The systematic normalization of the unreal

Michael S. writes:

What’s most disturbing to me about the New York Times article you posted today is the casual normalization of the gay agenda in the language used; the situation is treated as totally normal and the “gay perspective” as obvious and unproblematic. And yet the lies it encodes are right there on the surface. Thus, “Unequal benefits for same-sex married couples is one of several thorny issues facing the Pentagon … ” And yet the very problem they’re complaining about is that according to federal law there is no such thing as a same-sex married couple. “One currently serving Army officer who married her same-sex partner in Massachusetts said the end of the ban would provide a huge emotional release, allowing her for the first time to talk to her fellow soldiers about her wife and two children…. they have dependent children.” No one notices any more that “wife” is a relative term, and its correlative is husband. Are these lesbian both “wives,” with no husband? That’s like two men each calling each other “son,” with no father as the terminus of the paternal-filial relationship. This is completely obvious, but the casual language obscures it.

So too with the children. The couple do not have children in the ordinary meaning of the term, because the two “wives” are unable by nature to reproduce together. Because there is no “husband” correlative with a wife, ipso facto there can be no “child” correlative with the two of them as “parents.” So whose children are they? Are they children of one of the women, or of neither? Who is the father? It’s still an uncomfortable fact that where there are children—even with two “mommies”—there’s a daddy in there somewhere, but he’s not part of the “family” being described and so his existence, being an irritating and uncomfortable vestigial appendage, is elided and ignored. “I want to be like everyone else,” the officer said. “I don’t think my family should be entitled to anything less than the people I’ve served with here and overseas.” ” But of course the whole issue is that she and her “family” are not like everyone else: it’s a magical family with two “wives” but no husband, and with children but no father. Being treated “the same” means being treated differently from any normal family, since someone is demanding to get the benefits of being a “husband” without being a husband, and/or the benefits of being a “parent” without being a parent.

LA replies:

Very good analysis. This is the systematic normalization of the completely weird and unreal that is the inevitable result of same sex “marriage,” but most people don’t see it. They think the issue is just about “equality.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 19, 2011 01:34 PM | Send