We at Unthinkable Thought endeavor to improve our readers through engagement. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. In that spirit, we present this article. Try to identify the various and sundry leftist agenda items floating around in this piece.
We count three. Listed in order of decreasing prioritization: (1) the sexual fluidity shibboleth of the latter day leftist intelligentsia (2) the “women are wonderful/alternative lifestyle” dogma in full effect to downplay the high incidence of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships (3) the denigration of red states and conservative thought more generally.
A New York Times first: an indoctrination piece cum wedding announcement. The first line reveals to the critical reader all they need to know.
These days, even in conservative Arizona, same-sex weddings are a dime a dozen. But this one was different. This was a marriage between a gay woman and a straight woman.
The dissimulation and agenda pushing begin immediately. Firstly, of what import is it that Arizona is a conservative state? This smug factoid is of no relevance to the subject of the article. It is no more than a liberal glorying in fact that a red state has been forced to adopt a blue state pet project as policy and an attempt to marginalize conservative thought.
Secondly, to state the obvious: straight women don’t marry other women. A woman who marries another woman cannot be “straight” by any definition of the word. So the assertion that this is the union of a “gay woman and a straight woman” is nonsensical, ludicrous on its face. Nonetheless, we know that the Left excels at deriding the obvious as unsophisticated while propounding the most improbable and logic-defying conclusions. Occam’s Razor is a theoretical nullity to them, so wedded are they to their bankrupt and profoundly illogical ideology.
So what purpose does this obvious lie serve? The aim here is to mainstream the notion of the fluidity of sexuality and sexual attraction, while casting doubt on the notion that sexuality and sexual attraction are are fixed from birth for the majority of human beings. The article pulls no punches in this regard:
At the same time, this union of two fiercely competitive athletes is raising sometimes uncomfortable questions about same-sex domestic violence, professional sports policies, gender blending and society’s obsession with celebrities as role models.
The breathless endorsement of “gender blending” is an outgrowth of the primary theory undergirding the philosophy of the counterculture: deconstruction. It is the lionization of the freakish; it is the spoliation of all sacred cows. It is the muddling, demoralization, and then razing of society so that a collectivist phoenix may rise from the ashes of the individualist modes preceding it.
To the Leftist, human nature must be denied and then radically deconstructed. Reality must be redefined to reflect the precepts of their warped ideology. Biology is a hurdle to be surmounted by hook or by crook. Internal theoretical consistency is irrelevant, so long as the lies, schizophrenia, and doublethink serve the purpose of advancing a radical agenda. Sexuality is fixed, except when it’s fluid (note that gay conversion therapy is en route to becoming outlawed, based on the notion that sexuality is inherent and can’t be altered). Nonetheless, the standard issue leftist will see nothing discordant with believing both that a straight woman could marry a gay woman and still be considered “straight” and that the fixity of sexuality is so all-encompassing as to militate against therapies aimed at making gay people straight. Heterosexuality, fluid; homosexuality, fixed.
Contrast the Left’s views on sexuality with its views on sex. According to progressive thought, sex is dynamic and may be changed on a whim (note the rise of surgical and hormonal sex reassignment therapies). How could it be that surgical therapy for someone who feels like the opposite gender is appropriate when traditional talk therapy for an individual who feels an attraction to the same sex is verboten? There is no consistency behind any of the Left’s assumptions. These are mere articles of faith, dogma over which logic has no dominion.
Our intrepid New York Times author writes on:
After the news of the couple’s recent arrests, fans, national sports columnists, domestic violence experts and social-media trolls eagerly weighed in. Would they still marry? Should they marry? Should they be suspended from the league? Could they help raise awareness about same-sex domestic violence?
Would everyone just back off and leave them alone already?
Notice how the violence is downplayed. We are implored to overlook the fact that lesbian relationships are amongst the most volatile and violent. We are “trolls” for inquiring as to the wisdom of two women in a relationship with clear instabilities pursuing marriage in spite of relationship violence that landed them both in jail. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which a similarly situated heterosexual couple gets into a spat, go to jail, and are congratulated for making the questionable choice to stay together and tie the knot like it’s nobody’s business, in spite of the turbulence within the relationship. In fact, we don’t have to imagine. We know exactly what would happen.
In this day and age, when propaganda can be found in nearly everything one lays eyes on, it is imperative that you stay vigilant and that you cast a critical eye on everything that you read lest you be led astray by pretty lies.