How the times have changed. What a difference a few decades can make. Massive social and cultural change used to take a long time – often extending over centuries. But now we can observe and measure the speed at which cultural change – often, cultural decline – takes place in just a matter of years. To illustrate all this, consider the seemingly disparate items found in my title.
Let me explain all this by taking you back in time some 25 years. It was not just another time but really a different culture back then. While it all transpired in one place, Australia, as this story clearly illustrates, the world of the early 1990s is today totally unrecognisable.
To be precise, let me focus on something that happened on July 4, 1994 – something that would never happen today. Allow me to explain. 1994 happened to be the International Year of the Family (IYF), and at the time I was the National Secretary of the Australian Family Association. Back then one could still somewhat easily promote pro-family sentiments, even in the mainstream media.
Indeed – to offer more autobiographical information here – in the 1990s and 2000s I had a dream run with the media. All up I actually had thousands of media appearances. This included many hundreds of interviews on radio, television and the newspapers; hundreds of printed letters to the editor; and even many dozens of published full-length articles.
By way of contrast, today it is almost impossible to get conservative, pro-family commentary into the media. It is now almost impossible to say anything critical of the homosexual agenda. But 25 years ago that was not quite the case. Yes, I and others who did make it into the MSM were in the minority back then, but at least we did get some sort of hearing.
But let me return to 1994. Partly because it was the IYF, I had a constant run of media appearances at the time. Probably over half were in fact initiated by the media, along with those that I initiated, such as the letters and articles that I submitted. Moreover, in July of 1994 we held a week-long conference on the family at Melbourne University.
Can I suggest that such a conference today could never be held there? It would be deemed to be hate speech and we would be fiercely denied permission to hold it there, or in similar venues. Anyway, in the midst of this busy conference that I was heavily involved in, a noted tennis player and lesbian came out with a public comment about wanting to have children.
As was the norm, I immediately jumped on my keyboard and wrote a reply. In this case I sent a 600-word article to the Melbourne Age in response to the remarks of Martina Navratilova. Incredibly – at least from today’s vantage point – the Age readily and immediately printed my piece.
They gave my article a prominent spot on their opinion page, using this title: “Martina: how would she rank as a mum?” As I recall, they basically ran with my entire piece, with no changes – at least any substantial changes – made at all. Amazing. So what did I say in my piece? I began with these words:
It cannot be denied that Martina Navratilova is a great tennis player. But can she be as successful at motherhood? The tennis star and up-front lesbian has recently declared that she would like to be a mother. The desire for any woman to have a child is, of course, normal, but critics queried whether lesbian parenting is desirable. Martina hit back at her critics, claiming that there is no reason why she should not raise a child.
Others agree, claiming that sexual preference has nothing to do with the issue of good parenting. But does the evidence bear this out? Initial research is beginning to show that children do suffer from being raised by same-sex parents. Before turning to this evidence, let me say that obviously many traditional families have poor parenting skills. But exceptions do not make the rule. The point is, in most cases, a child will do better with a mother and father, and in most cases, a child will suffer as a result of being raised by same-sex parents.
One person who has spent a lot of time looking into this question is Harvard psychologist Joe Nicolosi. He argues that kids raised by homosexuals are traumatised, emotionally and socially.
Children, he argues, are profoundly affected by parental behavior. For example, children of smokers often become smokers. “Homosexuality,” says Nicolosi, “is primarily an identity problem, not a sexual problem, and it begins in childhood. The process begins when a child realises that the world is divided between male and female and that he is not equipped to be identified as male. His father fails to sufficiently encourage male-gender identity. Because he is not fully male-gender identified, he is not psychologically prepared to feel heterosexual attractions. In order to be attracted to women, a male must feel sufficiently masculine. Faced with this predicament, he goes into a world of fantasy and denies the imperative of being either male or female.”
The lack of a strong father figure seems to be a major factor in those who become homosexuals. Another researcher, Dr Paul Cameron, says the admittedly scant data on the subject confirms Nicolosi’s findings. These studies show that eight per cent and 33 per cent of adult respondents raised by homosexuals said they considered themselves homosexual or bisexual, far above the national (US) norm of two per cent of the adult population.
I went on to offer more of the social science research on this matter. And I even quoted from one woman who was raised by lesbians who now clearly bemoaned her upbringing. I then concluded with these words:
Children need to see how men and women interact together. A homosexual or lesbian union cannot provide that role model. Children deserve better. But the interests of the child is the last thing being considered in this debate. Indeed, today everyone is demanding rights to do this and that, but very few seem to realise that rights must be balanced by responsibilities. The right to have a child must be balanced by the rights of the child. Children should be given the first priority, and not be allowed to be used as a political football by the homosexual lobby in their efforts to seek legitimacy for their lifestyle. If the data is still not all in yet, then for the sake of children, we should not rush headlong into gay adoption and marriage.
Wow. I am still gobsmacked that such an article managed to make it into the Age. This was, and still is, one of the most left-wing newspapers in the country. But in 1994 I managed to get my piece in, along with other articles, plenty of letters, and numerous interviews.
Just what are the odds of me getting anything like this into the Age or most other mainstream papers today? I would say zippo. It just ain’t gonna happen. The days of actually getting a non-PC piece into the opinion pages of most of the lamestream media outlets is all but over.
And by the way, the mountain of social science studies on the vital role that fathers play in the development of their children has mushroomed since then. We now have over a half century of research demonstrating conclusively that children do best – by every indicator – when raised by their biological mothers and fathers – preferably cemented by marriage.
But the story does not end there. In addition to illustrating just how radically our culture has shifted in the past few decades, I wish to add one more update to all of this. The radical homosexual agenda has of course now spawned a whole new militant offspring: the radical gender bender agenda.
Just a few short years ago no one was talking about the trans movement – now everyone is. And a few years ago there was no such thing as transphobia. Well, there sure is now. And to demonstrate the rapid rise of the trans madness, let me return again to Martina.
Several days ago this lesbian icon and former tennis great actually tweeted some decidedly non-PC messages. In one of them she dared to say this: “Clearly that can’t be right. You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.”
Oh dear. All hell broke loose over that one. Trans activists lashed out at her big time. So much so that at first Martina deleted her tweets and said this: “I am sorry if I said anything anywhere near transphobic – certainly I meant no harm. I will educate myself better on this issue but meantime I will be quiet about it.”
But as the attacks continued to ramp up, and she was further savagely lambasted by folks like transgender activist Rachel McKinnon, she started to dig in her heels and get some of that fighting spirit back which served her so well on the courts.
She said this to her: “Rachel, you might be an expert on all things trans but you are one nasty human being … it seems to be my decades of speaking out against unfairness and inequality just don’t count with you at all”. Way to go Martina. You can see more on this heated battle here:
But my point remains. A quarter of a century ago no one heard of trans radicalism, although the homosexual agenda was already charging full steam ahead by then. Nonetheless one could still enter into the debate, and some folks could actually get articles affirming traditional marriage and family structure printed in the MSM.
Those days are of course now long gone. Not only has the homosexual juggernaut swept everything in its path, but its wicked stepsister, the moonbat trans movement has now fully emerged on centre stage. And now to affirm what Martina rightly stated – that a man has a penis and a woman does not – means you will be attacked mercilessly as a transphobic bigot and hater.
Transphobic? Such language did not even exist a few short years ago. But now it has come in like a tsunami, and the trans hegemony seems almost complete. Even Bob Dylan, when he sang about the “times they are a changing” back in 1964, could not have guessed just how quickly and how devastating all that would be.