“Marriage between one man and one woman is the ultimate expression of equality as no gender is marginalized.”
Radical feminists would have us believe that the only way for women to achieve equality is to marginalize men. Some have even gone so far as to propagate the sentiment that true equality can only come as women embrace their supposed “inner lesbian” and categorically deny any need for the male gender.
- "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
- "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).
- [Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny... " -- Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color
(Source: Opine Editorials)
When approached thoughtfully, this quite easily becomes transparently illogical. How can we ever be equal to those we’re attempting to rise above? Yes, it’s great that women can vote, own property, and wear pants. Fantastic, actually. But, demanding that women can (and should) do all that men do, actually denies the unique nature and contribution of man and instead sets woman at a contrived advantage by the forced combination of her innate, feminine characteristics and her socially-driven, male character acquisitions.
Radical Feminism = woman on a pedestal; man subservient. Does that seem like equality to you?
Male chauvinism, on the other hand, demands the exact opposite. Instead of recognizing and appreciating the unique abilities and contributions of women, machismo demands that women walk behind men, serve men, and eternally submit to men.
Male Chauvinism = man on a pedestal; woman subservient. Still not equal.
Not surprisingly, the only situation in which true gender equality can be achieved is marriage between one man and one woman, where cohabitation, daily interaction, respect for marital vows (life-long commitment), and the mutual care of physical, spiritual, and family assets (aka children) demands a cooperation the likes of which cannot and will not be required in any other situation. Successful marriage relies heavily upon the equal contribution of both sexes. Women and men balance each other perfectly: testosterone to estrogen, physical strength to spiritual strength, adoration to admiration, justice to mercy. Where one is lacking, the other steps up. Where one excels, the other observes, learns, and grows.
In parenting, the same applies. Children need the influence of a father and a mother, as both contribute different yet vitally essential lessons to developing minors. Two lesbian partners cannot possibly provide the necessary contributions of the male gender as they do not posses the inherent male characteristics and abilities with which to deliver such lessons. Textbooks, research, and education can only take one so far. It is strictly in hindsight that an individual recognizes which lessons were most vital to his development, so it is logical to conclude that a teenager will not, in the midst of his character development, approach his two “mommies” and say, “I really need you to teach me, by example, how a man should treat a woman.” That is a lesson that a good father will teach his son unconsciously as he goes about the course of his days interacting respectfully with his son’s mother. For a lesbian mommy to teach the same lesson unconsciously, she would have to abandon her femininity in favor of masculinity, effectively illustrating the unique importance of a male role model in the home through imitation of male behavior. Additionally, for mommies to try to teach the same lesson consciously would very simply be less effective as it has been proven that children learn more by the example of those in primary proximity than they do by lecture from the same. Think, “Do as I do; not as I say.”
Homosexual marriage/parenting/relationships = marginalization (sometimes even derision) of opposite gender = two left feet = unnatural imbalance = discord, anxiety, depression, confusion, dissatisfaction. Definite inequality here.
More examples of essential lessons taught by the unique presence of an opposite-sex parent in the home:
- A little girl learns from her daddy (through observation) what to look for in a future spouse.
- Children learn to nurture and serve others by watching an inherently sensitive mother do just that.
- Kids know their own strength and its appropriate use through roughhousing with dad.
Incidentally, it is extremely interesting to note that more often than not, one individual in a homosexual partnership will take on the role of male (dominant, commanding, and butch) while the other adopts the role of female (emotional, meek, and effeminate) in an attempt to imitate and recapture nature where the natural has ceased to exist. And still more desperate attempts for the unnatural to imitate the natural include increasingly convoluted, gender-confusing actions and behaviors such as estrogen/testosterone injections, sex changes, and transvestite fetishism. On a greater level, this desperate imitation can be interpreted as lending profound importance to the institution of marriage as homosexuals demand the acquisition and redefinition of a uniquely heterosexual union which currently provides a protected platform for the essential blending of opposite genders and, therefore, healthy continuation of society.
Marriage between one man and one woman = true gender equality = balance = peace. Who wouldn’t want that?
Please note that bringing up skyrocketing divorce rates and spousal abuse does not provide a logical basis for abandoning the singular encouragement of the heterosexual marital ideal. It merely points out a problem with the humans involved in the institution, not the institution itself. And there are many ways to deal with such problems (counseling, elimination of no-fault divorce, beheading . . . just kidding) that do not include devaluation through redefinition.