As the Chick-Fil-A brouhaha has demonstrated, liberals are
quick to resort to name-calling when they seek to dismiss an opposing position
without actually discussing it rationally or dealing with legitimate issues raised.
At the top of the liberal list of names is, of course, "homophobic,"
which leftists are quick to trot out whenever someone dares suggest that
homosexuality should not be promoted as normative behavior. It turns out,
however, that when they resort to such name-calling, those on the Left are
actually desperately trying to conceal their own phobias.
The fact is that it's not conservatives who are homophobic; rather, it is liberals who are heterophobic. So deep is their fear of heterosexuality and the institutions which support it that liberals will go to any lengths to eliminate normal sexual orientation and behavior from consideration as a legitimate topic for discussion or as a basis for policy-making.
The roots of this phobia can be traced all the way back to the writings of Karl Marx. Marx saw the institution of marriage as ”bourgeois clap-trap,” an institution which mirrored capitalistic social structure in that it allowed men to treat wives and children as property.
Two influential Marxist theorists, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, perpetuated his views from the 1930s through the 1960s. More recently, a book titled "Against Love: A Polemic," by Laura Kipnis, has continued the assault on this ”capitalist” institution. In the final analysis, it has become a presenting issue for the underlying heterophobia of the Left/Liberal agenda.
Kipnis also comes down firmly on the side of unleashing carnal desires. Indeed, she takes care of the "character" issue by implying that most people — e.g., Bill Clinton — don't have any: "[S]ometimes desire just won't take no for an answer."
For Kipnis, marriage is nothing short of drudgery, something to be worked at like a job. And the problem is that, like jobs in a capitalist society, marriages are carried out by people who somehow, by her reasoning, don't have a stake in the outcome. Marriage partners are, like their counterparts in the labor market, alienated by the fact that marriage — again, like the labor market — is nothing more than an instrument of state control. The answer, according to Kipnis, is adultery, that wonderful enterprise which allows married people to give rein to unbridled sexual desire.
Both sexual repression and working for a living are,
as leftists see it, exclusively capitalist phenomena. Leftists are working
toward an historical outcome in which all citizens would give up individual
freedom to the state and become pleasure-seeking functionaries whose primary
value consists in pushing the envelope of hedonism. (To this point, Marx
himself categorically refused to work for a living, and four of
his seven children died as a result of Marx’s unwillingness to support his
family . (Marx spent his time sitting at his kitchen table spouting
polemics and scribbling screeds.)
Marxist apologist Marcuse promoted what he called "polymorphous
sexuality" as an ideal toward which society should aspire. For Marcuse,
such a state of affairs represented the ultimate liberation of mankind from
sexual repression and, coincidentally, from the need to work for a living. This
notion has become ingrained in the political consciousness of the left, who
seem to have accepted that heterosexuality and the institution of marriage
somehow represent a limiting condition that has been imposed on human beings in
western democratic-capitalist societies.
Never mind that for tens of millions of years the reproductive
advantages of there being two sexes has enabled, among other things, the
emergence through the evolutionary process of the very species of which we are
members. And never mind that such activities as nurturing and providing for
one's offspring have served humans and other species remarkably well thus far.
Such common-sense reasoning goes contrary to twentieth-century
left/liberal dogma, which has asserted that the ascendancy of Marxism would
usher in an era in which the hassle of working for a living and the drudgery of
having to actually raise one's children would disappear. In its place we’d have
a state of affairs where, as Hillary Clinton recommends, the state (aka the
"village") would assume responsibility for such heretofore undeniably
personal duties. Ultimately, this would lead to a condition where adult humans
would be freed up to pursue their primary purpose, pushing the envelope of
hedonism.
The Left has so successfully managed to skew the terms of the
debate toward its agenda of promoting the marginal and the unproven, that those
who attempt to put forth heterosexual relationships as the norm are routinely
shouted down as homophobic fascists, as happened to Chick-Fil-A’s Dan Cathy.
Of course, it's easy to put down marriage. It's easy to point
out all the things marriage isn't. It isn't, the Clintons notwithstanding, an arrangement
which lends itself easily to the unfettered exploration of one's sexuality
through encounters with multiple partners. Nor is it an arrangement which
magically eliminates frustration, sexual or otherwise, from one's life. Nor is
it a contract into which one should enter if an important goal of one's life
remains personal sexual fulfillment, although personal sexual fulfillment can
certainly be a component of marriage, Ms. Kipnis' whiny arguments
notwithstanding.
Because, as the Christian marriage vows state, marriage is not
to be entered into lightly. If you're capable only of a depth of understanding
that balks at anything more profound than self-centered sexual satisfaction,
well, marriage is probably not for you.
And if you're someone who's not capable of putting the
interests of other people — particularly those of your spouse and your children
— ahead of your own, again, you might want to think twice before you get
married.
Finally, if you're a left/liberal who has bought into your
cohorts' deep doctrinal heterophobia, steer clear of marriage.
The Left, in its blind adherence to Marxist dogma, has become
frantically heterophobic. So fearful are left/liberals of normal male-female
human sexuality and the institutions which have evolved to support those
relations that they have constructed a veritable edifice out of aberrant sexual
behavior, including homosexuality, bisexuality, and sexual fetishism, to
mention several. When they are not cowering behind this edifice, they lob
propaganda salvos intended to obfuscate the overwhelming success that continues
to be enjoyed by normal Americans happy to marry and remain faithful to their
spouses and raise their children and spoil their grandchildren.
In the final analysis, this now-crumbling leftist heterophobic
edifice is proving to have been built with the bricks of outmoded and
unworkable Marxist theoretical constructs. And despite apparent statistical
evidence to the contrary, there is taking place a solid, if gradual, return to
the values and institutions, including morality and marriage, that confute the
left's railings against the institution of marriage and demonstrate the
futility of the tactics they employ in defense of their rampant heterophobia.
Greg Lewis Ph.D. is the author of The Politics of Anger, which systematically lays out the communist/socialist foundations of the liberal political agenda by examining the important writings of leftist thinkers of the past 75 years.Lewis also co-authored "End Your Addiction Now : The Proven Nutritional Supplement Program That Can Set You Free."Greg Lewis.org
© 2012 by Greg Lewis
First Rights Only
Glewis9000@aol.com
