Go ahead and read this important article by Tyler Blanksi about how the modern concept of ‘heterosexuality’ leads inevitably to the new ‘homosexual” identity, along with all the rest of them.
Here’s an excerpt:
Who is the protohomosexual? He is the troubadour poet in twelfth-century France idealizing romance and sexual passion, the knight of Arthurian legend pledging to serve his lady in trouthe and curtesie as if she were a goddess worthy of adoration. He believes erotic love is a high spiritual experience, the highest experience. Andreas Capellanus’ handbook advises that secrecy and suspense will fan the flame of passion; family obligations and children will stifle it. Lancelot and Guinevere betray King Arthur, Tristan and Iseult break the law, Romeo and Juliet go insane, and in the name of “love” every new fling causes undeserved pain for others. All of this is, of course, the raw material for blockbuster videos and bestselling novels in America today.
The serious flaw with the whole system of Courtly Love is its inherent tendency toward anarchy and narcissism. Meeting alone in the dark, far removed from everyday responsibilities and social constraints, lovers do not really get to know one another. Their supposed love for one another is grossly self-absorbed, their lovemaking little more than mutual masturbation. With the flattering image reflected in the other’s eyes, they imagine themselves identical. The heterosexual, who is the protohomosexual, gazes dizzily at his beloved as if at his own reflection in the water.
The protohomosexual’s narcissism, his inflated sense of self, leads him to believe that the irresistible force he calls “love” is inherently ennobling and that his liaisons need no other sanctioning than mutual consent. But his passion only propels him to deceit and unintended cruelty—to his beloved, to his family and hers, to any children they might conceive, even to himself.
Star-crossed lovers standing up against the world in order to get married is a tired cliché. Yet marriage-as-rebellion and sex-as-self-actualization remain the unquestioned stage upon which we woo, marry, and divorce one another. This is the house we have erected for conceiving and rearing children.
It is a house of cards. Having already overturned the social and moral pressures of the community and erected a dating system not unlike civil war, having already privatized marriage and turned it into a statement about his freedom and erotic preference—“This is my choice, my love!”—the protohomosexual closes the curtains of his bedchamber to find only another obstacle to his happiness: fertility.
This fits nicely with an article that I wrote from last year about why the gay marriage arguments are so popular and why pro-transgender arguments are also so popular among the middle classes.
What’s important about advancing this line of argument is that conservatives in America generally only fight isolated tactical battles over “the issues.” Each issue tends to be considered in isolation from all the other issues, because that’s what’s convenient for democratic rhetoric. You can educate morons on ‘talking points’ on single issues, but it’s much more complicated to make a deeper argument which relies on more background knowledge.
This is how the left tends to win every political battle that it fights in democracy — by defining the frame in terms of isolated issues, which it can then push through despite resistance, just because it’s limiting the area that’s being contested.
Further, the popularity of heterosexuality as novelly defined in this essay makes it a lonely fight indeed to argue for regular ol’ sexuality, with all of its weighty moral consequences.