of the Constitution that a homosexual male or lesbian female could selectively choose to psychologically or physically alter their original biological identification and then have those voluntary sexual identifiers legally honored by the laws of the United States and by its citizens.


As stated, in the formative years of the United States there there might have been some undercover homosexuals in positions of authority but these individuals never once conceived of the possibility that their individual sexual proclivities should become the basis for the marital laws of the land. Why didn't they? Because the Founding Fathers knew that in order for a nation to thrive they had to adopt a set of principles that were not based on personal proclivities but based upon a set of unchanging principles that would be utilized to establish a moral code by which a governing body could determine what is right and what is wrong. The Founding Fathers knew that once a set of moral principles were identified and subsequently implemented; those principles would become the bedrock of the nation's laws. But the Founding Fathers were not working from a blank slate; they already were the benefactors of the English religious, political and legal systems. Subsequently, the Framers of the Constitution did not possess the mental faculty to envision the political construction of a nation whereby the laws of that nation would be based upon capricious sexual whims of its citizens, or for that matter, based upon any transient political, religious, or legal circumstance. That ideology would have been pure foolishness to the Founding Father.


Let's be straight about this one thing: Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the obtainment of a certain population's civil rights. No, indeed it does not. The civil rights of Americans are predicated upon the unchangeableness of the philosophical concept of personhood and its accompanying nontangible attributes of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Civil rights, as theoretically enunciated in the Constitution and later applied, have nothing to do with the transient identifiers such as one's race, one's biological sex, one's sexual preferences, one's religious orientation or one's geographical location; but instead, civil rights are predicated upon the unchangeable philosophical concepts of personhood and United States' citizenship.


Same-sex marriage is based upon an individual's sexual preferences. We know that an individual's sexual preference is subject to change. The constant changing of one's sexual preferences accounts for why so many people obtain divorces and why so many people engage in multiple sexual relationships. The political fight to legalize same-sex marriage was not a fight to obtain a denied civil right as articulated in the 14th Amendment and expanded upon in the Civil Rights legislation of 1964. Mature individuals who indulge in same-sex relationships already had the personal right to have sexual relations with another consenting same-sex adult. The fight to rewrite the nation's concept of marriage and redefine its understanding of human biology stemmed from a desire of the LGBT community to have their personal sexual preferences publically acknowledged and legally sanctioned by the United States Government and honored by its citizens. But even with the acknowledgment and the legalization of same-sex marriages those individuals who marry same-sex partners instinctively know that their marriage is a legal construct that has no moral correspondent. Likewise, those individuals who opt to assume the biological identification of the opposite sex instinctively knows that they have simply changed their outer reproductive garments while maintaining the same inner biological designation.


My point is that the concept of same-sex marriages would have been crazy to the 18th century Framers of the Constitution of the United States. For sure, Donald Trump is not the standard of morality that America needs to embrace but morally speaking, if a man can legally marry another man; if a woman can legally marry another woman; if a man can don on a woman's dress, a wig and red lipstick, call himself a woman and enter the women's bathroom; if a woman can cut her hair, strap her breast to her chest, grow a beard, call herself a man and enter the men's bathroom; then what is so crazy about an immoral character like Donald Trump running for President? After all, the President, in denouncing Donald Trump, recognized the reality that crazy has been normalized.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.