Also, at least four states have voted in favor of gay marriage. Atlanta-based UPS announced recently that it will no longer support the Boy Scouts of America because that organization doesn’t allow gays. Now comes the news that the Boy Scouts, that bastion of tradition, will alter its policy on gay Scout leaders after all.
The caving that we are witnessing on so many fronts is astonishing.
Why is it happening? Why have corporations and politicians — not the public at large — taken to endorsing the gay lobby? Why are so many erstwhile opponents of so-called gay rights changing their minds?
One reason is that the gay lobby is pulling a fast one with their clever use of language. They are focusing our minds on supposed rights instead of on homosexuality itself. Americans are transfixed by the word “rights.” Any group that wants to make inroads with a cause, an agenda, or an ideology need only attach the word “rights” to whatever they are pressing. Then the cause becomes legitimate, garbed in righteousness, justice, emotion, and consequently, acceptability. Never mind that a special class of Americans is created just because we have attached “rights” to them or to their ideology.
To my mind, it isn’t “rights” only that the gay lobby is pushing. It is pushing homosexuality. But why is the word “homosexuality” so seldom used by gay lobbyists? Because in spite of what corporate boards are doing, the word still causes most Americans to recoil. Yes, he who frames the question (or the issue) wins the debate. Currently, gay supporters, clothing themselves in civil rights fervor, are framing the issue as a matter of time-honored American justice. It is no such thing, and average Americans reject it.
The gay lobby, organized in every state with supporters in every state legislature, has always been careful with their word choices. Like their friends, the progressives, who never speak of socialism but call for the transformation of society and the distribution of wealth, gays speak of “freedom to love,” discrimination, and religious intolerance, but never of homosexuality. Endlessly they speak of gay marriage, but never of homosexual marriage.
To speak of homosexuality would invite discussion of biology or, dare I say, physiology and anatomy? That in turn would raise the question of what true marriage is. Can two people of the same gender truly be married? If so, then we have instantly engaged in re-defining our terms, thereby breaking a cardinal rule of serious, classical debate.
But the gay community has always broken this rule. Appearing as guests on the cable news shows, they will never answer or acknowledge the question, “How do two people of the same gender consummate their love?” Or how can two people of the same gender have children? The number of terms we are re-defining now grows: marriage, family, parent, sex itself, and of course, IRS “dependent.”
It would be graceless and indecorous, gays claim, to speak of consummation on television. It is not graceless or indecorous, of course, to march in gay parades that display anything but grace and decorum.
The gay lobby also doesn’t like to discuss the slippery slope regarding the definition of marriage. If two men or two women can meet the definition of marriage, why can’t two men and three women? Gays scoff at this question, calling it a red herring; however, there are, no doubt, countless people waiting for the moment to also claim their right to be considered legally married, in whatever arrangement they prefer.
If America doesn’t stand firm on the set, social construct we have traditionally called marriage, she is sunk. Common sense, which doesn’t get much respect or play time nowadays, screams that a child needs a mother and a father. Who needs “research” to prove this?
Think about it. Everybody does have a mother and a father. So? This fact alone creates a societal unit. Actually it is a little kingdom, nature’s automatic social default.
Pardon the high flung metaphor, but let’s say this little kingdom has a king, a queen, and at least one subject. The moment that subject, a new baby, is born, a unit of government — the oldest we know of — is instantly reborn as well.
Two men cannot sustain, much less perpetuate, this construct. Neither can two women.
Re-define terms all we want, moderns will never improve upon the exhilaration of “Male and female created He them” or upon the wondrous injunction to “Be fruitful and multiply.”
Roger Hines of Kennesaw is a retired high school teacher and former state legislator.