To start at the beginning—many people make an ambiguous argument for the ideal nature of heterosexual marriage by saying that the unique union between a man and a woman acts as a foundation to our society. Thus, if we radically change it to include, for instance, same-sex unions, our society and its values will die out. Some may find this sufficient. But what exactly does it mean? How does it work? It is clear that we need to refine this argument, or at least flesh it out.

We start with the premise that only a society passionate about their values fights for those values; and, obviously, if they don’t fight, their values do not survive. More specifically, a society must be willing to fight both in the marketplace of ideas and if it comes to it, with military force.

On the other hand, if they lack this passion, and the values are confronted with values held by passionate adherents, say, Islamic Totalitarians, surely the former’s values will die out and only the Islamists’ values will survive. They will more loudly and persuasively argue for their values in the marketplace of ideas and, if they must defend their values with the tip of a sword, they will fight with more dedication, conviction and strength. So whether you like the term “passionate” or would rather something like “fervent,” that’s fine. Regardless, I am sure we can agree that the values held by adherents who are less willing to preserve them—by spending their time, voices, blood and treasure—are less likely to survive the test of time than values posited by those willing to do whatever it takes.

Now that we can, hopefully, agree on that point, we must determine what breeds this lack of passion/fervor. Two sources overtly present themselves: one, moral relativism and two, a lack of heterosexual marriages.

To begin with the first one, a moral relativist posits a world where most, if not all, of one’s values possess no intrinsically or objectively better characteristics than anyone else’s. Values, they argue, result considerably from what any given culture happens to deem moral. Thus, a society has little to no passionate relationship with its morals; they are merely that society’s cultural opinion or preference. If that is the case, then why on earth would that society fight to preserve those values? If another country’s mere preference on a subject is different than ours, will we protest in the streets or go to war? I hope not. Therefore, evidently moral relativism breeds this lack of passion in one’s values. But what does this have to do with homosexuality? A couple things:

Firstly, a homosexual person is likely to adopt this type of world view. Initially, they will have two choices: live in sin under a Judeo-Christian-type moral framework or decide that framework is a relic of the past. More likely than not, the homosexual will decide to abandon the Judeo-Christian-type framework and replace it with some secular moral framework. This type of framework is, by definition, a relativist one, as there is no divine, and thus objective, authority for morals. As a result, the likely adherents to this secular/relativist ideology -- i.e. homosexuals and their supporters -- breed this moral relativism and the ensuing lack of passion in one’s values.

One can find yet another connection between moral relativism and a society’s sanction of homosexuality, by taking a look at the rhetoric of the same-sex special-interest groups. We see that they regularly advance the argument that one’s personal biology -- not some objective notion of morality -- acts as a primary determinant of what we deem moral. That is to say, they advance the notion that homosexuality is moral by finding persuasive the argument that homosexuals were “born that way.” Thus, they argue, society should tolerate—if not celebrate—homosexuality.

Nevertheless, I will admit that thus far I have just made an argument why society should discourage -- or at least not encourage -- homosexual relationships. But in truth, we do not need to go this far. It is enough to say that heterosexual relationships, specifically marriages, deserve special legal encouragement because of their superiority over other unions. To prove this we come back to the theme of this essay, namely “passion in one’s values.”

Again, I start with a premise—the premise that each sex has its own inherent strengths. For example, women are more passionate and emotional, and men are more task-oriented. Of course if we look hard enough, we can locate exceptions to this rule, as is the case with any rule. But there is little intellectual honesty behind the notion that we do not generally find men and women to each possess inherent strengths that the other sex does not.

The old saying goes “behind every great man there is an even a greater woman.” Sounds nice, but I think now we see what this really means. Quite commonly, when a society confronts competing values, it is the women who get the most emotional, and thus passionate, about it. To illustrate this we can even take an example from the other side of the isle. In the case of the anti-war protesters, the mothers of the lost soldiers act as one of the greatest catalysts for the “fight” to end the war. And if that is too narrow an example for you, we can take a glance at how women normally are the most passionate about their family’s religion; it is their fervor that decides the “house’s” level of religiosity. This is not to say men cannot be passionate about religion, but it is normally the women who we unearth as being a family’s major source for this religious and spiritual passion.

So at this point one may ask “then why do we need men?” We need men to manifest these passions into action. For instance, when a kid gets suspended from school for cheating, the kid incites the anger of both their father and mother. The father, however, acting partly on his wife’s nudging, normally plays the role of the authoritarian -- the punisher. In other words, the man brings to fruition the condemning passions shared by both parents; he takes action. 

Now again, of course, no one can honestly claim these generalizations are universal or absolute. There are many women who take the authoritarian and action-oriented role. Nevertheless, this does not detract from the excellence we only find in the unique synergy between men and women; the relationship still is a man and a woman, one being the actor, one being the catalyst. Further, I am sure if we look hard enough, we will also come across some same-sex couples who possess a similar synergy. But a society makes policy choices based on what we generally find to be true, not what could be true. Thus, as a matter of policy, a society is fully within its rights to make these general legal-encouragements of just heterosexual couples, i.e. legal marriage and the resulting tax breaking, as men/women couples more frequentely possess these complimenting strengths.

To illustrate, we give similar legal-encouragements, i.e. tax breaks, to people who save money instead of spending it; we do this even though in many situations those who spend their money could necessarily deserve these tax breaks as well. As a result, if, as the same-sex special-interest groups argue, we could no longer make these distinctions, our government would ultimately not be able to make any of these conduct-related tax laws. To do so, we must draw lines, and sometimes those lines unnecessarily leave people out of the loop. What’s more, this is especially acceptable in this case to the extent we are talking about things like tax breaks and expedited probate, as these are “privileges,” not rights.

Consequently, it is in our society’s best interest to, at the very least, not give legal recognition to -- and thus encouragement of -- homosexual relationships. Moreover, it is quite advantageous for us to encourage heterosexual marriages, as this unique synergy between men and women plays a vital and irreplaceable role in maintaining a passionate subscription to our values. Granted, society has many other reasons to specifically and exclusively encourage men-women relationships (i.e. raising children and linking sexual behavior to family-life). Nevertheless, without the ensuing passion mentioned above, our values -- probably the most important element to our society’s survival -- are all doomed. So let's survive.

       Dinesh D'Souza recently coined a wonderfully insightful quip to respond to the old "God in the Gaps" mantra -- that is, "Atheism in the Gaps." So it is in his tenacious shadow that I offer my own little tidbit.

As I see it, "Atheism in the Gaps" occurs when an atheist does not need to prove his position is more plausible; but instead, he just needs to point out the holes in the theist's position, i.e. prove it is not iron-clad – as if anything is – and then fill in the gaps with an atheistic belief.

Atheists, for example, point to supposed "design-flaws" in the human body, like that we choke too easily. To them, this lack of perfection creates a gap in the God model proposed by theists. They then proceed to fill this hole with atheism, saying these flaws prove there is no omniscient and perfect God that designed us all. 

But this conclusion is quite arrogant, let alone wrong.

They are in essence claiming to know what the grand purpose of humanity is. Only then can they legitimately claim that the design which supposes to achieve that purpose is in some way flawed. For instance, a hammer does not have a “design flaw” because it can’t beat eggs, as its purpose is to – what’s the technical term? Oh yeah! – bang things hard.

So how do they know our purpose? Indeed, why do they assume it is to live forever so that things like choking easily frustrates it? Who told them, God? What's more, how do they then proceed to, with a straight face, fill this purpose/design gap with an atheistic belief? This is a completely irrational step that assumes far too much.

In fact, the idea that atheists have a claim to this knowledge fails at a far more basic level. Atheists necessarily posit a purposeless origin to our universe; there is, of course, no purpose without a purposeful creation. Therefore, the very notion of positing a grand purpose to humanity, for which the design is flawed in achieving, reflects an idea so rooted in intellectually dishonesty it makes one shiver.

What’s more damaging to the atheist posture is that theists do have an answer for these "flaws." That is to say, the frailty of the human body perfectly fits the design many theists posit. Only a frail and feeble creature would have the motivation to guard – or for that matter, to live – life as the fleeting treasure of untold value that it is. If we lived forever, how would life be similarly meaningful? It is in fact the urgency and ease of death that gives life meaning.

So we see that unless atheists can somehow pull out of their magician’s hat an objective purpose to humanity, this argument, much like most atheist arguments, can be discarded out of hand. What is unmistakably clear is that atheists definitely have no rational basis to fill this gap with atheism. But fill they do. 

Why do we need to prioritize what we hold dear in this world? Because if we don't, someone else will do it for us.

Great orators usually have nothing good to say, because if they did, they would not need to be great orators.

People can make an argument for anything; and more troubling, persuasive people can make a persuasive argument for anything. Thus, if we are not grounded in any pre-set value system, valuing some things over others, then we doom ourselves to a life as pawns of some more principled and ideologically focused leader who can make what seems to be a compelling argument. Without any prior anchors, what stops a good orator from fashioning new values for us to fret over, all the while forgetting the important values, like human life?

Following this, it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of people that were willing to stand up to the dictators of history had some pre-existing value they were appealing to—be it scientific progress in the case of Andrei Sakharov of the U.S.S.R. or belief in a loving God in the case of the many Christians that risked their lives for Jews in the Holocaust.

No one really, I mean really, thinks that torture cannot help one obtain credible information – or at least I hope not. We use it all the time. When we obtain testimony via a plea agreement – testimony used in a court of law – we acquire it using force or the threat of force – in other words, torture. We either threaten them with prison, and all the pain and suffering associated with it, or we actually put them into prison until they decide to become more helpful. So if it’s always good enough for a judge with all his rules of evidence, how is it never good enough for an intelligence operative who is trying to keep us safe?

Now, of course, this should not lead one to condone torture or even coerced interrogation (i.e. water-boarding) at every possible chance. We must still use it rarely because of a zealous officer's inevitable abuse. Yet, little integrity attaches to  the odd claim that threatening or using force cannot, at times, acquire valuable information that polite cajoling will not. Sure, there will be times when force gets us information of little use. But surely no one can seriously argue that civilly asking a murderer questions will not leave us with information that is of no use as well. Therefore, for all those with even a shred of intellectual honesty, let’s get rid of this odd and utterly untrue talking point that force does not obtain credible information – it can, and clearly, it does.

     The left’s obsession with political correctness has officially gone from annoying to dangerous. Their hysterical fear of possibly offending people with their ideas has forced them to only recognize enemies who have no name, who have no possibility to get offended, or of course who have no ability to challenge them back. So they are relegated to talking about toothless enemies like global warming or population crisis, but fail to recognize the true enemies to our liberty and way of life. That being now, Islamic terrorism.