KLM - Airline botches pro-gay ad, proves marriage is only between man and woman

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines has produced a Twitter ad meant to pay tribute to Gay Pride events now taking place in Amsterdam. The only thing is, the tweet serves to do the exact opposite.

The ad shows three sets of seat belts. The first consists of two “female” ends. The second pairs two “male” ends. The third depicts a male with a female end and is clearly the only seat belt pairing that actually works.  

If KLM equipped its aircraft with set number one or number two, its entire fleet would be grounded for safety reasons. And if even one passenger’s seat was outfitted with double male or double female ends, the plane would not even be allowed to pull away from the gate because of the safety hazard presented to that one passenger.

Only the set of “complementary” seat belts protects passengers from harm. The others have no real value. In fact, they invite danger.

One of the best responses to the airline’s tweet came from Rick Canton: “Fly Royal Dutch Airlines, where your only chance of surviving a crash is buckling up the heterosexual way.”

If the seat belts, aka “safety belts” consist of either two male or two female ends, they don’t actually form a “belt” because they can’t connect. They remain simply two rainbow-colored straps, rendering the term “belt” a misnomer. As such, the first two pairings do not qualify to be identified as either “belts” or as devices of “safety.”  Because they are non-complementary, neither term applies.

In this way, the KLM ad offers a perfect explanation of why same-sex “marriage” is an impossible notion.

KLM’s lesson: defying natural law is dangerous

“If the hearts fit, the parts fit.” These words were emblazoned on T-shirts during Washington D.C.’s 2008 gay pride celebration.

In those days, I was living as a gay man. My initial reaction back then was: “What a great slogan! It’s so simple, even ‘dense, backwards conservative straight folks’ will finally be able to understand.” I was so taken with it, when I got home I spread out the shirt on a table and snapped a picture. That was nearly 10 years ago, and since then the gay world and I have gone in polar opposite directions.

Over time, I slowly began to see that this slogan did far more to indict than it did to promote the cause of same-sex “marriage.” It accidentally identifies the very reason that genderless relationships are ineligible to be called “marriage,” demanding that we all pretend that complementarity is an irrelevant, outdated component of human relationships and existence.

If the parts don’t fit, it is not a marriage. It is something else.

The unsafe, irrational, audacious demand of same-sex ‘marriage’: We all must pretend

Today’s dominant narrative that gays are weak victims, deprived of marriage by society, is a fabrication. The exact opposite is true: Gays are extremely strong-minded and iron-willed in their rejection of women, resolute in their choice not to grow as human beings in their appreciation for half the human race.  

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell ruling, our nation has now institutionalized that rejection, celebrating the evils of misogyny and misandry.

The recent institutionalizing of gay “marriage” across the country is a wonder of marketing and manipulation. Its acceptance by non-gays stems from the same mindset that “every kid on the soccer or tee-ball team deserves a trophy.” No one should feel bad or left out. A “Me, My, Mine” mentality that ignores natural law seems to have swept this country’s coastal elites off their feet.

Here is a comment made by a gay man to an article I wrote in 2014 for American Thinker about the 25-year-long LGBT campaign to market same-sex “marriage” to America:

We are supposed to pretend that any relationship “Sean” chooses to call a “marriage is actually a marriage. Sean wants us to pretend with him, otherwise we are all “Nazis.”

Same-sex “marriage” is a rejection of marriage. Gays don’t really want marriage. They want something different from marriage. They want a committed, sexual relationship with another man. And in practice, sometimes these relationships might be monogamous, but let’s face it: the vast majority quickly devolve into open or semi-open relationships.

If gays truly wanted marriage, they would find a nice girl, get a minister, get hitched, and settle down. But that’s not what gays want.

Having forsaken that right to the immutable definition of marriage, the 1.7 percent of American adults who identify as gay or lesbian demanding to call their relationships “marriage” inflict an enormous burden on the other 98.3 percent of American adults. To ask the entire population to forsake the definition of marriage, and pretend that two guys or two women together is a marriage, is asking way too much. It demands that intellectual honesty be shut down; it demands that common sense be turned off. It demands that we all pretend. It demands that we all become intellectually dishonest.

LGBT and Progressive activists want everyone to go along with the charade that we’re all engaged in the exact same thing. We are not.

Defying natural law is as imprudent as defying the law of gravity

Like Newton’s law of gravity, natural law can’t be defied or ignored, at least not for long. We deny or disregard the significance of complementarity at our own peril, for the consequences of our denial will likely be staggering.

Remember the Road Runner cartoon on Saturday mornings? Wile E. Coyote is able to resist gravity for a few seconds as he speeds off the edge of a cliff, unable to stop or turn as agilely as the Road Runner. He lingers in the air for a few seconds, but gravity always wins, sending poor Wile E. plummeting to the canyon floor, a thousand feet below.

In the same way, complementarity will win. Same-sex “marriage” will reveal itself to be a game of pretend, even to the gays and lesbians so engaged.

Like gravity itself, the logic and wisdom of complementarity are inescapable. Like nature, complementarity’s simple organic beauty and elegance are undeniably profound. And while the Bible certainly expresses themes of love and compassion, unconditional love does not require that we pretend that all relationships are precisely equal, or that moms or dads are expendable for children.

Bottom line lesson

The bottom line is this: It is impossible to be on the right side of history — or science — while simultaneously on the wrong side of natural law. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines is helping the world understand this.