We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Links we recommend
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons


Playing the Gay Card
by Alan Caruba
21 August 2003Rainbow Triangle

There are limits that any society must put on the “mainstreaming” of homosexuality.

I have never been keen on singling out a particular group to be ostracized because of something over which they have no control. Racism fits this description. You’re white or you’re black, yellow or brown. You’re Hispanic or you’re Latino, Chicano, whatever. And, of course, there’s the old reliable bias against Jews. Catholics, too, catch a bit of this and just about any church-going Protestant. 

So I approach the issue of sexual preference with some trepidation because, throughout history, homosexual behavior has always been regarded as an aberration and, more specifically, a threat to civil and social norms. With considerable bravery and skill, homosexuals in America have fought to secure an equal footing under the law.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” It does not, however, reference sexual orientation.

In recent weeks, the Supreme Court extended to homosexuals the right to be free of a law in Texas that defined their sexual behavior as a crime. This decriminalization of that State’s and all other’s laws seems to me correct. The most private and personal thing anyone engages in pertains to one’s sex life. I think, too, that those who have extrapolated this decision to include pederasty or bestiality are mistaken, as these are clearly either a threat to children or a perversion of Nature. Such laws remain intact for these reasons. And should remain.

What we have all witnessed, however, is a growing body of “entertainment” in which homosexuality has been offered to the public as a “normal”, i.e. a variation of heterosexuality, component of society. Shows like “Will & Grace” and the plethora of new shows featuring homosexuals now fill the airwaves. Americans have been subject to a vast propaganda campaign, particularly coming out of Hollywood, aided and abetted by the mainstream news media, to grant homosexuals both social and legal acceptance and rights that run counter to the general well-being of society. History teaches that societies that “bent the rules” declined and failed. Ancient Greece and Rome come instantly to mind.

The result, however, has been a notable backlash of public opinion. A recent poll taken by USA Today showed that, whereas 60% of adults previously thought homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, only 48% concur with that now. The opposition to homosexual “marriages” had risen to 57%, the most since this was first polled in 2000.

What I suggest is that there are limits that any society must put on the “mainstreaming” of homosexuality. Marriage is the core of all societies and universally recognized as a union between a man and a woman. This is as Nature dictates. The argument put forth by homosexuals that their sexuality is “normal” ignores the obvious. It is not. To deny such couples the “right” to marriage is correct.

Criticizing “right-wing, Christian fundamentalists” or any other religious group for their opposition is a deliberate diversion from the simple, obvious truth that marriage exists for the maintenance of society. One could remove religious objections entirely and still recognize the need to maintain the institution of marriage.

Homosexuals, of course, do not see it in this manner. They argue that their sexual preference is “natural” to them and poses no threat to society in general. My view is that homosexuals are “wired” for their sexual preference and, most likely, are homosexual from birth. That does not, however, render it “natural.” Sex is the means by which Nature insures the continuation of a given species. Homosexuals do not engage in sex for that purpose, nor can they procreate. Heterosexuals understand this instinctively, even as homosexuals protest for their “right” to marry.

Society has the right and duty to protect and preserve itself. This does not mean persecution of homosexuals, but it does mean that it is absolutely necessary to set limitations on the assertion of homosexual “rights.” Among the many ways a society can be set on the path to decline is the failure to protect the concept of family.

The Fourteenth Amendment was later amended by the Fifteenth that stated, “The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” It does not specify sex. The Sixteenth Amendment addresses the right of women to vote. Nothing in the Constitution grants homosexuals the right to marry, nor should it be interpreted as such.

Therein lies the reason to reject the many politicians who today are “playing the Gay card” in exchange for votes. If that were the only reason to vote against them, it would be a good and valid one.

Alan Caruba is the author of Warning Signs, published by Merril Press. His weekly commentaries are posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.

Email Alan Caruba

Send this Article to a Friend