It really hasn't taken the homosexual activists long to one-up themselves in their antics to trample religious/moral rights. Getting the Boston area Catholic Charities shut down was pretty impressive, ending in one fell swoop one of the oldest, largest, and most successful adoption agencies in the Bay State. Now a different group has managed to push a mandatory indoctrination class on high-school freshmen. Oh, and they've told the kids not to tell their parents, making them sign a sort of confidentiality "gag-rule" before attending.
Before considering anything else, I’d like to ask something. The whole homosexual movement’s “public face” tried very hard to be “gay pride,” “coming out of the closet,” and other shows of public solidarity within the movement; in short, it tends to be very in-your-face, unabashed, unashamed. With that in mind, why, exactly, is it that so many of these events which are tied in some way to the homosexual movement are shrouded in secrecy? Why the duplicity? The whole thing smacks more of a dirty little secret than anything else, “we can’t tell our parents.” If this is really about education, then there should be no problem at all with telling the parents.
Speaking of education, it seems that normally, when a person wants to learn anything other than the most basic or superficial aspects of a given lesson, he or she tends to do a better job by discussing the material with other people. Specifically, the material is best grasped when discussed away from the classroom. So, at least, is the entire theory of our education system in every other aspect: why, for example, do we tend to spend more time outside of the classroom, working on and discussing homework or readings than we do in the classroom at the university level? But what does a gag rule do, other than to bar discussion about the topic. Apparently the one thing worse than not actually learning anything profound in these seminars is having the students form their own opinions of about the topics presented, especially if those opinions rely in any way on advice from the students’ parents (or any other person whom they may look up to outside of the school system).
Oddly enough, there is one thing for which learning only the superficial is best. It may be the very antithesis of education, but that apparently is not enough to bar it from the classroom. I’m talking about none other than the p-word, and it pops up all over the place in the so-called education system, from the elementary schools to the universities. The academy cannot very well serve two competing masters: it must serve either as a vehicle for education or as a mouthpiece for propaganda. Unfortunately, all too often the latter is chosen.
Aside from the detriment to education, these antics of the homosexual lobby have negative effects on another aspect of society. On the surface, it may seem ironic: the very people who lobby for the extension of the privilege of marriage to same-sex couples, the same people who want homosexual families, are by their actions weakening the glue which binds families together. Honesty, trust, these are two aspects of the family life which are a must for strong families. How can a family remain a family if parents and children can’t trust each other? Will the family remain “close” if none of the members can depend on the others’ being honest? Communication between parents and their teenage (or older) children is often difficult when each believes that the other is being honest, but these antics make the act almost impossible.
This is not, of course, the only time that the so-called gay rights activists have acted in a way which is destructive to others. I earlier alluded to the Boston area Catholic Charities, another triumph for the homosexual movement. Catholic Charities refused, on moral and other grounds, to place children for adoption with same-sex couples. They did this because they are a Catholic organization, and the Catholic Church teaches, as she has always taught, that homosexuality is morally disordered. Apparently, the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedoms, while useful for banishing historic symbols of Christianity from public places, does not extend so far as to protect the rights of a religious organization to remain faithful to the moral teachings of its faith.
As for the children which Catholic Charities otherwise would have placed for adoption in loving families, they are at best collateral damage, their hopes of living “normal” lives with loving parents an unfortunate casualty in the same-sex groups’ own war for “normalcy.” Nevermind, of course, that these couples could just as easily seek out another adoption agency which might be more than happy to place a child with them. It’s the concept that this particular group had moral objections to their lifestyle choices which they saw as a problem, and thus Catholic Charities must change or be destroyed. One wonders how many of these children will never have a family of their own as a result.
I earlier stated that this scorched-earth policy of sabotaging families only appears to be an ironic tactic for the gay-rights lobby. In truth, it is not the least bit surprising. Much of the rhetoric throughout the debate over same-sex unions, marriages or marriages by any other name, has turned towards the alleged failure of the traditional families: the soaring divorce rates is the best known example. Is it any surprise, then, that these groups would seek to subvert traditional families? If they can demonstrate that the traditional family is a failure, then it becomes more difficult to demonstrate that same-sex families are a bad idea. If they can point to examples of strife between parents and children in the traditional families, then it becomes easier for them to argue that they ought to be allowed to have children of their own. And most importantly, if they can crush the voices which dare to oppose them, then they hope that they can silence their own consciences’ telling them that what they’re doing is just not right.
The gay-rights movement often tries to paint itself as the successor the civil rights movement. What they overlook so often is that the civil rights movement was largely orchestrated in such a way as to not ruin the lives or families of those in society who dared to oppose them. By demanding to create a non-existent equality in happiness, they can succeed in making only an equality in misery. Dr. King’s “Dream” is replaced by Orwell’s nightmare, one in which children can’t look to their parents for support nor parents to their children for trust.