|
FELLOW
TRAVELER |
Losing
the Marriage Debate
Selwyn Duke [pundit] 7/25/06 |
It’s
no secret that liberals hold in contempt what they regard as
the provincial nature of conservatives. And I certainly would
love to buy liberals for what I think they’re worth and
sell them for what they think they’re worth, to paraphrase
the old retort. That said, a part of me is so frustrated with
my traditionalist brethren that I could almost be persuaded
that the left is, in some minute measure, correct. For the
sagacity reflected in our ends is matched by the stupidity
of our means. And the left is quite the opposite.
I have often
mentioned the and cautioned that the side that defines the
vocabulary of a debate wins the debate. And this principle
is on full display in the marriage controversy.
The truth is that most of us, although well-intentioned, are
complicit in paving the way for the victory of the anti-marriage
hordes. Oh, how seamlessly the left has managed to weave its
terminology into our lexicon. How thoughtlessly the same passes
our lips.
I ask you:
why do we utter the term “gay marriage” as
if such an institution actually exists (the word “gay” itself
is a euphemism in this context, and the reason should be obvious)?
The word “marriage” came into usage in English late
in the thirteenth century, and it has always pertained to the
matrimonial union of a man and woman. So, homosexual marriage?
It’s an oxymoron.
If it’s homosexual, it ain’t
marriage.
This is why
I referred to this attack upon marriage as “faux
marriage” in a previous and why I will brand it simply “anti-marriage” here.
To speak of “gay marriage,” whether positively or
negatively, is to tacitly acknowledge its existence. This gives
aid and comfort to the enemy.
But the language
engineers’ influence cuts wide and deep.
Why, I even heard a very prominent curmudgeon of a conservative
commentator refer to marriage as “heterosexual marriage” on
his nightly news and commentary program. Ah, what is the road
to Hell paved with? If we have to specify heterosexual marriage,
it implies that it is merely one side of a coin.
And if one side of a coin exists, so does the other.
I hasten
to add that the anti-marriage set has no more moral authority
to define the terms of the debate than
they have to
re-define marriage. And it matters not a whit whether you view
marriage as an institution of God or of man. If the former, then
it’s quite obvious that anything that lies beyond God’s
definition of “marriage” is nothing of the sort.
Of course, if marriage is merely a human invention, its definition
is quite arbitrary. But then who shall define it? The majority,
silent or not, or a minority, vocal and shrill or not? The truth
is that the vast majority of Americans don’t subscribe
to anti-marriage doctrine, and we’re under no obligation
to sing its tune any more than its praises.
It’s really just a matter of who will be arguing from
a position of strength. If we quite correctly and steadfastly
deny the existence of anti-marriage, those who would disgorge
it are left to argue why such an institution should exist. Once
we accept the fiction that it does exist, however, we are left
to argue why some “marriages” should be denied the
legal status of others. Instead of forcing the anti-marriage
crowd to explain why an age-old institution should now encompass
a fashionable perversion, we now bear the burden of explaining
why the rights bestowed by that institution should be offered
to some who embrace it but not others. Of course, compelling
arguments to this effect can still be presented, but we’ve
lost half the battle before it has even begun. It’s the
difference between denying your adversary a foothold in your
territory and waiting to fight him at the gates of your capitol.
Most profound,
though, is the effect on those weaned on this example of the
newest of Newspeak. My childhood
was spent from
the mid-sixties to late seventies, and I was exposed to the lexicon
of the left of the day. And it wasn’t until I grew older
and acquired a cognizance of the importance of language that
I awoke from the linguistic Matrix. Why did I accept words such
as “underprivileged” or “disadvantaged” when
my forebears would have conserved the syllables and simply said “poor”?
Alas, though, most never take the red pill.
The term “gay marriage” and the concept associated
with it is being burned into the psyches of the younger generations,
causing them to accept anti-marriage as a reality. And if it
exists, why shouldn’t it be recognized? If it’s a
marriage, how can it be treated as something other?
The short
answer, before we expound upon the social effects of such an
idea or extol the virtues of the
traditional family,
is that it is not a marriage. And history vindicates us. While
there have been many societies that have been quite accepting
of homosexuality – from ancient Sparta to Rome to tribes
in Papua New Guinea – there isn’t one I’m aware
of that ever saw fit to conjure up a demon such as anti-marriage.
Why accept the unprecedented as a presupposition?
The side
that defines the vocabulary of a debate does win the debate.
Referenda denying legal status to anti-marriage
are positive
legal measures, but they do little to alter this inexorable wave
of social devolvement. The truth is that all our efforts and
arguments will be for naught if we allow social engineers – in
the guise of college professors, media talking heads and Hollywood
Hell fodder – to guide our tongues. If you don’t
want “gay marriage” to be recognized legally, don’t
recognize it verbally.
So, if you
want to restore marriage, start by restoring your vocabulary. “Gay Marriage” doesn’t
exist. It never has and it never will. But a fiction can become
an illusion
when a big lie is repeated often enough. CRO
copyright
2006 Selwyn Duke
§
|
The America Show
