Public opinion polls showing the progress of the “homosexual rights” movement are much like the poll numbers showing support for abortion in the early 1990s. Back then only the most principled political candidates ran as openly pro-life. The rest, especially those in squishy districts, kept their mouth shut out of fear of alienating what was a growing pro-choice majority.
Today – it’s a new deal. Recent polls show a reversal of earlier trends. The pro-life side improved their work, sharpened their arguments and has become more effective than ever in making the case in defense of the unborn. Websites like that of Feminists for Life’s are good examples of where that debate is going – and that’s bad news for the pro-aborts.
Certainly medical technology helped pro-lifers as well. As ultra-sound technology improved, pictures and videos made it more difficult for the other side to get away with using terms like “fetal tissue.” Other medical advances helped prove that babies were viable far earlier than poor old Justice Blackmun thought was possible.
Similarly, those who understand the serious threat to the social fabric posed by the extremist “homosexual rights” agenda are really only now starting to get their act together. Pop culture and the mainstream press might still be the loudest voices in the arena, but they’re no longer alone. As alternative media and the Internet mature, the proper context of the debate will be set and the defense of traditional morality will improve.
Just as technology aided the pro-lifers, the information age will aide in the debate over “homosexual rights.” For example, hiding the physical health consequences of certain behaviors will become increasingly difficult.
Whether they like it or not, for example, certain body orifices weren’t designed for all the uses they’re being put to. Mother Nature is stubborn and won’t make adjustments for those unable to resist strong compulsions.
As more individuals leave the homosexual lifestyle, the immutability case is weakened as well. And social scientists are already reporting the bad news from radical social experiments overseas.
Thus far the left has worked overtime to redefine the terms. Yet for all the years of propaganda, they haven’t been able to definitively make the case that we’re talking about something other than plain old sexual preference.
And what is sexual preference, or as the pro “homosexual rights” crowd prefers, “sexual orientation”? The American Psychiatric Association has a list of at least twenty-three such orientations.
If they’re right and people are born with a certain orientation, I particularly feel sorry for those who were born “coprophiliacs.” I’ll let you look it up on Google. Necrophilia is another of those listed. Decomposition no doubt puts a strain on long-term relationships.
Sooner or later, rational people will hear the good argument in favor of a few easy to understand notions – and the poll numbers will begin to reverse.
The first such notion has already been outlined – that this is about sexual proclivities and the behaviors that result. Period. It’s not something lofty and high-minded, no matter how much the self-appointed enlightened class likes to pretend otherwise. It’s sex, not art or philosophy or science.
Another simple fact is that all human behavior is subject to a determination of right and wrong, and that means it comes onto the dreaded field of m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y.
Every human being on the planet has to decide what’s right and wrong when it comes to their private lives. Arriving at public policy is another matter. Civil society has to debate and decide where to draw the lines.
When the lines are drawn properly, there’s no confusion about the fact that people retain the right to make judgments, that is discriminate, on moral issues. Sexual behavior/orientation/preference will never be the equivalent of race or ethnicity. It’s only about how you like to have sex.
Another bit of bad news for the “homosexual rights” proponents is the existence of people like Tammy Bruce. Ms. Bruce is a former activist in the feminist and “homosexual rights” movements, and is currently a writer, speaker, and radio talk show host.
She’s also a self-professed pro-choicer, feminist, and lesbian. And while that might trouble some devout Christians, they’re not the ones who need to read her book “The Death of Right and Wrong.”
Her audience is those on the left, in the mushy middle, and among the libertarian types that still cling to a naïve view of human nature.
People like Tammy Bruce show that tolerance is possible and civilization can thrive even while moral disagreements exist. While I differ with Ms. Bruce on some key points, she clearly doesn’t suffer from “moralityphobia.”
In the opening pages of chapter one she issues her warning:
“Welcome to a culture where right and wrong have taken such a beating they’re no longer recognizable. If you think this debasement of our culture can never really affect you, think again. Today’s moral relativism and selfish agendas are moving through the body of society like a cancer, putting all of us at risk.”
I’ll address more of Tammy Bruce’s book in future columns. Until then, I recommend that you buy her book and read it for yourself. Click here to do so.
©2006 John Francis Biver