The fact that an ideology is incoherent does not mean that people are not deadly serious about implementing it.
By Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first published at The Federalist on June 6, 2016.
I hate to disagree with Rachel Lu, whom I admire and consider a
friend. But we simply cannot count on the LGBT movement self-destructing. I agree that this ideology is incoherent and destructive. But that is no
guarantee it will implode. I fear Lu does not fully appreciate just what manner of thing we are dealing with.
Lu suggests the LGBT movement is a passing fad: “Whether it’s Malthusian
population controls, global temperature freak-outs, low-fat diets, or disco, it often seems that idiocy seems unassailable until suddenly it isn’t.
A page turns, and the emperor has no clothes, as his folly becomes a cautionary tale for future generations.”
By contrast, I believe the LGBT movement is one feature of the overall movement called the Sexual Revolution. The Sexual Revolution is not like low-fat
diets or disco. It is more like the other items on the list. I hate to break it to you, but population control and global temperature freak-outs are
still with us.
Also, what do these three things—the Sexual Revolution, population control, and global warming ideology—all have in common? They are ideologies
that demand total control over large numbers of people. These ideologies are appealing to some people, precisely for that reason: they imagine themselves
as the controllers, not the controlees.
Internal Contradictions Don’t Always Tank Totalitarianism
The fact that an ideology is incoherent does not mean people are not deadly serious about implementing it. Look: it is not possible to create a prosperous
society without private property rights. Marxist ideologues believed they had a high moral duty to try. The Soviet Union lasted 70 years and did not
“self-destruct.” Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul, Margaret Thatcher, and, yes, Osama bin Laden all had a hand in pushing it over.
These three points sum up the ideology of the sexual revolutionaries. They believe a good and decent society should: Separate sex from procreation, separate
both sex and procreation from marriage, and obliterate all differences between men and women, except those individuals explicitly choose. Do you recognize
our society? Do you notice that all these of these objectives are impossible?
It is not possible to create an entire society in which sex does not make babies. Sex and child-bearing should both take place within
marriage because children really do need their parents. Marriage is society’s institutional structure that allows children a stable and ongoing
relationship with both parents. Finally, men and women actually are different, starting in the womb (little boys are less likely to survive
pregnancy and childhood) and going all the way to differential causes of death.
All the branches of our government, the media, academia, big business, and entertainment are committed to the fantasy ideology of the Sexual Revolution.
It takes a lot of force to do the impossible. It takes a lot of propaganda to make people believe the impossible. That is why the Sexual Revolution
is a totalitarian movement, standing all on its own, quite apart from the usual categories of Left and Right.
That’s not a bug, as they say. It is a feature. Many of the most militant activists are drunk on their own power. Look at the “trans-activists” getting
the city of New York to place onerous fines on people for using the wrong pronoun. Look at the college students, getting professors fired for insufficient
conformity to the ever-changing standards of “sensitivity.” Look at the gay activists suing small Christian businesses, as if there were a constitutional
right to get your picture taken by the photographer of your choice. These militants are intoxicated with power.
The Sexual Revolution Uses People, Then Discards Them
We must see the Sexual Revolution for what it is: a tyrannical movement that resents the limitations of the human body, especially those caused by our
maleness and femaleness.
With all due respect, Lu, the LGBT movement will not self-destruct: it will morph into new and more virulent forms. The LGBT true believers are already
throwing over the Ls (lesbians, remember?) in favor of the Ts (transgender people). Lesbian couples made nice, non-threatening images for commercials
for redefining marriage. But many lesbians do not accept “transmen” as women. Lesbians are no longer useful as battering rams for taking down sex differences.
Therefore, their objections don’t count.
The Ts are the current battering ram. A very useful battering ram they are, too. If you can make people say and believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman, you
can make them say and believe anything. If you can make people afraid to say anything other than that the 1976 Olympic decathlon winner is a woman,
you can make them believe that black is white, up is down, and freedom is slavery. Or, more to the point: that slavery is freedom.
No, we cannot count on the Sexual Revolution to just fade away. It has caused enormous human suffering already. That has not stopped the true believers
from carrying on. The Ruth Institute has a plan. This column is not the place
to go into it. Suffice to say, that our plan calls on everyone who has been harmed by the Sexual Revolution to tell the whole truth about what happened
to them.
If we all speak up, we have a chance. If we are afraid to speak, if we try to live our lives quietly, as if nothing out of the ordinary is going on, the
revolutionaries will continue unimpeded. Eventually, we won’t be able to protect ourselves and our children.
I for one, am all in: total, unapologetic opposition to the whole destructive course of the Sexual Revolution. Total solidarity with the victims and survivors
of the Sexual Revolution.
