A leading opponent of homosexual “marriage” uses language that implicitly approves homosexuality; and the real threat of homosexualislt tyranny
I wrote to Maggie Gallagher today:
In your column today you say that Vermont, along with instituting homosexual “marriage,” also enacted religious liberty protections for those who oppose homosexual “marriage”—but you neglected to say what those protections are. [Note to reader: See Tim W.’s below comment on what such “protections” really add up to.] See
- end of initial entry -
Another point, which I’ve made to you before: your constant use of the word “gay” implicitly approves and legitimizes the behavior and the political/cultural movement you are opposing. Thus you write:
Same-sex marriage is quite different from bans on interracial marriage in one powerful respect: It asks religious Americans to surrender a core belief—no, not Leviticus (disapproval of gay sexual acts), but Genesis—the idea that God himself made man male and female and commanded men and women to come together in a special way to image the fruitfulness of God. [Emphasis added.]
“Gay sexual acts”? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds, especially coming from a Catholic opponent of homosexual conduct and homosexual “marriage”?
Instead of such language, which implicitly approves homosexuality, please consider using neutral, descriptive language. In the present instance, you could have said, “homosexual acts.”
Do you fear that such neutral, non-approving language would mark you as a bigot against homosexuality?
Howard Sutherland wrote this to Maggie Gallagher:
Larry Auster is right on both counts, and each of his points touches on serious problems for traditionalists who reject this up-ending of what used to be the commonly understood order of society.
Surrendering our language to the left leaves us enfeebled, with a weakened vocabulary to criticize liberalism’s depredations. The left understands the political and polemical use of language—I’m sure you have read Orwell’s essay about that….
Larry is right: to use “gay” as liberals dictate is an implicit surrender and reads as a tacit approval of conduct we cannot approve.
As for the Genesis/Leviticus distinction, while I certainly agree that we must object on the basis of Genesis, why hold back from objecting on a Leviticus basis as well? I don’t think our catechism holds back; neither does our Pope.
In the new liberal order that is now taking over every corner of society, what effective protection will there be for the consciences of those who object to what liberalism dictates, such as recognizing “marriages” among homosexuals as valid or acquiescing in our tax payments’ funding of abortions?
As an example of what we face, Larry was kind enough to post a comment I made about the new president of the Episcopal Theological Seminary. In 2007, Episcopal ministress Katherine Hancock Ragsdale spoke in Birmingham. This nominally Christian cleric lauded abortion and its providers, calling it (incessantly) a “blessing” and them “saints” engaged in “holy work.” She had scornful words for obstetricians, gynecologists and pharmacist who object to providing abortion and contraceptive “services.” In Ragsdale’s view, the only right they have is to quit their professions.
Ragsdale is one liberal who has no respect whatever for reservations of conscience, religious or otherwise, if they impede the transgressive progress of liberalism. About that, I think she speaks for the liberal establishment, especially the current residents of the White House and the leadership in Congress. There is no reasonable disagreement with them about these issues. I think resistance will soon have to take the form of civil disobedience, at least.
On another tangent, as someone who is interested in voting patterns, I would like to see a poll that will never be taken: one that asks people in Vermont whether they agree with or oppose this atrocity—with the respondents categorized by whether they are, to coin a phrase, Old Vermonters whose roots are actually in Vermont or New Vermonters whose roots are in greater New York City. I suspect that would show considerable polarization—at least among people over 30. HRS
Anthony Damato writes:
I agree with you on your important point in opposing homosexuality by using a cushy term homosexuals themselves have commendeered. Back in 1985, a female friend of mine was discharged from the USAF in England because of homosexual conduct. I asked her when she became a lesbian, and she said to me that the term “lesbian” was insulting to her group. She said they preferred to be called “gay” or “dykes,” and to call her “gay.”
This sort of thing has happened to me at work. A female co-worker told me matter-of-factly that she needed to call her “wife.” My silence at the time, legitimized her militant agenda of normalizing the perverse idea of homosexual “marriage” by repeated mention. I regretted not directly confronting her on the unacceptibility of attempting this sort of conditioning on me.
Homosexuals need what is called a “reality check.” The reality is that calling unhealthy, amoral behavior by a word originally intended to describe a happy occasion, does not make their self described “gayness” happy, nor healthy. The reality is in the statistics, and more importantly, in the Bible.
Change the language, change the perception, and you change the culture. Marxism 101.
BTW, did she reply?
No. As I’ve pointed out before, 99.9 percent of the time, mainstream conservatives decline to reply to criticism from their right. I think this shows that they have never examined their own premises and positions and so they automatically dismiss any thoughtful criticism from their right as off-base or irrelevant. Intellectually they live inside a bubble.
Tim W. writes:
As reported at MSNBC, people are losing their right not to associate with homosexuals.
Proponents of “anti-discrimination” policies for the benefit of homosexuals always insist they are providing proper exemptions for people of faith. But the truth is, this only means that Christians are protected within the specific bounds of their church. The church can’t be forced to “marry” a homosexual couple, or to ordain a homosexual as a minister. At least not yet. But outside the geographic bounds of the church building, people of faith lose their right to practice their religion when running their business, utilizing their property, or forming a private organization.
This is all bad enough, but we all know from history that it won’t stop there and eventually churches that don’t “marry” homosexuals or ordain them will lose their tax exemption. Note how casually the article I linked “balances” the right of homosexuals not to be discriminated against with the right of religious freedom, as if the two are of equal lineage. The latter, in fact, is a cornerstone of American liberty, recognized by our founders and enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The idea that homosexuals should be protected from private acts of “discrimination” by people who do not approve of their conduct has no such heritage. It is not a right in the classical sense of the term, but a benefit awarded by the state to a favored class at the expense of the freedoms of an unfavored class.
I think that of all the issues that may force conservatives to start looking for ways to secede—literally—from American society, the forced approval of homosexuality and forced association with homosexuals is at the top of the list. When a society not only approves homosexuality, but approves it officially and requires approval of it (as happens symbolically in Chapter 19 of Genesis) that society has passed a line into sheer evil that spells its doom and makes it impossible for decent people to support it.
By adopting the language of the left, Gallagher needlessly exposes herself to criticism from the left. Jesse Taylor, of the dreadful liberal website Pandagon, points to her first sentence, “Last week the Iowa Supreme Court found a constitutional right to gay marriage, rejecting the arguments for marriage accepted by the state supreme courts of New York, Maryland and Washington,” and writes:
They found a right to marriage by rejecting arguments for marriage. Please excuse me while I sift through this pile of goo for a point.
For anyone who believes that “gay marriage” is the equivalent of traditional marriage, this sentence would legitimately be confusing. Gallagher ought to place “marriage” in quotes when referring to gay couples because it’s not marriage at all.
Of course, Jesse Taylor selectively quotes Gallagher to advance his point that her argument is incoherent. In the next paragraph, she clearly explains, “Same-sex unions are not marriages.” But the bloggers of Pandagon aren’t known for their honesty or intellectual rigor.
By the way, Taylor’s post has an interesting title: “Your Marriage Will Be Impacted By Marriage.” That’s the position of the left: “How could the institution of marriage be destroyed, like conservatives say it will be, if more people are getting married?! More marriages equal stronger institution of marriage.” He makes the same point in another post when he says he doesn’t understand “how gays and lesbians threaten marriage by getting married.” To them, the conservative position is inherently illogical.
[An exchange between Ken Hechtman and me on why I said the forced approval of homosexuality and homosexual “marriage” would lead to secession began in this thread. It’s been moved to another thread
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 09, 2009 03:00 PM | Send