Why conservatives shouldn't say "gay"

Why conservatives shouldn’t say “gay”

Below are two comments I posted at Lucianne.com about the homosexual ordination controversy in the Episcopal Church. Noting this debate from afar, I’m reminded of what Gen. Schwartzkopf and Secretary Powell said about allowing open homosexuals in the armed forces, that it would destroy unit cohesion. Well, isn’t that the effect that homosexual liberation has on every institution that it touches—that it destroys the moral commonality that makes any normal and stable human association possible? And since homosexual liberation is a rebellion against the order of being, is that any surprise?

The Gay Bishop’s Links

Reply 78—Posted by: Larry, 8/4/2003

I notice that many people in this thread who are opposed to the homosexual rights movement nevertheless use the approving word “gay” almost exclusively, instead of the more neutral term “homosexual.” How do you expect to stand against the homosexual rights movement when you adopt its own jargon? Adopting the word “gay” implies an acceptance, or at least a sympathy, with the mindset of homosexual liberation. It is to legitimize the very thing you are opposing.

So, listen up, conservatives. If you want to oppose the radical homosexual liberation movement or any other aspect of the left, don’t use its language!

Reply 85—Posted by: Larry, 8/4/2003

The controversy over whether this particular priest was involved in some homosexual group is a distraction. The question is, is the Episcopal Church going to have openly homosexual bishops? Is it going to institutionalize “same-sex union ceremonies”? If it does these things, that will be a disaster, making it much harder for members of that church (I am one) to stay involved in it.

But remember, the top Anglican hierarchy have for some time been non-Christians, anti-Christians. Their “Christianity” is at best some tortured intellectual game. They have no faith. Their real religion is leftism. Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, a vicious anti-American, gave a Christmas Eve sermon in my church a few years ago in which he lauded Eastern religions (on Christmas Eve!) and talked about how we have to approve of everyone, including fat, sloppy people, exactly the way they are. His demeanor expressed contempt for the traditionalist parish he was visiting.

The only thing that keeps the Anglican church going is a few remnants of true Christian devotion that still exist here and there within the church.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 05, 2003 12:00 AM | Send

Comments

Here are more notes I wrote to conservatives criticizing their use of “gay”:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/7/25709.shtml

Dear Mike Gallagher,

In your last column at Newsmax, in which you criticized the homosexual liberation agenda, you used the approving word “gay” 16 times, while you used the neutral word “homosexual” zero times. Has it occurred to you that criticism of the homosexual rights movement is going to be less than effective if it employs the jargon created by homosexuals to makes homosexuality seem normal and acceptable?

Think about it for a minute. We all live in a liberal cultural environment that keeps re-writing language and re-writing attitudes to move them further and further left. The popular adoption of the word “gay” is part of that. The only way to oppose the homosexual rights movement effectively is to stand on ground that is different from the ground of the prevailing liberalism and its attitudes. But you give up that ground when you uncritically adopt the word “gay” and speak the language of the very movement you are trying to oppose.

Sincerely,
Lawrence Auster

http://24.104.35.12/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp

Stanley Kurtz

Mr. Kurtz,

How can you effectively criticize homosexual marriage when you adopt the language of the homosexual liberation movement? In your article in The Weekly Standard, “Beyond Gay Marriage” you use the approving word “gay” 120 times. You use the neutral word “homosexual” eight times, “homosexuality” five times, and “homosexuals,” once.

Conservatives who insensibly imbibe and echo the cultural attitudes and jargon of the surrounding left-liberal environment lose the ability to stand on ground separate from and independent of that environment, and thus lose the ability effectively to criticize and resist it, much as they may be nobly attempting to do so.

Sincerely,
Lawrence Auster

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on August 9, 2003 2:01 PM