Prophets of Doom Partially Vindicated

Photo by Flickr/livenature/1528238913/ A recent gay parade in San Francisco.

ALEXANDRIA, VA. -  In the culture wars the homosexual advocacy movement has been the debate framer.
 
Social conservatives often are at the nonexistent mercy of a mass media all but blatantly rooting for the pro-gay side, with news and entertainment attacking every statement made by traditionalists while being very lenient towards social progressives.

This skewed public sphere notwithstanding, in light of events immediate and not too long ago, far from being absurd in their claims, the anti-gay agenda has been disturbingly accurate.

In response to the gay rights successes in the 2000s, conservatives claimed that should homosexuality become more acceptable, other less acceptable lifestyles would reap the benefits. This slippery slope theory, championed by the likes of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was hailed as idiotic by homosexual advocates.

Yet it is a growing reality. The pro-gay American Civil Liberties Union is an example. When the national organization is not campaigning for gay marriage and defending NAMBLA (which stands for North American Man-Boy Love Association), they are attempting to decriminalize polygamy.

As reported by the Yale Daily News, ACLU president Nadine Strossen spoke at the prestigious University about the ACLU’s agenda. When asked about the her organization’s position on polygamy in relation to its position on gay marriage, Strossen remarked, “We have defended the right for individuals to engage in polygamy…We defend the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals.”

In an online article, ACLU of Utah Legal Director Stephen Clark noted the comparison between polygamy decriminalization and gay marriage legalization: “Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives, and not live in fear because of whom they love. So certainly that kind of privacy expectation is something the ACLU is committed to protecting.”

So maybe that conservative claim is not as absurd as some believe. Here’s another. During the various referendums on gay marriage, traditionalists often painted the matter as an issue of religious liberty versus gay rights. Surprise, surprise, they were chastised for this comparability. Yet, across the Atlantic this dichotomy is reality.

Few here know of Ake Green. A Pentecostal Christian preacher from Sweden, a nation considered more gay-friendly than the USA.

On a Sunday in 2003, Green preached a sermon denouncing homosexuality. Sure enough, his sermon was deemed “hate speech” and he was criminally prosecuted. Though the conviction was eventually overturned, the fact he was seen as a lawbreaker by openly denouncing homosexuality serves as evidence that in liberal democratic societies where gay rights prevails, it is at the expense of other rights.

Many have legitimately countered that this censorship is not in the United States. But what stops it from coming here? Some would argue a consciousness of rights protection even for minority opinions and groups, yet that is the exact reasoning in Sweden’s hate speech law:

“Anyone who, through expression or other form of communication that is spread, threatens or expresses disrespect for a group of people or other such groups of persons with reference to race, color, national or ethnic origin, confession of faith or sexual orientation, is sentenced for instigation against a group of people to prison up to two years or, if the crime is minor, to fines.”

In other words, all one has to do is express an opinion that is viewed as disrespectful to the homosexual advocacy movement to be found guilty of a crime!

This broadness in hate speech definition might lead to inhibiting all sorts of criticisms of homosexual behavior, even scientific critiques like a study conducted by San Francisco State University and expected to be published soon.

Another moral conservative claim is that gay marriages are not as stable as traditional marriages. Those who claim this have been verbally attacked, sometimes with evidence, oftentimes with derogatory labels.

However, as reported by the New York Times, a study performed by SFSU researchers add validity to this argument. In a survey of 556 male couples, approximately 50% had affairs outside of their main relationship. To contrast, a University of Chicago study on heterosexual married couples noted 25% of men and 15% of women having affairs.

Scott James, the author of the Times article, puts it better than me: “None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it…They [are] worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.”

On numerous occasions social conservatives have been correct about the nature of their ideological opponents. This is not to say social conservatives can say no wrong, for mass media has been faithful to exposing and obsessing over every instance this has come to pass.
 
But the examples listed above and many others not mentioned do show its about high time the traditional morality wing of American politics be allowed to frame a mainstream debate or two.
 
Michael Gryboski lives in Alexandria and is a Local Kicks contributor.