The abuse of words and language from the pro-gay camp

This was too good and true not to post. Written by James White. From HERE

Mr. Church: That is the Sound of the Barbarians at the Gates

Yesterday I was directed to a Tweet picture that spoke volumes.


Pictures can say more than a thousand words, to be sure. And this picture speaks volumes. But I would like to respond to Mr. Church’s interpretation, which I would call the “interpretation of inevitability.”

First, the issue of the abuse of language, the constant ploy of those seeking to degrade the moral and ethical foundation of a culture. The term “homophobe” is one of the most absurd, vacuous, mind-numbing terms ever introduced into the English language. It has no meaningful function, since its actual meaning, and its usage, are rarely concurrent. I do not know any homophobes, personally, since that term would refer to someone who has an irrational fear of their own kind. But that is not how Mr. Church is using it. It is a convenient, if untruthful, term used to slander those who believe homosexuality, as an act and as a lifestyle, is immoral and destructive to human flourishing. Hence it is a convenient way of demonizing an entire position without even offering a meaningful moral or ethical argument. The regularity of its use is witness to the bankruptcy of the position espoused by Mr. Church.

Next, when I look at this picture, many issues crowd my mind. Some I will not enter into here (military readiness, the on-going degradation of the strength of the US and the results that will have in destabilizing the political structures around the world). The main issue though is this: if this is supposed to be a “marriage,” who is the husband, and who is the wife? I am not talking about dominant/submissive roles. I am talking about husbands and wives. See, words have meanings. Marriage has meaning. To marry, as a verb, has meaning, and hence, that meaning is filled out by the direct object of the verb. I, a man, married a woman. Hence, I am a husband, with all the meaning that term carries, to a specific woman, who is my wife, with all the meaning that term likewise carries. All the public education and eradication of human nature in the world cannot remove from those who are created in the image of God a basic, instinctive understanding that “husband” is a gendered term, “wife” is a gendered term, “father” is a gendered term, and “mother” is the most gendered term known to humanity. Hence, “marriage” has a meaning that this picture can never represent, since there is no husband, and there is no wife, in it. Without a husband, you have no marriage. Without a wife, you have no marriage. You can have relationships of all kinds, but what you do not have is a marriage. All the glazed eyes of judges or the wild eyes of zealots can not change this basic reality. This is why we instinctively show pity and compassion to the child who has lost a father or a mother: we recognize the need for both. This is why we likewise look down upon the abusive parent of either gender, and we do so properly. Shame is a proper and good thing when it is used to curb the evil of men and women. But all of these considerations are irrelevant to the picture above, for there is no father, there is no mother, no husband, no wife, no marriage. Just two men kissing, one in uniform. Their strong feelings for each other can never surmount the insurmountable: they cannot be married anymore than they can bear children, fly, leap over tall buildings, or live under water. They were made one way, and their rejection of their God-ordained roles does not redefine marriage.

So the sound I hear when I see this picture has nothing to do with abusing the English language through absurd non-terms like “homophobe.” It has nothing to do with advancement in the 21st century. It has everything to do with the sound the citizens of Rome heard in the early 5th century as those they called “barbarians” swept into the Eternal City. Rome had been crumbling from the inside for centuries—much more slowly, I note, than Western Society today, where such processes take place in the span of a few generations rather than centuries (mainly due to our advanced communications technology). Civilizations that fundamentally reject God’s creative purpose collapse, in time. How else could it be? One will either have a culture of life, or a culture of death, and homosexuality, no matter what else is said about it, does not foster life. It is fundamentally self-centered and narcissistic at its core. The profaning of marriage seen in the above graphic has one inevitable result: it cannot produce life. That which does not produce life tends toward death. That is the bent of this society, just as it became the bent of the later centuries of the Roman Empire. And thus we prove yet once again that those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.


7 thoughts on “The abuse of words and language from the pro-gay camp

  1. To add to the point about words having meaning – the elders of my church have decided that our pastor will no longer perform “marriage” – only “holy matrimony.”

  2. All this piece accomplished was to define “husband” and “wife,” but not “marriage.” The word itself holds a meaning, and if you’re afraid that defining it as between two people is going to erode the sanctity of the term, I would submit that is a very narrow and obtuse worldview. You mention “bankruptcy,” which has a meaning, too: the state of being completely lacking in a particular quality or value. The particular value lacking here is compassion and, since you cite Christiaity as a reason for your fear of homosexual relationships, I fear your lack of understanding about that term defeats your entire argument before you make it.
    A note about “not creating life:” as long as there exists a family willing to take in, care for, and love the tragic number of foster children or children in need of adoption, there exists the truest essence of “life.” I applaud you for noting the anatomical reality of homosexuality, but as happens often among those decrying “creation of life,” you simply stop there, forgetting that to foster that life after it has been created is the next most important part.
    It is a weak argument that makes the connection between a social or political change and the supposed “end of America.” The connection to the end of the Roman Empire is a cute rhetorical trick that has been used by every soothsayer and charlatan looking for free blocks on the printing press for the past two thousand years. Like those who predicted that the end of slavery or segregation would mean the Romanesque destruction of America, this argument is debunked by the fact that America stands for more than who you love, and it can’t be taken down by folks who say otherwise that easily.

    • Roger, I think the point he was making was that according his world view the definition of marriage is propositionally contingent on the definition of husband and wife. His logic is correct and true to his worldview. About ‘obtuse and narrow’… come on… his worldview is definitely not narrow. It is one of the broadest definitions in human history – it transverses centuries, religions, and cultures. It may seem too narrow and obtuse for your 5 minutes on the planet, but objectively, it has been and will be for some time forward, the prevailing definition. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it incompassionate nor unenlightened. Note: I can’t vouch for the other stuff he said :)

  3. Roger, are you afraid if defining marriage as between multiple people? Maybe 3 or 4? Would that erode the sanctity of the term in your view?

    • I recognize that, as a flawed man, my worldview might be different from a few others. While I wouldn’t condone such a definition, I am willing to allow what is truly love to win out over my own selfish attempts to “define” such a concept for others.

  4. the western world has lost all its moral relevances. It is amusing how concepts like love & compassion cld be twisted to serve a particular purpose.

  5. Very bold, very “black & white”. I agree with what is said. The God-fearing will always allow God (by the scriptures) to define ‘Marriage’. But the question I have heard echoed in opposition is: “why do I have to suffer being told who I can or cannot be with?”. Unfortunately a great deal of resentment has boiling against those who believe in God, and subsequently, this resentment is often directed against God. What I find most useful is pointing out to my friends, the LOVING reasons WHY God said “no”. And science backs this up too: – increased mental ill health, increase physical illness rate, and as you rightly pointed out, no ability to procreate. And then reminding my friends that God has given you free choice, however, “there is always a reason why we ought to follow the ‘manufacturers-product-instructions’ “, which is the Bible in this case. Thanks for the article.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s