In a nutshell, language is what enables us to make sense of ourselves, to share meanings in common within society, and to exercise power for good or evil. When we are asked to extinguish the existing meaning of something by attaching new ones to it, we curiously want to know and understand why we should do this before we agree to it. However, when we find that language is being changed furtively and with particular political intent designed to serve the interests of a particular group and to diminish those of others, we tend to become very suspicious. We rightly complain, expose and decry the stealth because it indicates to us that those behind its use have something to hide from us. So what happens when homosexualists try to employ this strategy through the media and they get caught out? The short answer is that they get cranky and do everything they can to muzzle anyone who attempts to point this out.
Some time ago, The Conversation published a paper by an Australian homosexual activist as part of a digest series on Tasmania, Churning the mud: Tasmania's fertile ground for legal and social reform. The author is Rodney Croome, who was then the national convener of the Australian Marriage Equality, one of the founders of the Australian Coalition for Equality (another homosexualist organisation) and a spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group. The article makes the point that Tasmania, though the last state in Australia to decriminalise homosexuality, is the first that moved to legalise 'same sex marriage'. Most of the article is a mixture of barely comprehensive points, aiming to argue that 'mainland Aussies' got it wrong about Tasmania when they imply that it is backward, and that Tasswegians are hillbillies. Croome is now proud to count himself among them, even though apparently he was 'discriminated' against while living there. He tells us that, when homosexuality was illegal in Tasmania, he and his (then) partner even went to the police station asking to be locked up, but the police refused to arrest them. Police were otherwise horrible to homosexuals, even going around taking car license numbers in places where there were 'gay community meetings'! A City Council even went as far as to shut down a market stall at which these innocent homosexuals were collecting signatures for their petitions! Nevertheless, it seems that the homosexuals had sufficient freedom to go around the state and "talk" to various community groups, churches and so on. And so the article goes on, trying so hard to make the point that Tasmania is a complex place, from whence marriage "equality" has sprung forward as an almost reality! How progressive, yet still backwards in some ways (employing an oxymoron is also fine with homosexualist storytellers).
However, the whole thing is activism, intended to fulfill a political aim. As with all homosexualist media campaigns, the idea is to:
However, the whole thing is activism, intended to fulfill a political aim. As with all homosexualist media campaigns, the idea is to:
- Change the meaning of language. Thus we find the terms "marriage equality" and "same sex marriage" used liberally throughout the story, as if they together refer to something which is undisputed. Of course, they do not.
- Insert the homosexualist narrative within any community discussion, regardless of the issue. Here, the series of articles have been seeded by papers from such individuals as the eminent economist, Prof Jonathan West, from the University of Tasmania. Prof West talks about the state being very dependent on public funding, whilst others talk about such things as tourism and sustainability. There could have also been discussions on very current issues, like the ageing of the state's population, or how to provide better access to education. Instead, The Conversation chose to publish a homosexualist pamphlet, even though apparent issues such as same sex "marriage" are quite low on the list of policy priorities for most people (as research has shown).
- Act all innocent when you're challenged for saying porkies, whilst going behind the scenes to pressure publishers to censure opponents. There must never be any facts about homosexualism and its aims displayed anywhere, and those who dare bring any of these up are to be instantly portrayed or even labelled as homophobes, liars, or conservative Christians. If they refer to any evidence, then they must be censured, and their comments removed. This is something I found out first-hand when I tried to challenge Croome's fiction on The Conversation's website.
Croome has been politically active, engaging in homosexualist activism for decades. Even though his narrative is obviously designed to give the impression that he had a horrible life as a homosexual, this apparently didn't prevent him from obtaining a university education, and some useful employment. He's even been recognised by our Government with an Order of Australia for his 'work'. This information, however, does not appear under the author's short bios, which hovers just above the publication's standard statement accompanying each article, "The Conversation provides independent analysis and commentary from academics and researchers". However, in addition to disclosing that he is a honorary sociology lecturer at the University of Tasmania, his short bios states only that he "...works in a volunteer capacity with the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group and Australian Marriage Equality". This is true, of course, but only in as far as a truism goes. It's like saying, "I am just a sailor on this ship", when you're actually the captain!
How to change the meaning of words
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, said Lord John Acton. Knowledge is power, as the philosopher of history, Michel Foucault, noted. The homosexualists have learned quite early in their campaign that to change society to suit them they needed to change its language. This is of course why they want to be called 'gays' instead of homosexuals. And this is why they want to adopt the term 'marriage' to describe formalised same-sex civil unions. Thus, Mr Croomes' influential activist organisation adopted the name Australian Marriage Equality. Homosexualists want marriage to mean same-sex unions, rather than what it has always meant, in all languages, throughout history.
When one says 'marriage', they of course mean the formalised union between a man and a woman, normally for the purpose of making babies and caring for them through childhood to bring them up in a manner in which they have access to both male and female roles. Since time immemorial, that's how we first relate to, and exist in, human society. Sociologists call this early stages of learning to be human primary socialisation, and the family in which a child grows is referred to as the family of origin. When an adult male and an adult female marry, they create the conditions for what sociologists call a family of procreation. So let me repeat that word: procreation. Same sex couples cannot 'procreate' by themselves. The reasons for this are extremely clear, they are biological as well as social factors. There is a need for a word that specifically and singularly describes a socially formalised and protected arrangement through which the biological and social reproduction of humans is ensured. Since only two opposite-sex individuals can achieve reproduction (i.e., procreation), then this arrangement can only be accomplished by a man and a woman. 'Marriage' is about a woman and a man, that's what the term denotes.
In addition, early homosexualist militants set out to be 'liberated' from heterosexual institutions. They specifically said they hated marriage, and that they wanted to be liberated sexually from 'traditional' gender roles. Here's what Carl Wittman, an early homosexualist activist, wrote in his now classic 'Gay manifesto'
How to change the meaning of words
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, said Lord John Acton. Knowledge is power, as the philosopher of history, Michel Foucault, noted. The homosexualists have learned quite early in their campaign that to change society to suit them they needed to change its language. This is of course why they want to be called 'gays' instead of homosexuals. And this is why they want to adopt the term 'marriage' to describe formalised same-sex civil unions. Thus, Mr Croomes' influential activist organisation adopted the name Australian Marriage Equality. Homosexualists want marriage to mean same-sex unions, rather than what it has always meant, in all languages, throughout history.
When one says 'marriage', they of course mean the formalised union between a man and a woman, normally for the purpose of making babies and caring for them through childhood to bring them up in a manner in which they have access to both male and female roles. Since time immemorial, that's how we first relate to, and exist in, human society. Sociologists call this early stages of learning to be human primary socialisation, and the family in which a child grows is referred to as the family of origin. When an adult male and an adult female marry, they create the conditions for what sociologists call a family of procreation. So let me repeat that word: procreation. Same sex couples cannot 'procreate' by themselves. The reasons for this are extremely clear, they are biological as well as social factors. There is a need for a word that specifically and singularly describes a socially formalised and protected arrangement through which the biological and social reproduction of humans is ensured. Since only two opposite-sex individuals can achieve reproduction (i.e., procreation), then this arrangement can only be accomplished by a man and a woman. 'Marriage' is about a woman and a man, that's what the term denotes.
In addition, early homosexualist militants set out to be 'liberated' from heterosexual institutions. They specifically said they hated marriage, and that they wanted to be liberated sexually from 'traditional' gender roles. Here's what Carl Wittman, an early homosexualist activist, wrote in his now classic 'Gay manifesto'
Marriage is a prime example of a straight institution fraught with role playing. Traditional marriage is a rotten, oppressive institution .... Gay people must stop measuring their self-respect by how well they mimic straight marriages ... To accept the idea that happiness comes through finding a nice spouse and settling down, showing the real world that "We're just the same as you" is avoiding the real issues, and is an expression of self hatred ... Liberation for gay people is to define for ourselves how and with whom we live, instead of measuring our relationships by straight values.
(Carl Wittman (1970), Refugees from Amerika: A gay manifesto)
Homosexualists know that society's moral structures have developed to recognise and protect the meaning of marriage. They strive to dismantle it because they have concluded marriage, as a heterosexual institution, represents what they imagine to be oppression by a heterosexual society. By dismantling and neutralising the most important heterosexual institution, they argue that discrimination will cease. So to more efficiently dismantle something as important as marriage is to change its purpose, its meaning. However, just coming out and saying, 'Marriage should mean a different thing now, let's change its meaning' is likely to meet with strong resistance. And no small surprise there, since marriage is something which is very precious to a majority of opposite-sex couples, who have spent their lives together, doing exactly what marriage is intended for, which is to bring children into this world, and then to nurture them through to adulthood.
So then, how do you do away with marriage, as a key symbol of heterosexual society? You erode its meaning little by little, over many years, using captured and sympathetic media, and suppressing those who catch on about what you're up to. You use words like 'equality' and 'justice' to justify the change, and you work ceaselessly to insert the new parlance in everything and everywhere one reads or views the term 'marriage'. But at the same time you aim to change the concept, by showing its new meaning in all possible contexts in which one might encounter it, and you make it seem as if it's somehow natural. You censure any other meanings which excludes what you want it to mean. Lastly, you defend your activities fiercely - at first, feigning innocence when you are caught out, "Why? Isn't this the most natural way to use the term?" But if your cover is blown then you need to suppress those who have blown it by any means possible.
These are dark times for humanity, the road ahead of us is going to be full of potholes, and homosexualists are busily breaking our headlights. They don't want society to understand what they're really doing, so they are muzzling those who question their motives and the veracity of what they're peddling. Their task is of course made easier when we acquiesce to a restricted and partisan media. We have forgotten that the more open a society, the more democratic it is. Openness, inclusiveness and tolerance of views, even those which one does not agree with, is the only way to enable a free society. When one is not free to contradict or dissent from the view of another, then democracy is diminished. We're heading toward yet one more form of totalitarianism.
So then, how do you do away with marriage, as a key symbol of heterosexual society? You erode its meaning little by little, over many years, using captured and sympathetic media, and suppressing those who catch on about what you're up to. You use words like 'equality' and 'justice' to justify the change, and you work ceaselessly to insert the new parlance in everything and everywhere one reads or views the term 'marriage'. But at the same time you aim to change the concept, by showing its new meaning in all possible contexts in which one might encounter it, and you make it seem as if it's somehow natural. You censure any other meanings which excludes what you want it to mean. Lastly, you defend your activities fiercely - at first, feigning innocence when you are caught out, "Why? Isn't this the most natural way to use the term?" But if your cover is blown then you need to suppress those who have blown it by any means possible.
These are dark times for humanity, the road ahead of us is going to be full of potholes, and homosexualists are busily breaking our headlights. They don't want society to understand what they're really doing, so they are muzzling those who question their motives and the veracity of what they're peddling. Their task is of course made easier when we acquiesce to a restricted and partisan media. We have forgotten that the more open a society, the more democratic it is. Openness, inclusiveness and tolerance of views, even those which one does not agree with, is the only way to enable a free society. When one is not free to contradict or dissent from the view of another, then democracy is diminished. We're heading toward yet one more form of totalitarianism.