Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Distress Signals

We’re in trouble. As evidence, I saved four related articles with a common thread. Three are from lifesitenews.com - a Canadian Catholic newsletter, and one from the Boston Herald.

The first is about Spain. Last winter, the new Socialist government banned use of the terms “mother” and “father” on birth certificates. The father was to be listed as “Parent (progenitor) A” and mother as “Parent (progenitor) B.” Lesbian groups objected immediately, complaining that “progenitor” is a masculine term. They wanted “progenitora” which is feminine.

The second is from Ontario, Canada. The provincial government there is banning use of the terms “man,” “woman,” “wife,” “husband,” “widow” and “widower” from all Ontario law. The changes are an outgrowth of legalizing homosexual “marriage.”

The third is from Prince Edward Island, which is also banning traditional terms referring to members of families the way Ontario did. In PEI, there will be no more references to “bride” or “groom” on legal documents either, only the generic “spouse.”

The fourth is from The Boston Herald which reported last month that: “A Quincy [Massachusetts] mother says she was humiliated when an employee of the [Victoria’s Secret] lingerie franchise’s Faneuil Hall store flatly refused to allow her to breast-feed her daughter, directing her to a public restroom outside.”

All four articles represent disturbing, deconstructionist efforts to separate western perceptions of heterosexuality from reproduction, and from marriage and family. The story of a breast-feeding woman being shooed from Victoria’s Secret is telling, and not an isolated incident according to the Herald: “Last year, a woman was told she couldn’t breast-feed her baby in a Victoria’s Secret in South Carolina” and “[last month], sales associates at a Wisconsin Victoria’s Secret told a mother her exposed breast might offend some customers.” Can you believe this? Exposed breasts considered offensive by Victoria’s Secret?

Victoria’s Secret profits from the sensual display of women’s anatomy, especially breasts. While some may think such display immoral, I’m not necessarily one of them. As a lifelong heterosexual male, I’ve always appreciated women’s breasts. Even as an aging one whose other faculties are in decline, that appreciation doesn’t seem to diminish. Attracting male attention is one of the functions of the female breast and not an unhealthy one. Victoria’s Secret’s lingerie business is based on this fundamental human fact. However, to suggest that the other function of the breast - the nurturing function - could be offensive, is a dangerous bellwether for our time.

First Amendment cases adjudicated over several decades claim the display of women’s breasts can be protected speech, but according to the Herald article: “Massachusetts is one of the few states that doesn’t have laws to protect breast-feeding women. Women who breast-feed in public in Massachusetts can be charged with indecent exposure or lewd and lascivious conduct. A bill that would prevent people from booting breast-feeding mothers from public places and police from charging them has been stalled at the State House.” Yet, ultra-liberal Massachusetts is the only state to have legalized homosexual “marriage.” Maddening.

The US Supreme Court in “Lawrence vs Texas” somehow found a Constitutional right to sodomy. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court somehow found a state constitutional right for homosexuals to “marry.” The Socialist government of Spain and the Liberal Party government of Canada established similar rights. The reader has figured out by now that I consider these developments preposterous. They’re part of a concerted effort by the left to dissociate sexuality from reproduction, and to uncouple heterosexuality from its natural role in reproduction, marriage and family. Such intrinsic connections are “offensive,” they claim, and “heterosexist.” Homosexual activists lead the charge, relentlessly pressuring governments across the western world to cave in to their petulant demands.

What about the rest of us? What if we’re offended when we can’t be referred to as husbands and wives on marriage documents or as mothers and fathers on birth certificates? Why do we give in so timidly to bizarre demands from radical sexual minorities? What’s next? Abolishing Fathers’ Day and Mothers’ Day? Will we instead be forced to celebrate “Progenitors’ Day”?

I shouldn’t have to spell this out, but listen up: Forget what they told you in college. Men and women are different and they’re supposed to be. Most men are aggressive. Most women are nurturing. Women attract men, get them to commit, and tame them. We call this marriage. Sex is a tool for this - heterosexual only. Homosexuality has no place here. When men see women use their breasts to nurse their children, it taps instincts in them to stick around, be fathers to their children - especially their sons - and to use their aggressiveness for the protection of their families and communities. This is an important part of our cultural glue. To the extent that we follow this plan, our culture is strengthened. To the extent we deviate from it, our culture is weakened. The last four decades are testament to this.

I’ve been watching with alarm as the left eats away at that glue and puts us all in trouble. I’ve had enough. Have you?

5 comments:

gaydar said...

The reason breast feeding isn't allowed in public is because it scandalizes good Christian folk. Breasts are dirty according to the followers of baby Jesus. It is rightards who consign women and babies to breastfeed in bathrooms. Left leaning folk like women and babies, and aren't offended by breasts. It's men who are traumatized by seeing breasts used for their actual purpose.

If same sex marriage is suddenly legal, will you be forced to leave your wife, don leather chaps, and march in gay pride parades? You know you want to, Tommy.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Hmm. Maybe I'm a self-hating homosexual who dresses up like Judy Garland when my wife is away? Maybe I unconsciously yearn to become one of the Village People?

Let me think about this for a minute - no.

wormstooth said...

Dear Tom. I've resisted responding to your hilarious tirades in the Bridgton News for years, but can no longer contain myself. You're like a football fan who's chosen a team to root for, and all the other teams are consequently evil. A lot of what you say is right on the money, but your rabidly myopic view of the world does a disservice to your students and your own intellect. Admit that Bush is a nincompoop, that not all conservatives are right all the time, and get on with your life.

Tom McLaughlin said...

I don't think Bush is a nincompoop, no. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'd rather have him than some allegedly brilliant president like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.

Bush screws up with immigration, spending on education, prescription drugs, agricultural subsidies, and several other things. He should exercise his veto, which he never does. Otherwise, he's doing pretty well, I'd say, especially on the war. What's your gripe with him? Calling him a nincompoop says nothing to me. People said that about Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan also, two excellent presidents for the most part.

Name calling is easy. So is anonymity while you do it.

As for how I teach, how would you know? What I publish is a very small fraction of what goes on in my classroom.

Dylan-Former Student said...

O GO Mr. McLaughlin

you totaly schooled that guy (wormstooth)

__Dylan DiMartino