Thompson: The case for one man, one woman — it's about love, biology

Rantoul Press columnist   

“We’re here, we’re queer and were in your face!” — Common militant gay protest chant.

Seems you can’t pick up a paper or turn on the tube or radio these days without being assailed with one or another homosexual issue.

The media drones on and on, either about our new gay military, gay efforts to infiltrate the Boy Scouts or gays getting “married” or wanting to.

Our entertainment industry seems to put a gay or lesbian character or two in about every other show.

This is clearly an over-representation of a tiny fragment of the population — so much so that according to a recent survey that asked random Americans what percentage of their fellow Americans were gay, the responses averaged out to 25 percent.

This is good news for homosexual advocacy groups that seek normalcy of the abnormal.

One in four is not even close though. It’s more like 3 percent.

Pro-gay groups usually push a 10-12 percent number, but that one comes from an ancient Masters and Johnson study of male prisoners. Go figure.

This is obviously not normal. It’s simple biology. Sorry, but 97 fish swimming one way and three fish swimming the other — which group represents the norm?

Now Illinois is on the verge of legitimizing same-sex marriage.

Our own Abraham Lincoln once said something like this about delusional people — that one can call a tail a leg and then say that a dog has five legs, but it doesn’t make it so.

Same thing here. You can say that marriage can be between two men or two women but it is not and will never be so.

Words are supposed to have meaning, and since time immemorial it has been that a marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman. Very simple.
The idea of a gay “family” becomes even more preposterous.

Gays can obviously do what anyone else can do, but they can’t have children. Homosexuality precludes procreation, does it not?

Thus, procreation is a purely heterosexual institution, and the child-rearing responsibilities that come with it should be as well.

The studies and research are over, and the results are indisputable. The very best way to raise children is in a stable two-parent (one father, one mother) family.

Of course all heterosexuals who get married don’t have kids, and some that do can be awful to kids. And of course homosexuals can be loving caregivers, but anecdotes aren’t the point.

The point is that the traditional American family is becoming an increasingly rare thing, and so it should be taken for granted that the state should never sanction anything other than what is known as the best overall way to raise children.

James Q. Wilson, author of “The Moral Sense,” put it best. He said the definition of a marriage and family should be nothing less than “a profound human commitment between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising physically, spiritually and morally healthy children.”

This isn’t religious bigotry. This isn’t hate. If anything it’s a righteous love of children and an acknowledgement of biology and reality in general.

As always, do feel free to express your thoughts on this or anything else on your mind in the Rantoul Press. It’s really easy.

Stay warm, everybody.

Eric Thompson, a resident of Rantoul, writes a monthly column for the Rantoul Press.

Categories (2):Columns, Opinions


Rantoul Press embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. we reserve the right to remove any comment at its discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments