Most of us did not know that heterosexism does not describe those who practice or advocate the desirability of heterosexuality. No, according to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Sec.Tom Vilsack, it means the belief that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
I am trying to figure out where this idea comes from. Does liberalism mean that only one man and one woman can enjoy the benefits of a liberal society? Perhaps it does now, when liberalism seems to mean that one great socialist leader and his First Lady will rule the country and choose everyone's values and impose them on everyone using the force of government. This was not the origin of the term liberalism, however. Libertarianism still means that one favors liberty for all and conservatism still means one favors many traditional values, so most isms do not have a parallel to this new word heterosexism.
Why is it that sexism does not mean that one believes in the desirability of sex or that one enjoys sex? No, in our strange new world, sexism means one is biased against those of one sex or another. In this vane, one would think that heterosexism would mean that one was biased against heterosexual activities. But no, heterosexists are according to the USDA advocates of heterosexuality. This would be in keeping with the traditional use of words such as liberalism, socialism, conservatism, and libertarianism, rather than the screwy use of the word sexism. But, the USDA says that heterosexism is not just in favor of heterosexuality, but that its essence is the denial of marriage to those who are not heterosexual. I do not know why attitudes toward the marriage rights of others must be wrapped up in this term at all. This is very strange.
But applying this rule to other words that ought to be of the same family, leads us to the conclusion that homosexism is the denial of marriage rights to those who are not of the same sex. Bisexism is the denial of marriage rights to those who are heterosexual and to those who are homosexual.
The USDA is re-educating its employees against biases directed at those who are not heterosexual. Of course, any government agency has no business being biased on the basis of sexuality in its hiring and promotions. The USDA is going beyond this to attack certain ideas about marriage though. Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled that states cannot discriminate in favor of heterosexuality in marriage, it seems a bit premature for the USDA to be framing those who oppose marriage rights for those who are not heterosexual as bigots. Mind you, I think such people are bigots, but the government's courts and Congressional law have made no such determination. The Obama administration is all in favor of discriminating against those who believe marriage should be reserved to one man and one woman, however.
Furthermore, the USDA does not make marriage laws, so it is pretty much irrelevant whether some of its employees believe marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. Any effort to dictate that they cannot think this is an attack on the religious beliefs that many people hold and is as clearly wrong as would be USDA discrimination against the hiring of homosexuals or its attempt to re-educate them to become heterosexual once hired.
This USDA effort is in the context of a diversity and inclusion program. It is being pushed forward by the Office of Personnel Management as a model for all of the other agencies of the federal government. It will then be pushed upon the states and upon all government contractors. In practice, such diversity training and incentives result in managers preferentially hiring and promoting two-fers. They will be rewarded for hiring or
promoting lesbian women and homosexual Black men, while discriminating against heterosexual white males and even those who are only one-fers, such as heterosexual Black males or white females. This leads to what ought to be seen as clearly unlawful and immoral discrimination.
To overcome the fact that this is such transparent wrongful behavior, it is useful to actually denigrate the word heterosexual. It has to be converted into a put-down. This has been done with white male as in "The Founders were just a bunch of white males, so their work was full of evil and discrimination. Therefore we can dismiss the Constitution in its entirety, not to mention the Declaration of Independence." The strangely defined word heterosexism helps to give the word heterosexuality a very negative connotation. Defining heterosexism as evil and as a denial specifically of marriage rights helps to accomplish this important goal of the Progressive Elitists.
It will be interesting to observe in time if one sense of the meaning of Progressive Elitism becomes the belief that only Progressive Elitists are allowed to marry. When that starts to happen, will most Americans see that as a new form of bigotry? Or will they just accept the idea as a return to the aristocracy's natural rights such as they enjoyed in the Dark Ages and Medieval times? After all, the Progressive Elitist believes most Americans are too stupid to choose their own values and to manage their own lives. It is clear that they already think of themselves as the educated aristocracy who by right take care of the dumb and uneducated peasants, who should be treated just a little bit better than the pigs. Maybe. Many environmentalists and animal rights advocates among the Progressive Elitists believe most of the peasants should not be treated as well as the pigs or the snail darter.
As I have discussed many times, the government ought not to be in the marriage business. If marriage is a spiritual union of two or more people, then it belongs in the private sector. Government should only offer domestic partnership contracts and these should no more limit the partners than a small business contract does. These domestic partnerships should be completely non-discriminatory, so long as the partners are only consenting adults. See my prior discussions on the right to form domestic partnerships without government discrimination here, here, here, and here. Marriage or domestic partnerships are surely relationships in which one should be completely free to exercise one's right to the freedom of association.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The USDA was a pioneer in the creation of a distance learning certification for indexers. Indexing is a necessary skill and can be done off-site. The USDA thought that farm housewives would appreciate the opportunity to learn a valuable skill which they could sell like butter and eggs. It is still in operation, in fact. But it seems pretty far from the core business of the USDA.
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=MISSION_STATEMENT
This is also far from their business. Unless they are afraid that the recent exponential explosion in gay farmers will lead to a decline in farm families.
It's an old joke but if vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? Guess it's not so funny....
Michael, I was not aware of the exponential increase in the number of gay farmers. But, the USDA does seem intent on there being an exponential increase in the number of gay USDA bureaucrats. Now, I have no problem with that, so long as they prove to be efficient and moral bureaucrats!
Efficient and moral bureaucrats is a joke of course. The job rarely allows for such a person, but for a few in lower management positions.
Ah, the callous attitude of acceptance that has thus far been the trademark of the Internet has struck again. Mindless, insensitive considerations of a word that anyone who has ever been a victim of the mindset imposed by the institutions that subscribe and validate that word in everyday life is what passes as thoughtful, philosophical conversation to you? I can assure you that it is not only way off the mark (your semantical musings leave much to be desired and commit too many logical fallacies of argumentation to list and discuss here), but you undermine what is a considerably crucial topic for today's more humanitarian society.
Regardless of your Petrovian viewpoint (Or Ron Paul-esque, if you haven't read Petro), the detriment of heterosexism is something that needs to be taken serious in the public sphere. The USDA has made a remarkable progression from the insensitive tyrannical musings of old school, religious conservatism toward a future of less discrimination, a dream worthy to aspire to reach. You should a great bit of shame for making such a spectacle of the movement that is trying to make people more equal under the eyes of the law and the State, as well as society in general.
I ask that you do not post such views on the Internet unless you can actually bring an intellectual argument that is not a non-sequitor in terms of claims. As someone who champions the cause of equal rights for all, I find you both shallow and insulting, a combination that makes me feel rather cross indeed.
Let us start by noting that my viewpoint has no origin in the thinking of Ron Paul. I have been expressing the opinion that government only provides a legal contract for domestic partnerships to anyone for a long time. It is an usurpation of the right to declare what constitutes the spiritual content of a marriage when government calls its domestic partnership contracts a marriage. Government has no such legitimate role interfering with the freedom of conscience or religion of individuals.
Government also has no right to discriminate in its hiring based upon the employee's sexuality or the nature of his or her domestic partnership.
Having said these things, I am still appalled at the USDA attacks on individuals actual freedom of conscience. People must be allowed to have beliefs that Progressive Elitists or I do not agree with. Another example is the case in which government is now trying to force Catholic institutions to act contrary to their beliefs that contraceptives are immoral. Now I think contraceptives are moral, but it is entirely wrong for me to impose my opinion by force upon these Catholic organizations. They have every right not to provide contraceptives. This is an exact parallel to the important saying that I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.
Now, I understand that some modern Progressive Elitists have such fragile psyches that they cannot stand the emotional strain of having anyone protect our freedom of speech or our freedom of conscience, but frankly these freedoms are more important to all of mankind than your emotional state is. So, you really should have to strengthen your own internal constitution.
I most certainly do not wish any homosexual or bisexual persons harm, but you have no more right to squash the sovereign individual rights of heterosexual persons than they have to squash your rights.
Post a Comment