Not all sociological developments are predictable. This truism is nowhere illustrated more strikingly than in the way that the homosexual agenda has become the vehicle for the totalitarian liberal agenda--systematic discrimination against Christians and the tearing down of all that remains of normal and conservative society and resistance to liberal ideologues' control.
I think it would have been hard to predict this development, or at least the extent and speed of it. Thirty years ago, feminism seemed set to play that role, and indeed, feminism has helped a great deal. But for sweeping totalitarian precedents like the recent blocking of the Johns couple in Britain from providing foster care or the expulsion of Julea Ward from EMU's counseling program, the homosexual agenda has been the catalyst. It has been made clear now, as I have said elsewhere: This is a zero-sum game. Christians who hold traditional moral views on homosexual acts are going to be targeted, flushed out, forced to say shibboleth, or driven out of all manner of professions and roles in society, including, as in the Johns case, providing care to children--a particularly ominous portent. And it would have been hard to predict that that particular ideology would play that central role here in the early twenty-first century.
In fairness, I should say that an old high school teacher of mine, Mr. Blinder (if he ever reads this, hi, Mr. Blinder!) did move in the direction of predicting it. My conservative Christian high school took a field trip to the Illinois capitol building for a rally against the Equal Rights Amendment. I was a bit of a smart aleck and, standing in the rotunda before the rally, I tried to suggest that perhaps the ERA had some value in the way of guaranteeing "equal pay" for women. (I don't know where I'd picked up this phrase, and I actually had no idea what I was talking about.) Mr. Blinder snorted. He pointed out that laws already on the books dealt with that issue and then uttered these prophetic words, "This is part of the homosexual agenda. It's supposed to open the way to homosexuals getting married." I note: This conversation occurred, if I recall correctly, in 1980. As a matter of fact, the Hawaii Supreme Court did cite the state's ERA in support of same-sex "marriage." (Mr. Blinder was here echoing Phyllis Schlafly, whom we saw at that rally. Her prediction was also borne out by the Massachusetts decision on same-sex "marriage," as discussed by Volokh here.)
Reader Untenured makes a shrewd comment in an earlier thread about the relationship between leftism and the homosexual agenda:
I think this is part of the reason why the homosexual movement is so near and dear to (certain) leftist's hearts. A major theme among leftists in the Marxist tradition is that social arrangements that seem normal, natural and inevitable are in fact contingent, malleable, and arbitrary. Hence all of the late-vintange art and literature that portrays normalcy in a critical light in order to get people to "see" absurdity in the everyday and to open them up to the possibility of "radical" political and economic transformation. To destroy the idea that the family is a normal and inevitable social arrangement is about as foundational an act of "radical" political transformation as is possible. In this respect, the homosexual movement has much of the same tone and tenor of the Marxist-left.
Well-put. And of course, as this article on "comprehensive liberalism" by James Hitchcock (which everyone should read) shows, liberals have been salivating for a long time at the prospect of having far more authority over children than parents do. Billing parents (or potential parents, as when evaluating those who wish to adopt) as "homophobic" and hence as unfit may work very well for this purpose.
Here are just a couple of developments that I, at least, haven't mentioned before and haven't seen widely discussed. They are but two among many, but they provide additional support for the zero-sum thesis:
Textbooks throughout Britain in all subjects are going to be homosexualized. The textbooks will use homosexuals as examples for all manner of topics, presumably along the lines suggested here. Does this sound familiar? Well, yes. It's exactly what we've already seen done with feminism, where traditional gender roles have been scrubbed from all curriculum and where "accomplishments of women and minorities" have been introduced in every subject. I suppose we should have known that it was only a matter of time before it happened with homosexuality, which is supposedly the "new civil rights issue." This revision will have the added effect of destroying children's innocence and of introducing the concept (however vaguely) of sexual acts (specifically, of sexual perversion) no matter what subject the children are ostensibly studying. (HT: Kamilla Ludwig)
Here's another, closely related to the Julea Ward case: A counseling journal has published suggested ways of testing future counselors for "multicultural competence" (don't you love the pseudo-professional-scientific language?) that includes attitudes toward, of course, "gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals." One of the "tools" suggested is the "Quick Discrimination Index." (HT for link: Frank Beckwith)
Once more, I urge social conservatives: Do not believe that this can be a case of live and let live. That option is not being left open to you. You will have to decide: Will you promote the homosexual agenda or oppose it? Will you give your children to it or will you resist? The choices are that stark.