For marriage to be saved, it is imperative for secular and religious conservatives and traditionalists to forsake their old arguments and use new ones. Instead of trying to return society in the past, they must embrace the ""inevitability of history".
In other words, they must fight fire, with fire. Instead of using dogmatic religious and political arguments, they must use secular and scientific ones. Instead of using their resources "fighting homosexuality", they must embrace the truth that non-reproductive sexual behavior between adults exist. Marriage should be seen as a cultural duty, as a reproductive imperative, but at the same time embrace the merry band of misfits among them. The homosexual could still be convinced to enter into such a union with a lesbian woman, if he desires offspring.
His real and natural desires for romantic love and sex with the same sex would not be ignored, but embraced, while at the same time be encourage him to raise children with a woman. If the couple is unable to produce children through sex, IVF would be a necessary step. In other words, separating the concept of sexual and romantic love from reproduction.
Also, when it came to the argument that homosexuality existed in the Greco-Roman world, but the left and the right make mistakes in trying to interpret the past (the left says that it existed as an identity, and was accepted as we understand it today, while the right says that their views were the same as theirs). Anal and oral sex, effeminacy and exclusive homosexuality was not viewed with good eyes. But it happened. If the man understood his duty to enter the military and father children, no one cared what he did with his slaves. Homosexuality between freemen was only practiced through intercural sex, and later frottage. Pe
netration was the sin, not the platonic love and the non-penetrative foreplay.
Now, some have asked me why I have such "fascist" views about marriage (the leftists sure love to use their favorite adjectives, isms, with someone that is whooping their collective asses). "But what of love, what of the right of individuals to such and such...", to which I respond: " And what of the biological imperative for reproduction. I'm not saying that we homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals, the infertile and the polygamous should not have the right to sex, to a romantic relationship, to a civil partnership. What we don't have is the privilege to raise children. I'm not saying that I couldn't be a good father, but a thousand good fathers can't replace a mother, and a thousand good mothers can't replace a father.
When it comes to homosexuals and lesbians who want to have children, we should draw wisdom from this article describing a marriage between a homosexual and a lesbian, best friends who both yearned for the joys of parenting:
Read more: http://www.watermarkonline.com/w-living/lgbt-living/item/6742-through-diligent-planning-lesbian-and-gay-man-raise-son-together
The phenomenon the article describes, of best friends marrying so that they could be parents and raise children in an ideal environment, could be the basis of a "new" definition of marriage (introducing a new antithesis to the dialect). In theory a society could still have a solid foundation, while still being tolerant of certain deviant aspects. Note how their bond is more strong than one based on romantic love, a shaky foundation, a foolish notion. While still important, romantic love and sex should be viewed as optional, while marriage and reproduction as a duty (enforced not by the state, but by culture).
The only way to reverse the decay is to have our very own long march through the institutions, or to create our own independent secular and religious cultural and academic institutions.
Would a "long march" through the institutions reverse the bad, while keeping the good? Probably, but such a course of action would have to be relentless. Patience is a virtue that many reactionary elements in society seem to lack (for example the rise of fascism in Europe in the last decades).
In conclusion, dear reader, when it comes to sexual deviancy, it is not homosexuality, per se, that is the problem, but the feminist riddled, gender nonconforming, promiscuous subculture of the "gay" community. It is possible to have a strong culture, with a deep sense of pride in opposite sex marriage, for the purpose of reproduction. You just need to separate sex and romantic love, and view it as recreational and optional, while marriage and reproduction as necessary.Homosexuality is not the problem, but feminism.