The Dreary Rainbow of the ‘Anti-H’ Movement

In a homosexual relationship, there is no difference in sex between the two partners. But in a heterosexual relationship, there is indeed a difference in sex between the two partners, and this difference is fundamental. The romantic concepts of a heterosexual are awash in the recognition and celebration of the difference between man and woman, between masculinity and femininity. To a heterosexual, a husband is not merely one of the two partners in a loving relationship; a husband is a masculine man united with a feminine woman. This union between husband and wife is marriage.

As a result of the decision last week by the Supreme Court of the United States, the government has reconceived heterosexual unions into something more like homosexual unions: the difference in sex between the two partners is no longer important. Marriage now is merely a union of two people, whatever their sexual difference.

The government’s new, impoverished notion of marriage may suffice for a homosexual, for whom there is no difference in sex between himself and his partner. But the new notion, by de-emphasizing what is fundamental, destroys the concepts of husband, wife, and marriage for us heterosexuals. For us, the government has neutered and homogenized the most romantic concepts in the English language.

Yet even homosexuals recognize, on some level, the crucial need for concepts that distinguish between the sexes. The LGBT movement insists on all of us using specific words to distinguish male homosexuals, now known as ‘gays’ and represented by the ‘G’ in ‘LGBT’, from female homosexuals, now known as ‘lesbians’ and represented by the ‘L’ in ‘LGBT’. In the very Court decision that neutered and homogenized the heterosexual’s most romantic sex-specific words, the phrase ‘gays and lesbians’ was used eighteen times.

The LGBT movement is adept at creating new words. But the movement chose not to create a new word for a homosexual union, and not to accept the term ‘civil union’. The LGBT movement insisted on taking the most romantic heterosexual concept—marriage—and turning it into a strictly homosexual notion.

By governmental decree, the universal language of love now is the language of the homosexual.

This Court decision is a milestone, but not the end of the road envisioned by the LGBT movement.

In the fields of psychology and sociology, one of the most influential sources of LGBT theory is R.W. Connell. In the 1987 book, Gender and Power: Society, The Person, and Sexual Politics (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press), Connell (p. 183) writes,

There is an ordering of versions of femininity and masculinity at the level of the whole society … Their interrelation is centered on a single structural fact, the global dominance of men over women.

Connell (1987, 287) writes later,

If the abolition of gender is a worthwhile goal, then it must be the abolition of gender as a social structure that is at issue. … Difference between sexes would be simply a complementarity of function in reproduction, not a cosmic division or a social fate. There would be no reason for this to structure emotional relationships, so the categories heterosexual and homosexual would become insignificant. There would be no reason for it to structure character, so femininity and masculinity would depart.

Such a future is implied in the deconstructionist wing of gay liberation theory, and as an ultimate goal is more convincing than as an immediate strategy. Its great virtue is that it eliminates the basis for gender inequalities. The way biological difference and similarity have got incorporated into structures of social inequality creates our dilemma about ‘nature’, not nature itself. Inequality is the basis of the social constitution of interests, which generate the practices that institutionalize injustices, the politics that defend them, the ideologies that justify them. The concept of liberation is not about freedom, in the sense of lack of constraint on personal behaviour, so much as about equality. [Emphasis added.]

Regarding those on Facebook who posted a photo of an ‘equal’ sign in support of ‘same-sex marriage’, this is the ideology that they supported, many of them unwittingly.

Connell (1987, 288) continues:

The logical consequence of deconstruction is open-ended variety. Marcuse’s discussion of ‘polymorphous perversity’ in Eros and Civilization is not a bad summary of this conception, though with rules dismantled nothing can be defined as normative and hence nothing as ‘perverse’.

Regarding those on Facebook who rainbow-filtered their profile picture, this is the ideology that they supported, many of them unwittingly.

Connell (1987, 292) continues:

As a matter of fact, the core institutions of the contemporary structure of gender power cannot be torn down without a class politics, because those institutions fuse gender and class domination. As a matter of practice, equality is difficult to contain; the origins of modern feminist radicalism in the New Left show that. The historic association between socialism and feminism, however tense and ragged it has been, expresses a basic truth about the global structure of inequality and what social forces might dismantle it.

(Later in the book, Connell argues not for eradicating masculinity and femininity, but rather for flitting back and forth between the two.)

The LGBT movement’s many ‘useful idiots’ do not realize that the movement is, at its ideological root, the Anti-H movement. The movement wants to eradicate heterosexuality, masculinity, and femininity from society in order to eradicate any possibility of non-heterosexuals being judged for their sexuality. The movement latches on to radical Leftist ideology in order to reach that end, via coercion.

The LGBT’s ‘rainbow’ is really just another few shades of gray. This dreary rainbow symbolizes every difference in love except the most colorful one: the difference between a man and a woman. The LGBT movement wants to force us all to forget that difference.

For more about this subject, see my book, Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty: The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage.

For a review of my book, see here.

See also my other blog post today, “Marriage, Equal Protection, and Cognition.”