I have pondered with the question of gender diversity and of social reengineering for a while. The argument to be all encompassing. Encompassing ever desire is a compelling one to certain sections of the community. No caring person wants others to feel left out or ostracised. But let’s face it, millions are ostracised. The reasons are many and varied. But yet, we can’t address that problem for everyone. Nor would we want to in some instances. The questions that I struggle with? Where do we draw the boundary in this battle of competing social rights agendas and what comes next.
The two hot topics in this arena currently are; same sex marriage and the Safe Schools program. One seems to morph into the other. If you attempt to be circumspect you are bound to be labelled a right-wing homophobe. Actually, I’ll rephrase that, not bound to be, you WILL be. The process is simply to shut down the debate and brand others as evil.
The social reform agenda is an emotive debate. The two key points for me are. What is the ultimate aim, the goal of social reengineering? What are we doing about teaching kids to deal with their differences. As opposed to demanding and bullying everyone else into changing? This post is about the goal of social reengineering.
We never talk about the ‘what comes next’ should we go down the path of same sex marriage as an example. We're faced with never ending extremely emotive arguments. I want to be free to love and show my love. Anyone is free to love we don’t need to change the law to do that or sanitise society to do that. But I digress as usual.
It's what comes next and the impact of further change in society that concerns me the most. In 2005 Spain replaced "mother" and "father" on birth certificates. The new terms being “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B”. Parent A and Parent B. The change was a direct result of legalising same sex marriage the following proves it.
“Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Spanish Minister of Justice, excused the ministerial order by claiming since the government modified “the status of civil marriages, to allow the union of same-sex couples, it was necessary for a new format for the Family Book (Libro de Familia)."
To match up, it’s same-sex marriage legislation to the Civil Registry, the Spanish government deemed that Spaniards could no longer qualify themselves as either “Fathers” or “Mothers” of their children. I find that sad.
That change in isolation might not sound like much. But link that with the global push to remove the reference ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ and the aim becomes clearer. Global Social Degendering. But goes even further than boy and girl.
There are many examples of degendering if you take the time to look. Just a couple to prove my point.
“Ontario banned “mother” and “father”. They also removed the terms “wife”, “husband”, “widow”, and “widower” from all statutes.”
Scotland 2007. Nurses were instructed by (the National Health Service) that “mother” and “father” were homophobic. These were to be replaced with “carers” or “guardians.” The terms “husband”, “wife”, and “marriage” were replaced with “partners” and “close friend." This was at the Request of the homosexualist lobby group Stonewall.
Having only recently become a widow, I shudder to think what I am now. Being a wife never defined who I was. Becoming a widow won’t either, but it brings me comfort to refer to myself as such. Although I struggle with the word widow, it's nothing to do with the word but the circumstances.
Almost every country who has legalised SSM has moved to change laws to remove references to gender and to modify marriage status. Example ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ replaced with ‘partner’ or ‘spouse’. In the US there is even a push from some quarters to remove biological parents from birth certificates. This opens up all sorts of issues down the track.
I find this whole push to sanitise society and to remove all links with status offensive. I refuse to be browbeaten into feeling ashamed of what I am. We must not be made to feel ashamed of being boy or a girl. It's not a crime to be a wife or a husband Likewise mother or a father, a widow or a widower is NOT shameful. I would argue none of those words are homophobic.
We are not immune. The Safe Schools program here, takes a politically correct approach to sex education. Teachers are instructed it is “heterosexist” to refer to students as girls and boys. It's utter rubbish, but we roll over and it appears accept it. More fool us.
Being inclusive of minorities has merit. But expecting the majority to change to accommodate does not. If same sex couples want to refer themselves as partners and parents fine. But they have no right to demand the rest of us do the same. Governments cannot change the rules to accommodate sociological, cultural reengineering agendas. I am tired of this push from a Marxist perspective. It is the formal rights of minorities against real freedoms of the majority.
Don’t kid yourself that legalising SSM won’t lead to more changes. Pushing the boundaries is human nature. If the majority wants that fine, but we better have a clear understanding of where this will lead. Then, we need to think, am I comfortable living in this new degendered sanitised world. When the polygamist demand equal rights to marry more than one partner, will we support that. I think we’ll be hard pressed to say no. BTW the push has already started where SSM has been legalised.
Cultural Marxism is the ideological driver behind Political Correctness. It is the destructive criticism and undermining of all institutions of Western civilisation. It is an attack on the traditional values underpinning Western civilisation. It promotes tolerance and respect for so-called minority opinions and beliefs. But it completely ignores broader respect for human beings.
Now we have the rise of moralistic relativism. I read this recently, I’ve added a few embellishments in brackets. I thought it summed it up extremely well. "Because all values are relative, you have no right to impose your value judgments on others; but if you are not a progressive in politics, you are a fascist (and a homophobe and bible-bashing, right-wing nut-job) and so cannot be allowed to express your vicious and hateful opinions in public discourse." These attitudes are rarely stated in such stark juxtaposition; but finding them actually held by the same persons, and voiced in separate contexts, is not difficult…hear, hear.
Seriously, we shouldn’t be silenced. We need to know where we are heading so we can make informed decisions. We need to talk about the cause and effect because there is always one. Unless of course we are happy with the new world of Blob and the Blobette. No, wait a minute, that’s probably ‘racist’ and ‘homophobic’.
Welcome to the world of Blob.
