Gay lobby staying busy redefining terms
by Roger Hines
Columnist
February 03, 2013 12:48 AM | 2277 views | 6 6 comments | 14 14 recommendations | email to a friend | print
No silver-tongued devil will ever convince me that the majority of Americans favors the victories that the gay lobby has recently garnered, even though the number of those victories is impressive. For instance, President Obama has, in effect, stated he will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. He has explicitly stated he supports gay marriage.

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.

Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Oy Vey
|
February 08, 2013
Roger, I do not think you need to defend anyones marriage, nor do I think we can ever legislate an issue such as this. At a time when over 50% of marriages end in divorce and at a time when half of the children born in the US are born out of wedlock, you may want to look at the failure of marriage, or the non-interest in marriage as a larger issue. I cannot fathom that two people, deciding to join together, being supportive of one another, being accountible to one another, and YES...loving one another...should be of any issue to you. By the way Roger, the divorce rate of couples within the church is only slightly lower than those outside of the church....why don't you focus on that.
Speak the rights.
|
February 05, 2013
At last a refreshing and HONEST take...no head in the sand approach. How do all your detractors think we got here , Roger? Progress? No...biology.

Bringing race rights into this forum is like playing a two of diamonds at a game of Old Maid. The Bible says nothing about what male and female should be married...just that they are supposed to be male and female.

I read an Adam and Steve reference among your detractors. What a deliberating, thoughtful and painful head-ache that must of caused to think of something so clever and witty! In the words of Col. Sherman T. Potter (M*A*S*H) I say: "Horsehockey!"

I just wish I had a bumper sticker that read:

I AM IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE...NOT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

Lastly, Roger, you hit the squeaky wheel and the grease came calling. Fortunately your detractors are probably looking for a car with wagon-wheels to soap.
Christur
|
February 03, 2013
The gays seeking of the redefinition of marriage? Surely you must know that marriage is ever evolving which just by looking at the last 100 years is evidence of this. You could also look at how other cultures treat marriages, even today marriages within in the middle east is a transaction between the father or brother and the man who wants to marry his daughter.

“How do two people of the same gender consummate their love?”

Well, a simple google search could lead you to that answer, not sure why you are interested in two people having sex.

Finally the slippery slope argument that you tried to validate. We could talk about Medical or legal reasons why polygamy wouldn't work, but lets just stick to Taxes. Who claims who, do they take turns? Could you imagine trying come up with a tax solution where a husband has five wives and they in return have three husbands and so on and so forth, that would be a tax nightmare and would most likely end up causing excessive tax fraud. Polygamy would cause relatively easy situations to become convoluted legal messes.
The Bike Guy
|
February 03, 2013
When I see the threatened ranting of narrow-minded, old, white, southern men, I always wonder whether they look back and realize that they were wrong on civil rights for African-Americans, wrong on civil rights for women, so isn't there a chance that, yet again, they are wrong in their mean-spirited and ignorant stand on the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans?

Probably not. Introspection and logic are not the hallmarks of reactionaries.

Einstein said that people don't really change their minds as societies evolve but rather that the old generation that clung fast to the old ideas dies off. And so it will be.

Kevin Foley
|
February 03, 2013
Roger, homosexuality has been around since Adam and Steve. Honestly, do you really care what two adult males or two adult females do in their bedrooms? I don't. It's none of my business and, more important, it has zero impact on my life.

I've been happily married for 37 years. The gay couple who lived next door to my wife and I when we resided in Loring Heights posed no threat to us whatsoever (they did keep their property ship-shape).

Why do I need my marriage "defended"? Answer: I don't. And you don't either. Society doesn't either. Live and let live, Roger. That's the real American way.

too funny
|
February 03, 2013
Homophobic drivel. You fundies need to quit obsessing over how other consenting adults love each other.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides