There is a spirit resurrecting across the United States, a welcome force for the restoration of Good against Evil, the reintroduction and reinforcement of all things right and well that made Western civilization possible.
I am writing about the pro-family movement, which is witnessing a necessary resurgence in the United States.
Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court imposed one of its most egregious decisions: Obergefell v. Hodges. Blasting through constitutional amendments established by the several states, Obergefell imposed same-sex “marriage” on the entire country. Judicial fiat, a threat to democracy, and a disturbing revision of our constitution’s foundational principles marked the reception of this disordered court decision.
LGBT propaganda, promotion, and punishment have been unleashed on the country ever since. A backlash against the abuses of this coercive agenda has risen up, from boycotts against major businesses pushing “pride” to a growing recession of attendance and support for pride parades in public squares and city centers.
The latest Supreme Court rulings should have all pro-family conservatives cheering, too. The Supreme Court upheld the rights of parents to opt out their children from listening to LGBT-themed stories and propaganda. The Supreme Court also upheld age verification laws for access to pornographic websites. This necessary reform protects children from the harms of these illicit, explicit images, and also protects children (and adults) from sexual confusion. Just listen to the testimonies of former homosexuals Christopher Yuan and Greg Quinlan, and they will relate how their encounter with Hugh Hefner shaped their warped sexual behaviors before they were set free.
The United States Supreme Court also upheld bans on sexual mutilation of minors, rephrased in Orwellian fashion as “gender-affirming care” by trans militants. The Court has also announced that it will take up Chiles v. Salazar, which will adjudicate whether governments have the right to criminalize so-called “conversion therapy” — i.e., therapies that help individuals to break free of unwanted homosexual attractions and identity dysphoria. LGBT activist are particularly alarmed by this case, because if the Court strikes down those therapy bans, it will further undermine the lie that people are “born that way.” Successful reparative, restorative, and reintegrative therapies have helped thousands of individuals deal with homosexual attraction and transgender confusion. Removing the legal barriers in twenty states will mark a cultural turning point against the LGBT agenda as a whole.
The pro-family revolution is rising, and the laws of nature are advancing.
But why now?
Two so-called “gay” conservatives, Andrew Sullivan and Douglas Murray, have indicated in their distinct, British-American fashion that the whole “LGBT movement” has gone too far.
Sullivan writes in “How the Gay Rights Movement Radicalized, and Lost Its Way”:
A funny thing happened in the wake of these [gay rights] triumphs. Far from celebrating victory, defending the gains, staying vigilant, but winding down as a movement that had achieved its core objectives — including the end of H.I.V. in the United States as an unstoppable plague — gay and lesbian rights groups did the opposite. Swayed by the broader liberal shift to the “social justice” left, they radicalized.
Douglas Murray writes in “Standing up to bullying, unscientific transgender activist mob”:
By presenting the complex issue of trans as the inevitable next step in a campaign for ever more rights, our societies in the West took a mad turn.
After all, the acceptance of other arguments were [sic] based on the idea that the people getting their rights were equals — and that society would not need to change itself or alter its fundamentals in order to grant these rights.
The moral force of both movements were [sic] founded on the basis of “Just like us.” And that is how they succeeded.
The “trans-rights” movement, by contrast, turned everything completely on its head. They insisted not just that some people feel that they have been born in the wrong body, but that nobody is born with any discernible biological sex.
Yes, they both wisely, rightly decry the madness of transgenderism. Yes, they point out the vile insanity of believing that sex is just a social construct, and that one can change one’s sex like flipping a light switch or changing clothes.
But a more sinister problem lurks beneath the whole transgender movement. How did our country, and Western culture in general, begin accepting and normalizing the notion that men could become women? Why are we facing the anti-biological onslaught of men invading women’s sports, cells, and selves?
Before there was transgenderism as a political movement, there was the homosexual movement.
Sullivan and Murray are brilliant men. What they cannot admit to, however, is that their particular brand of preferences is part of the problem. They can talk about the anti-biological bigotry of men in dresses, or women cutting of their breasts and hair to butch up as boys. But lesbians were cutting off their hair. Men were misusing their lower halves to engage in destructive conduct with one another as well.
The normalization of homosexuality is contra biology. The gay “rights” movement is anti-biological, and it is also illogical. Yes, there are only two sexes. Douglas Murray set the record straight (no pun intended) on Bill Maher’s program a few months ago. But those two sexes have a complementarity in sexual intercourse that cannot express itself between two individuals of the same sex. It is a misuse of organs for a man to use another man as if he were a woman, and for a woman to do the same to another woman as if she were a man.
Neither of these men can claim to care about biology when they insist that they were “born that way.” There is no evidence to justify that cult-like assertion. In fact, as recently as 2019, a longitudinal study tracking 500,000 subjects confirmed that there is no “gay gene.” Would either of these men be willing to address this biological fact, too?
Furthermore, Sullivan and Murray can cast calumny on cross-dressing as a civil right. But since when was it sensible to do the same thing with sodomy? Two men abusing each other and calling it “love” was deemed a mental illness until the homosexual activists, using abusive tactics similar to what the trans tyrants engage in today, cudgeled and bullied the American Psychiatric Association to stop. The gay gaslighting is unmistakable.
Furthermore, the glib use of the term “civil rights” in association with homosexuality is aberrant as well as abhorrent. Invidious discrimination against individuals on account of their integumentary melanin count or the diversity of their ethnic background is wrong. Individuals did not choose those distinctions, and they cause no harm to the body politic. Homosexual conduct is harmful to the individual, and the normalization of this conduct has unleashed untold problems in societies. Militant homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah led to divine judgment, but also among the tribesmen of Benjamin. Venereal disease spread like the plague throughout the bath houses of Imperial Rome because of men doing the unseemly with other men. Let’s not forget the harms done to children in the Greek city-states and the Ottoman Empire, as well as the collapse of entire city-states (see ancient Greco-Roman historian Polybius’s eyewitness accounts), and the marauding of homosexual gangs in Medieval Europe to the present day. Read also the harrowing accounts of the Ugandan martyrs, who chose execution versus submitting their bodies to the unwanted advances of King Mwanga II.
Sullivan and Murray would mock my arguments, certainly. Perhaps I have slipped and fallen down the slippery slope fallacy? Quite the contrary. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court imposed same-sex “marriage” on the Commonwealth in 2003, government institutions changed the marriage licenses from “Husband and Wife” to “Partner A and Partner B.” Male and Female were erased, effaced, and replaced with a cold, inert non-binary pairing. That is transgenderism at the outset. If sex does not matter when it comes to marriage, then it does not matter at all. Hence, the boys invaded the girls’ locker rooms, their fitting rooms, and all the others.
The argument against transgenderism is going our way. The pro-family forces are rising, but we cannot allow the current celebrations to distract from the origins of the problem. We have the T because of the LGB, and we must tell the truth about the entire alphabet of sexual dysfunction if we hope to eradicate this entire agenda and make male and female great again. We have to make marriage great again, too, and that means making Mom and Dad great again.
Arthur Christopher Schaper is a blogger, writer, and commentator on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance. Follow his blogs at The State of the Union and As He Is, So Are We Ministries.
Image via Max Pixel.