Posted on 03/09/2005 3:31:40 AM PST by Huber
March 9, 2005
The Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) of Harvard University is fighting mad. Last week, actress Jada Pinkett Smith won an award from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations. During her acceptance speech, she told women in the audience, "you can have it all -- a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career … To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas." Rather sweet, no? Not to the BGLTSA, which called for an apology from the organizers of the Cultural Rhythms show, explaining that Smith's statements were "extremely heteronormative." "Heteronormative," for those who don't speak the radical homosexual lingo, may be defined as the viewpoint that heterosexual relationships are normal, and others are not.
The organizers immediately complied with the BGLTSA's demand, issuing a mea culpa stating, "She wasn't trying to be offensive. But some felt she was taking a narrow view, and some people felt left out." The Foundation also pledged to "take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class."
The BGLTSA, as a wing of the radical homosexual movement, is looking to broaden the definition of normality to include deviant behavior. They're not looking for passive tolerance. They're looking for active acceptance. Now, ignoring homosexuality is no longer allowable; we must instead champion it, equating it with heterosexuality. In fact, homosexuality must be prized over heterosexuality; an open homosexual may proclaim to his heart's content that "dreams can come true -- you can find a same-sex partner," but an open heterosexual may not state that marriage constitutes "having it all."
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted such a broad societal trend toward normalizing the deviant as early as 1993, when he coined the term "defining deviancy down." He posited that "the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard."
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out that alongside the movement to "define deviancy down," there was a concurrent movement to "define deviancy up": "As part of the vast social project of moral leveling, it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized," Krauthammer wrote. "The normal must be found to be deviant." One of the agendas of the "defining deviancy up" movement, Krauthammer noted, was promoting "an underlying ideology about the inherent aberrancy of all heterosexual relationships."
The Moynihan-Krauthammer prediction has come to pass. Straight men and women may no longer consider themselves normal, unless they also consider homosexuality normal. The rage against "heteronormalism" is rage against traditional societal standards as a whole. Exclusive morality has always offended the immoral. The only difference is that now offensiveness receives a stiffer societal sentence than blatant immorality. This is what political correctness -- the "live and let live" societal model -- has wrought.
The rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal amorality devolving into societal immorality. The rationale behind societal amorality is the myopic question: "How does my immoral behavior hurt you?" The answer is: It may not, in the short term. But when society sanctions your immoral behavior, that does hurt me. If millions of people accept the deviant as normal, that reshapes society in vastly destructive ways. Your moral self-destruction may have no consequences for me, but destruction of societal standards always has consequences.
When the stigma left single motherhood, society felt the sting in rising rates of single motherhood and juvenile crime. When the stigma left sexual licentiousness, society felt the sting in rising rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional emptiness and nihilism. Your immoral personal behavior may not affect me, but exempting your immoral behavior from societal scrutiny certainly does. A society without standards is an unhappy, unhealthy society -- a society with no future. And all of us have to live in that society.
The BGLTSA isn't asking for tolerance on a person-to-person level. Instead, they're asking us to continue lowering societal standards. If we must choose between alienating the immoral and ravaging societal standards for the personal comfort of the immoral, then choosing the former is the only rational decision.
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Jesus said: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6
Wow, I've spent my life being heteronormative and never even knew it.
I for one am so very tired of gays trying to push their agenda and make their perversion normal.
Trying to have more rights then the constitution allows normal folks.
Sort of like the A.C.L.U. trying to knock GOD out of everyday life.
Judt out of touch with the norm.
Here's a journalist that knows the truth. No political correctness in this article.
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
That being said, I believe the author is attempting to tar homosexuality with the same brush he applies to examples of truly harmful behavior.
Note this sentence:
When the stigma left single motherhood, society felt the sting in rising rates of single motherhood and juvenile crime. When the stigma left sexual licentiousness, society felt the sting in rising rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional emptiness and nihilism.
Agreed. There's just one problem. The author fails to suggest in any way how the acceptance of homosexuality could have harmful effects on society. About the only thing I can think of that would be harmful would be laws giving homosexual couples the same right to adopt children as heterosexual ones. I believe it unquestionably better for children to grow up in a family with a mother and a father.
Other than that, I don't really see other than in strictly religious terms - that civil society is not entitled to take into account - what is inherently immoral about homosexual relationships and what the potential harm to society is.
Bump for re-reading for when our society finally crumbles and people dare ask why.
2 Timothy 3: 1-4
Of course it is entitled to "take them into account".
THIS civil society EXISTS because of religion, the revolution that created it JUSTIFIES its existence by religion, and when religion is finally expelled as you seem to propose, the RATIONALE for this particular civil society will be gone as well.
Homosexuals spread disease (AIDS came to this country through one homosexual airline employee and look what grief it caused, and other STDs -- which costs the taxpayers money)and they recruit in the public schools, although they do it under the guise of "tolerance," which is fast turning into "acceptance" only.
Some kids in Maryland are going to be brainwashed into thinking homosexuals are the new American family. Well, some parents don't want their children brainwashed into thinking that and they don't want their tax money supporting programs such as this one:
http://www.educationnews.org/sexing-up-maryland-public-school.htm
I'd ask you to expand on your comment. To what degree do you feel civil society can take religious precepts into account? As mentioned in my original post, I think it is right for laws to favor adoption by traditional families, because it is demonstrable that children do better in such circumstances. But beyond that, do you feel that laws outlawing homosexuality, per se, are permissible?
I don't like seeing homosexuality promoted in public schools. I think the answer is vouchers and perhaps even more fundamental reforms giving parents the opportunity to send their children to schools reflecting their values.
As to the issue of homosexuals spreading disease, how would you translate that into public policy or law?
I do not, personally, think they are desirable.
But since the authors of the US Constitution passed laws which not only made homosexual acts illegal, but punished them by death, it would be hard to say such laws are not permissable.
On the larger point-the entire justification of the United States rests on the following:
We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
If civil society cannot take such religious precepts as the Creation of Man, his embodiment with rights by his Creator, and that Creator's ongoing involvement in the affairs of His created beings, including His blessing of their efforts to follow His will for them-then where do you suggest we go from here?
and Romans: Chapter 1 is also an interesting read.
There's probably nothing legally you can do to stop the spread of infection, although I've read about a couple of cases involving people who have not told their many partners they have AIDS and have been sent to jail for not doing so, but I think that's rare. I don't think you can coerce people into treatment, although that's done with TB patients (NY for one. TB is a risk for all who come into contact with someone who has it, but AIDS only affects people who engage in unsafe sex), and you certainly can't separate AIDS patients from the general population as they do in Cuba.
All the claptrap erected over the past 50 years that one might want to marshall against my prior paragraph are just that: claptrap politically inserted in the cultural discourse in order to avoid the above truths. So don't waste everyone's time by pointing out that the politically compromised Amer Psychological Association reversed itself about 35 years ago as to whether homosexuality was deviant.
The posted article is excellent in explaining why what people do in their own bedrooms should not be normalized or publically sanctioned or tolerated. Notice I said "publically". Keep in your bedroom and the society could leave you alone. But it should not be accepted outside the bedroom. Simple? Of course. Clarity usually is.
The radical gay agenda is frightening and they are making a grab for our children.
Last year I had a letter to the editor published in the paper regarding gay marriage. After telling people about Tammy Bruce' book and reminding people that Clinton signed the defense of marriage act, this is what was in the letter and about 2 hours of research on the internet provided:
In Vermont, a program was instituted called Outright Vermont. Vermont schools advertise this program on bulletin boards and the materials contain links to web sites which lead to adult gay male porn sites. Last year, NYT opened the first gay high school in the nation.
Former Gov. Gay Davis of California signed a sex education law that requires students to adopt a healthy attitude toward homosexuality. The NEA has been developing programs to incorporate the gay agenda into our public schools for children of all ages.
Many programs have been in place for over 20 years and the curricula is getting more radical each year.
NEA is trying to force state governments to require both home schoolers and private schools to teach pro gay agendas or refuse to validate their diplomas.
The NEA has successfully sponsored a curriculum which some schools have adopted that requires children to partake in "Gay Day" which involved playacting.
In March 2002, Penn State University featured an advocate of pedophilia at a women's health conference, despite congressional disapproval and parental concerns.
In 1998, the American Psychological Associated claimed that pedophilia often "does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis."
The North American Man Boy Love Assoc. (NAMBLA) is a regularly quoted member of the gay movement and pedophile themes abound in their literature. Their web site quotes "...instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them." The gay movement does not condemn these comments or ask that the Association refrain from attaching itself to their agenda.
The taboo against adult-child sex is eroding and the NYT and other cultural elite press regularly praise literary works containing pedophilia relationships. Poet Allen Ginsberg was a pedophile and member of NAMBLA. His poetry contained explicit references to pedophilia and yet when he died in 1997, journalists praised him as an icon whose poetry was without rival.
Researchers differ on the numbers, but approximately 25% of gay men report they wre molested as children which they blame for setting them on the road to homosexuality. This is not to paint all gays as having predatory motives, but I believe that gay marriage will provide an access to children through adoption that is unprecedented and dangerous. And yet, we are told that praying in school is dangerous to our children. Moral relativism is standing on its head.
I think a balance must be struck between the unquestionably religious roots upon which our country was founded, and the limits imposed by the Establishment Clause on transposing those roots into law.
I can't say precisely where I would strike the balance. Laws outlawing homosexuality, per se, would in my opinion probably run counter to the Establishment Clause and/or principles of equal protection. When it comes to homosexual marriage, I would hope the issue would be resolved by legislatures, rather than being imposed by the courts, but ultimately I do believe that some vehicle will have to be created giving homosexuals the right to societally recognized unions of some sort.
The other alternative, which I think merits exploration, would be to have government get out of the marriage business altogether. I see marriage as a fundamenatlly religious/spiritual institution. Perhaps we should just leave it to people and their churches to decide who gets married. People can then have enforceable civil contracts among themselves to arrange their mutual rights.
I appreciate the civil and restrained nature of your response.
As for NAMBLA, Michael Jackson, etc. - child molestation is a heinous crime, be it hetero- or homosexual, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Those laws are already on the books, of course. What additional laws do you feel are required, and how do you feel that permitting homosexual civil unions or even marriages threatens society at large - other than with respect to the issue of adoption, with respect to which I've stated my position that society has a legal right to prefer adoptions by heterosexual couples?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.