THE NAACP & SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
Did the leadership do the right thing?
The NAACP supporting same-sex marriage numbs the mind. The article carrying the news came under the CNN "LATEST NEWS" column yesterday morning, but it was suddenly taken down; it might have been for shame or embarrassment. Well, it disappeared for some reason. Other news outlets had it; but that was not what was disturbing.
If any one organization should know what traditional marriage should be, it was the NAACP; that it (marriage) was not a social club that could be trifled with. That it has been a long standing "institution" for thousands of years; and in all cultures and societies it was a union between a man and a woman, as opposite partners for the sole purpose of, or generally for, pro-creation.
Same-sex marriage has never been a civil rights issue. It was a cultural issue that could be solved with "domestic partnership" or "civil union" categories, to distinguish those arrangements from that of traditional marriage.
Whichever way one looked at those forms of arrangement, they were not the same as the time honored institution of marriage. Therefore, for anyone to cop out, and to agree for any other type of arrangement to be associated with it (traditional marriage) was totally wrong.
Those advocating for same-sex marriage related their emotional feelings to what was termed as "love", when in fact they meant or felt "lust".
The two sentiments were, and still are, as different as night and day; and for anyone or organization to bundle them up or to roll them into one form was absurd. Those people should consider the bewilderment that they would bring.
Nobody was condemning any type of life style or sexual orientation; but that they must have their own prescribed purpose, if there was one; yet, moving any such life style into the realm of "marriage" would be nothing short of parasitic.
It was like suddenly having a roommate, who was not supposed to be there in the first place; especially, if there was plenty of room elsewhere. It would be extremely incompatible, particularly, for anyone, if the other person had a different sexual preference; and if that was not infuriating then nothing should be.
In other words, traditional marriage could coexist with "domestic partnership" or "civil union", and there would be no problem, if they maintained different labels; and if such organizations would fight for the same rights as married couples, they could by all means do so; as they could not be denied any privileges accessible to traditionally married couples.
Moreover, there has not been any kind of research of how any other type of relationship would impact society in the long term. To many people, the confusion emerging from homosexuals calling their life style(s) as being the same as traditional marriage would be overwhelming. Conventional customs would or could never accept that.
The whole world was already going bunkers from the myriad of issues confronting the human race; but should human beings make the situation worse, especially by making all types of sexual behavior to be morally correct? Were not present day people laying a foundation that would only be suicidal for posterity? A moral code was not necessary; and even if there was one, it could not be deemed proper or correct, because it would have no specific meaning.
People would not be able to tell the difference between what was wholesome and what was perversion. Depravity and corruption would all look alike or the same.
Would that be fair on those coming after, when those living today were dead and gone, and leaving behind so much garbage for them to deal with? Where would they find the moral fibre for their lives, to enable them to handle what previous generations have bequeathed to them? What were people leaving for their children?
Those were troubling questions, but they were more realistic now than ever.
Besides, whom would the children blame? They could only say how foolish and stupid their ancestors were, to have ever lived at all. They could not decipher right from wrong; they have left a world stigmatized with so much immorality behind, and for goodness sake, they were idiots.
An organization like the NAACP should think twice before making any decisions, because they would affect their members in the future. It could be one isolated, but adverse decision that they were making; and it would affect the advancement the organization has made, from Jim Crow days to the present.
Its leadership would be leaving a legacy with no real substance, which would only have a pungent smell and nothing else for those who would follow, if it continued to make bad decisions, such as the one in the news to uphold same sex "marriage". It would cover all the goodness that the organization has been able to achieve, and the noble cause that it was meant for.
The leadership might say that it was following the decision that President Barack Obama has made; but the president's decision was a personal one, and he was entitled to it. However, to make such a decision for a whole organization flew in the face of common sense. It (decision) could not even be put to a vote, as each individual in the organization must have the right to express his or her own opinion.