Homosexual Marriage-The Marginalization of Women and the Family
Homosexual Marriage-The Marginalization of Women and the Family
L.M. Farrell, Ph. D.
The long term survival of civilization rests on two fundamental institutions, the nuclear family and the right to private property which is necessary to sustain the nuclear family. As David Frum notes, (Saturday Night, December 1995), the dismal consequences of the Russian experience in eliminating the right to private property are now well known to all Less commonly acknowledged is the social and economic crisis which has been unleashed as a result of the revolutionary change in thinking about the family. The traditional view is based on the common sense observation that marriage and the family is a public institution, in which all society has a stake in preserving, because families create the next generation of society. More recently, society has fallen into the bad habit of thinking of the family only as a private relationship between two people. This has destabilized family life and contributed to the growth of other social ills including an increase in the number of children who will learn less in school, earn less at work, commit more crimes, suffer more sexual troubles, and adjust less well to society than previous generations.
While the negative effects of family breakup are clear, policies designed to re-engineer the family and re-educate public opinion continue, often supported by taxpayer dollars. Attempts to strengthen the family have been complicated by the complacency of lawmakers, judges, public officials, and other members of society, entrusted to defend the common good, who choose to regard changing attitudes about the primary structure of the family as a mere change in public taste, much like the disappearance of the hat, as Frum observes, to be accommodated and even hurried along. Court decisions which require employers to extend employee benefits, originally provided to married spouses to help sustain the family, to all cohabiting couples have effectively abolished marriage as a distinct legal status. When homosexuals ask why their cohabitational relationships should not be treated like heterosexual relationships the only rational response is to treat all cohabitations as private matters entitled to no special status nor subsidies from third parties such as employers or government.
The rational legalistic trap in which society now finds itself differs sharply from the traditional legal institution of marriage which held that marriage endows husbands and wives with special rights and claims against each other and against the rest of society. Because parents create the next generation of humanity common sense dictates that society has an immense interest in helping them do that job well. The Victorians abolished the ancient custom of common-law marriage to eliminate the practice of people drifting into, and out of, quasi-marital relationships. Victorian law put people on notice that the obligations of marriage could be imposed on a couple only by a deliberate and public act.
Society forces others to underwrite and support marriage, not because marriage is good for the couple, but because it is good for the children they produce. A union that can not produce children is not one that the rest of society should be forced to subsidize. Thus, even if homosexuals can and do form permanent, emotionally serious partnerships, they do not merit the formal recognition of marriage.
Attempts to redefine the institution of marriage to accommodate same-sex or gay marriage diminish marriage and inflict serious harm on the prestige and morale of those who make major economic and personal sacrifices to create and sustain their families. To the rest of society, laws to establish gay marriage will appear as some type of practical joke at their expense, imposed from above by the ruling elite, a campy parody of the central institution which defines their lives and that of the families from which they come.
Traditional Family Marginalized by Artificial Birth Control
Much of the economic and social confusion in society is the logical consequence of the moral unraveling of the family and the reduced status of women due to the artificial suppression of her natural vocation within the home, which is motherhood. Scientific and technological progress has had a leveling effect on society which tends to minimize and marginalize this special vocation of women. While some medical advances have extended life and made it more livable, other technologies, particularly in the area of biological and genetic engineering, have destabilized society and confused the traditional understanding of the difference between right and wrong. The invention of various birth control devices has confused the fundamental relationship between love and sex and challenged the collective wisdom concerning the general and specific ends of human sexuality and human existence.
The widespread, uncritical acceptance of birth control has unleashed a sexual revolution which based on the principle of sex for pleasure which has lead to all and any form of sexual and pseudosexual activity. The order and continuity of the long term rhythm of the female sexual cycle which links past and future generations has been destroyed and with it the sense of meaning in life which is essential for the psychological growth of both men and women. Having abandoned their own true sexuality, women are now encouraged to emulate, the immaturity, insecurity and aggression of male sexuality.
Men have also been induced to abandon meaningful growth enhancing male sexuality in favor of meaningless, dead-end sex. The homosexualization of society is one telling indicator of the flight from femininity in modern society. While many have hailed what they perceive as the sexually liberating effects of the development of birth control technology the real effects have degraded the psychosexual environment and destroy millions of lives. The unwillingness or the inability of society to face the effects of birth control, which include an increase in violence against women, abortion, illegitimacy and poverty, suicide, and a variety of other crimes against humanity, suggests that widespread fear of responsible sex, and a desire to escape from female sexuality, is still the dominant emotion when dealing with human sexuality.
The difficulties faced by women who choose the traditional vocation of wife and mother are compounded by the moral relativism which has accompanied the scientific revolution. In the past, most cultures have recognized the relationship between a common morality based on a solid concept of right and wrong, and long term survival. They knew from bitter experience that morality, religion, stories and myth are bound together in some vital if poorly understood way, and that to destroy or sever these connections would not lead to strong independent ethical principles but weaken and disconnect society, and ultimately lead to its destruction.
Historically, societal recognition and protection of the traditional family, consisting of one father, one mother, and their natural children, was a necessary pre-requisite for the development of modern western society. Western culture has always respected and honored married motherhood, and has always frowned on motherhood out of wedlock for practical as well as ethical reasons. It has also held up the ideal that sex is to be reserved for marriage.
Natural Male-Female Balance in the Home is Undermined
A massive exercise in social engineering has been unleashed to undermine and destroy the traditional rights and power which women have long enjoyed in traditional society. Briefly stated the emphasis has been shifted from content to process. As George Gilder observed over 20 years ago in his book Sexual Suicide, most people enjoy their real satisfaction and gratification, not at work, but in the domestic and sexual aspects of life.
In reality, women possess enormous influence over men and most women do not feel subordinate. The conspicuous and calculable power of males is largely illusory, and is counterbalanced by the deep and inexorable capacity of women which is based on the psychological primacy of the role of the female in sexual love, marriage, conception of children, child bearing and breast feeding.
The implications of the new technology of reproduction has been widely accepted as an important weapon in the struggle to liberate women. In fact it separates women from their own femininity and assures the bondage of women to male technocracy and removes men from the civilizing and socialization process of responsible fatherhood. Men are freed to pursue their own sterile and, without woman, meaningless, sexual cycles in uncivilized groups, while technology sustains the community. In the pursuit of a nonexistent and unattainable equality women have been induced to forsake their true nature and to relinquish their natural erotic power over men. In the process women have been deluded into becoming a subordinate class.
In an authentic sexual society, the female physique is dominant. Man becomes dependent on the woman's love for him. He relies on her for sexual identity in a way in which she, who already has a sexual identity, never has to rely on him. She can bear a child whether he stays or not, while he loses his child if she leaves. His tie to the future, and his engagement in civilized society, passes through her womb. As Gilder states, in a sexually suicidal society, the male body becomes the physical ideal, and the male pattern of insecurity, dominance, and group aggression will prevail over domestic, and individual values.
Kinsey, Fraud, and the Flight from Human Sexuality
The rational analysis of human sexuality has been confounded by the scientific fraud first perpetrated by Alfred Kinsey in 1948 in his work on male sexuality. Kinsey, now believed to have been a homosexual pederast, has, until quite recently, gone unchallenged by the scientific community. Fraudulent sexual experiments, performed by homosexual assistants on prison inmates and others, including children and infants who were sexually abused, were used by Kinsey to "prove" that human sexuality followed a seven point scale from heterosexuality to homosexuality with bisexuality in the middle. Kinsey concluded that bisexuality was the normal way of being. This scientific fraud became the basis of the conventional wisdom that homosexuality is normal when Kinsey testified before California legislators that sodomy should be decriminalized because 10 per cent of all Americans were homosexual. Claims by the "gay rights movement" that homosexuality is a genetic trait that homosexuals are born with and cannot change, and that all types of sexual activity are equal and indistinguishable, are based on the fraudulent Kinsey results.
They also form the basis for the new pseudo-science of sexology and sex education courses taught in elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities and are based on the Kinsey claim that all types of genital activity- regardless of the sex or age of the partner and including violent and perverted actions-was normal.
Popular illusions and self deception have been a part of human history since Adam and Eve. Convinced by the serpent that they were dissatisfied with their place in the order of the universe, Eve and then Adam were, it would seem, quite willing to reject their true nature as creatures of God, in an attempt to become gods themselves. Things do not appear to have changed much over the ages. The rejection of femininity has created a lot of confusion, pain and havoc in the "post sexual revolutionary" society. Not only have women been deluded into trying to suppress their true femininity but men have been cut adrift from the natural expression of their true masculinity and abandoned to dangle and twist in the impotent winds of perpetual emotional turbulence.
The vacuum created by the rejection of true human sexuality has been filled by a growth in the frequency of sexual confusion particularly among the young. As early as 1982, a homosexual author named Dennis Altman reported in his book, The Homosexualization of America, on the increased acceptance of homosexuality in society. Not only was homosexuality more acceptable but it was becoming a fashionable and preferred expression of personal behavior. More and more people, he said were thinking like gays, and more and more people were acting like gays. In one editorial in a gay publication, dated May 1991, the writer wrote that the objective of the gay movement was to promote the homosexual life style. "Our work will only be finished when we can say that the whole world is gay."
In 1993, according to an article in The Washington Post, homosexuality and bisexuality has suddenly become fashionable among high school and junior high school students. Not only are students now wearing pink ribbons, and kissing members of the same sex in the hallways, but many believe that everyone is bisexual. In some U.S. colleges, a substantial number of young women are experimenting with lesbianism as a political act.
According to Dennis Altman, society in general, like the gay community, is forsaking the "traditional canons of sexual and familial morality." Same-sex sex has attained a certain status and acceptability. He suggests that for many young boys, frequently the victims of divorce deprived of the love and example of a father, homosexuality may seem preferable to the old fashioned kind.
A society which discourages the practice of sexual maturity may experience an increase in immature, deviant sexual behavior and sexual addiction. In the moral vacuum created by the sexual revolution a gay movement has evolved which promotes itself with gay magazines and gay films, gay theater and gay literature, gay parades for gay pride that receive endorsements from official bodies.
At the heart of the nation's most prestigious universities the gay myth has taken hold, a destructive ideology which says that not only that gay is good, but that gay is better. In the onslaught against the family, the cornerstone, the most basic institution of society has been under attack while the nation's traditional watchdogs-the press, the academy, the churches, etc.-have been unconcerned or have actively joined in the attack.
Homosexuality is a Psychological Disorder not a Genetic Trait
In Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far, (Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, Ariz., 800-507-BOOK), psychoanalyst Charles W. Socarides, M.D., disputes Kinsey's claim that homosexuality is a genetic trait and reports on a number of successful attempts to cure homosexual behavior.
Socarides distinguishes between homosexuality and the gay rights movement. He defines homosexuality, or same-sex sex, as a psychological disorder and one of over 40 types of known deviant sexual behavior, paraphilias or "alternate loves" which have been identified. Such sexual deviations are compulsive addictions, which have little to do with love, are harmful to the one who is caught up in the particular psychological disorder, almost always against his own will in response to imperative psychological drives, and sometimes harm those who are victimized by these deviant behaviors.
The author defines the gay rights movement as a political movement which attempts to establish same-sex sex as a basic human freedom and an acceptable alternate lifestyle. According to Dr. Socarides same-sex sex is a kind of substitute, or simulation, for sex between men and women, practiced by two types of homosexuals; obligatory and optional.
Obligatory homosexuals engage in same-sex sex because they are compelled by unconscious forces and early life traumas over which they have no control and little understanding. They don't know that something went wrong in their early years. As a result, they fear women, and feel there's something lacking in their manhood. They go looking for that manhood, compulsively, in other men. Neither sexually aroused by, nor attracted to, women, their activity is not a preference, but a neurotic adaptation to unconscious fears of women.
A maze of rationalizations to justify their avoidance of the opposite sex, including the claim that "homosexuals are born that way" have been created to obscure their intense needs, entirely unconscious, to find their masculinity. They have sex repeatedly out of this inner compulsion to fill the void within by taking in the masculinity of another man.
A normal man approaches a woman with an intact sense of his own identity as a man, seeking to complement his maleness by joining it to a woman's femaleness. Whereas a normal man holds a sense of his own masculinity intact within himself, the homosexual approaches another man with a deficient sense of his own masculinity and tries to fill up the void within himself by narcissistically taking in the masculinity of another man. Whereas the normal man is fulfilled and complimented by the woman's femininity and does not go out immediately to look for another woman, the homosexual is never fulfilled and always wants more and can only be relieved by repeated, and often anonymous and serial, sex with a variety of other men.
"Optional" homosexuals engage in same-sex sex by choice, faut de mieux, for want of something better, out of simple utility and searching for varied experience. Homosexual behavior among prison inmates and so called bisexuality practiced by sex addicted heterosexuals are examples of optional homosexuality.
Language has been an important weapon to promote homosexuality as "an alternate life style." A monolithic public relations campaign, initiated in 1973, when gay rights activists infiltrated the American Psychiatric Association and succeeded in striking homosexuality off the APA's list of psychological disorders, has promoted the use of the word "gay" to refer to social and political issues, and "homosexual" to refer to clinical or psychological issues. Public attention has been diverted away from what homosexuals do to what they are. The shift from behavior to identity has lent credibility to the false analogy which compares gays and lesbians to legitimate minority racial groups in need of full societal approval and civil rights protection.
Gays and lesbians have pre-empted criticism from political leaders, academe, the media, and some religious groups by defining any opposition to the "normalcy" of same-sex sex as a disease called "homophobia" based on individual cultural values. Anyone who questions the gay agenda is portrayed as being afraid to face his own sexual inclinations or/and as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than expressing concern about what he sees as destructive antisocial behavior. Legal recognition of "gay rights," encourages optional homosexuals and other practitioners of deviant sex, and disenfranchises obligatory homosexuals who will be discouraged from seeking the medical care they need to change their self destructive behavior.
Unraveling the Prudish Sexual Revolution
As attempts to at first conceal and then deny the causal relationship between sexual irresponsibility and social disintegration become more difficult, society will almost certainty try to reverse the excesses of the sexual revolution which began in the 1960's. The survival of civilized society, depends on how future generations of children are raised. To ensure that, in the future, children rearing practices are improved, current practices and policies derived from the sexual revolution will have to be reversed. Recognition of the natural socializing effects of female sexuality on young males will have to be reinstated along with the preferential status of traditional marriage and the formation of traditional, lasting nuclear families.
This can not be done without widespread opposition from the various interest groups who have carved out special status and privilege in the wake of the social change brought about by the destruction of the traditional sexual order. Like their ideological soul mates in the former Soviet Union, they oppose every type of private property, except their own, because they realized that without the right to private property the independent family can not exist
While homosexuals may number less than three per cent of the population, they have the ear of the media. That their power and influence greatly exceeds their numbers may be due, in part, to fact that the argument over gay rights is really a continuation of the great social upheavals of the 1960's and 1970's to which may of the generation in power still owe emotional allegiance. Some see the restructuring of the family, the weakening of marital ties, the loosening of the standards of sexual morality, as desirable social changes, welcome in themselves. Others may passively accept the destruction of the existing social order as the inevitable price of liberation from what they perceived to be a stultifying morality imposed by a society dominated by sexual prudery and prejudice.
Ironically, the new sexual order embraced by this rapidly aging generation of sex addicts and would be revolutionaries is more fraudulent and stultifying than the traditional value system it seeks to replace. Not only is it prudish in its attempt to ignore the role of sexual activity in the creation of new life but it betrays an undercurrent of serious psychological disease by removing a sense of the long term meaning of life. It dishonestly attempts to conceal the fact that the existence of the individual person is part of the continuous stream of life from one generation to the next which connects the past with the future and gives meaning to the present. In mindlessly refusing to respect the humanity of unborn human life, the current generation of would be revolutionaries reveal a pathetic inability to deal with their own sexual identity and their own existence.
(originally published in hearth Magazine, Volume IV, No. 2)
Taken from the Page of Authentic Femininity