"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." (Proverbs 14:12)
American conservatives have borne the brunt of several gut punches in the last few weeks over the issue of legalizing so-called homosexual marriage.
First, country singer Carrie Underwood -- whose fan base includes large numbers of political conservatives and evangelical Christians -- revealed that the church she attends is gay-friendly, adding: "As a married person myself, I don't know what it's like to be told I can't marry somebody I love, and want to marry. ... I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love."
Next, former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne released a statement regarding the so-called homosexual marriage of their daughter, Mary, to Heather Poe. The Cheneys' take: "Mary and Heather have been in a committed relationship for many years, and we are delighted that they were able to take advantage of the opportunity to have that relationship recognized.”
Finally, traditional marriage supporter David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, announced in a New York Times op-ed that he's switched sides on the issue. Why? Said Blankenhorn: "I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one's definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness."
Why do such notables think so-called homosexual marriage is a good idea? Let's summarize:
The Underwood Rationale: Gay marriage is only fair. And heterosexuals who disagree are selfish. The Cheney Rationale: Gay marriage is only fair. Our daughter and her partner have been committed to each other for a long time. The Blankenhorn Rationale: Gay marriage is only fair. And heterosexuals who disagree are mean.
Hardly Lincoln-Douglas material, but there it is. But how did this reasoning come out of the mouths of people who aren't abashed liberals? And why are their arguments so ... well ... lackluster and shallow?
It should first be noted that none of their "arguments" are really arguments, from the standpoint of reasoned debate on the morality and/or wisdom of legalizing so-called homosexual marriage. Here's what they really are: regurgitated talking points, continually reinforced by an insidious social movement that wants unanimous compliance on its immoral agenda -- an agenda that many more Americans would reject if it were brought into broad daylight, where all its lies, obfuscations and straw men could be exposed.
The talking points are, by design, shallow. You're not even supposed to realize they exist. Deep reasoning is the enemy of this movement, so references to religious morality or natural law, if they come up at all, are ridiculed. After all, every reasonable, enlightened person knows this agenda is about Fundamental Fairness and Personal Choice. You already know this social movement well.
It's called the Abortion Lobby.
Wait, you say. That should have been "the LGBT Lobby," right? No, indeed. Because the LGBT talking points coming from the mouths of many well-meaning Americans today are not only not arguments. They're the same old talking points used by radical abortion activists to deceive previous generations. They've just been retooled for a new marketing campaign.
But are the two agendas really that much alike? You decide.
1. Both agendas operate as anti-child cultures of death. Abortion kills children. Homosexual behavior can't create them.
2. Both agendas falsely play on people's unnecessary fear and guilt by focusing on the micro personal story, rather than the macro moral issue. For abortion activists, the question often was framed thusly: "What if your daughter found herself in a crisis pregnancy? Shouldn't she have the right to choose?" The LGBT activist subtly alters his question to this: "What if your daughter announced she's gay? Shouldn't she have the right to choose whom to love?" And, of course, if your answer focuses on deeper questions about the effect on society of embracing abortion on demand or so-called homosexual marriage, rather than personal love for your own flesh and blood, then you look like a jerk. This is why the questions are put the way they are. "This isn't about society. It's about your daughter. Don't you love your daughter?" LGBT activists have gained many a quasi-conservative convert just because that person had a gay daughter, son or friend and couldn't look beyond the love lines. Emphasizing the personal is a very effective tactic, and both lobbies have used it successfully. The abortion lobby did it by making men scared to offend women. The LGBT lobby does it by making heterosexuals scared to offend homosexuals. Same tactic, different objective.
3. Both agendas rely heavily on Orwellian Newspeak. For the abortion activists, the terminology is "a woman's right to choose," "reproductive health decision" or "termination of pregnancy." No mention of babies. For the LGBT activists, the terminology is "equality," "civil rights" and "love." No mention of sodomy.
4. Both agendas count on the media to frame the agenda for the general public, reporting only stories that make the agenda look good and its opposition look bad. From Planned Parenthood to women who have had abortions to abortionists themselves, the media dutifully paints the pro-abortion zealots as selfless heroes who just care about women. One-sided stories are vital to the cause, which is why you'll rarely see more than a token quote from a pro-lifer in any major news report on abortion. And if you're waiting to see an expose on Planned Parenthood or actual pictures of dismembered babies on a nightly TV newscast, keep on waiting.
The LGBT activists enjoy the same treatment. To the media, homosexuals are an honorable and severely oppressed victim class, and they're all born gay -- no exceptions. Consequently, you'll only see media portrayals of Awesome Homosexuals. They're sensitive, good-looking and saintly; they're wonderful friends with brilliant minds, sharp wits and caring personal advice at the ready. And they're everywhere: on TV, in the movies, on the news, in the White House (except the non-Awesome ones who recently got caught flipping off portraits of President Reagan). Which brings up a periodic problem the media has when the storyline doesn't go as planned: you know, like when actress Cynthia Nixon declared that for her, being gay is a choice. Or when singer Melissa Etheridge's partner, Julie Cypher, left her, with this exit line: "I'm not gay." But when Jerry Sandusky or Catholic priests sexually abuse little boys, you won't see any media outlet raise the slightest question about the accused's sexual preferences. Not relevant, homophobe. End of debate.
5. Both agendas have succeeded by obfuscating the physical death, pain or injury that comes from embracing their agenda. When, again, was the last time you saw a major network broadcast photos of dismembered preborn children? Oh, yes, we already covered that. Never. Similarly, why don't we ever see a major news analysis on the health risks of homosexuality, as reported on the website of the Centers for Disease Control? (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm)
I guess we are all to believe that the moment America's First Gay President -- as Newsweek called him -- repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," all the health risks of homosexuality magically went away. Not relevant, homophobe. End of debate.
6. Both agendas have thrived by relying on the Saul Alinsky-esque tactics of targeting, freezing, personalizing and polarizing their opponents. There are no reasonable, honest and fair debates with the Abortion Lobby or the LGBT Lobby. It's not how they get stuff done. It's all about making the opposition look bad, in order to skirt the real issue of whether or not their agenda is moral or good for society. So in the agenda-pushing scheme of things, those who support abortion are reasonable, freedom-loving people with a sense of fairness, and those who don't are judgmental, religious zealots. Those who support so-called homosexual marriage also are reasonable, freedom-loving people with a sense of fairness. And those who don't are judgmental, religious zealots. See how easy that was?
7. Both agendas seek "religious cover." It's why you see stories like the recent news report on the Washington, D.C.-based "Christian" obstetrician, who changed his mind on abortion and decided to start killing preborn children out of his great "compassion" for women. Or why the senior religion editor at The Huffington Post breathlessly reported a story over the weekend about religious people "celebrating" LGBT Pride. Again, religious people who embrace abortion or homosexuality -- even if they're violating the very tenets of their own religion by doing so -- are good. But religious people who oppose those practices are evil, bigoted, homophobic and -- let's face it -- probably hiding a secret abortion or same-sex affair.
Here's the bottom line: When LGBT activists say gay marriage should be a choice because it's only fair, remember the abortion activists said abortion should be a choice because it's not fair to force a woman to give birth. When LGBT activists try to make it about your gay daughter, remember abortion activists tried to make it about your pregnant daughter. When LGBT activists decry opponents as mean heterosexuals, remember abortion activists decried opponents as mean men.
But now that we're 40 years past Roe v. Wade, many of us can see that the abortion agenda never was about "our pregnant daughters" at all. And it wasn't about creating a more fair, equal society. It was, at root, about sexual freedom with no consequences. A freedom that has cost an entire generation of children -- roughly 53 million babies to date -- their lives. And for what? Now that Social Security is in its death throes, one could argue that having 53 million more young adults in America right now might have been a good thing for all of us. That cursed hindsight.
By contrast, the LGBT agenda hasn't been fully realized -- yet. They say they want equality, fairness, civil rights. It's about sexual freedom, but it's really about state-sanctioned sexual freedom, one that will create a whole new definition of morality and civilization. That's a big change, one that will be nearly impossible to reverse. So it's about more than shrugging your shoulders about the two nice guys down the street who want to be married. It's also about accepting that, if homosexual couples are allowed to marry in the United States, the state -- as it has in the case of our newly "open" military -- takes the official position that homosexuality is morally right. If you're a Christian family who believes that God was telling the truth in Romans, Chapter 1, you're the intolerant one under the new morality. And you'll have to be dealt with, in ways we have yet to see.
We do have an inkling of what's ahead, though, as seen in places like the U.S. military and some college campuses. When homosexual "rights" are recognized, religious rights -- guaranteed in our First Amendment -- are trumped. Even Equal Employment Opportunity Commission appointee and radical lesbian Chai Feldblum has said that when homosexual rights and religious liberty come into conflict, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”
And don't forget that once the American public accepts that we must legally recognize a homosexual's "civil right" to marriage, how can we long deny those same "civil rights" to polygamists and polyamorists? Don't they have "love?" Don't they deserve "equality?" Look for those dominos to fall, too, probably more quickly than any of us can imagine.
The American people were fooled once before by the talking-points lies of a radical social agenda, and millions of innocent children paid the price for it with their precious little lives. That is why it is imperative that before fully embracing another radical social agenda in America, we jettison the talking points we've been given and give laborious, sober consideration to the myriad religious, moral, philosophical, biological, natural-law and political arguments against it.
It's only fair.