Nothing could illustrate more powerfully how far the rationalization for homosexual behavior has embedded itself in American life than presidential candidacy of Pete Buttigieg. Note that it is not the inclination, but the behavior that is being declared and justified.
“Twenty years ago, an awkward teenager at St. Joe High School in South Bend, Indiana, who didn’t know a single out LGBTQ+ student there, never would have imagined how far we would come as a country,” Buttigieg wrote in a recent 18-page white paper titled “Becoming Whole: A New Era for LGBTQ+ Americans”. Indeed, just look at us now! Pete says, “I’m gay as a—I don’t know, think of something really gay—that’s how gay I am.”
Okay, that’s settled. Being gay is okay. But what about the way in which you are gay? Does that carry any moral import? Nope, no problem there either. Buttigieg, responding to a question during CNN’s LGBTQ Town Hall in October, stated: “There is no right or wrong way to be gay, to be queer, to be trans, and I hope that our own community, even as we struggle to define what our identity means, defines it in a way that lets everybody know that they belong among us.”
Politico describes Buttigieg as “the 37-year-old husband of a man who teaches Montessori middle school and with whom he hopes to parent children.” Chasten Glezman is pretending to be a woman so he can be the “wife” in this arrangement. Buttigieg is also pretending that Glezman is a woman. If they engage in sodomy – the defining act of homosexual behavior – then they are both pretending that a certain bodily aperture is actually a vagina, which neither of them has. This is called play-acting. So is the make-believe that the two of them could “parent children.” The only condition on which they could have children is via a missing mom. In other words, have a child in such a way that it will be deliberately deprived of one of its parents. This might be called many things, but “parenting” is not one of them.
When Buttigieg was asked how he, as president, would deal with “leaders of foreign countries where it’s still illegal to be gay,” he responded: “So, they’re going to have to get used to it.” Leave aside the fact that there are no countries where it is the illegal to be homosexual, only ones where the act of sodomy continues to be against the law. What does “getting used to it” mean? It means that foreign leaders, like the rest of us, will have to become actors in their play-acting. Buttigieg means that we must all conform ourselves to the script of the fantasy dream world in which he is engaged.
This is happening – i.e., being required – everywhere. A recent illustrative episode concerns what occurred when the Hallmark Channel pulled several ads from wedding-planning company Zola, four of whose six commercials featured same-sex couples kissing. Those four were canceled. The gay+ Twitterdom went nuts, calling for a Hallmark boycott. Like an errant American sports team kowtowing to China’s president-for-life Xi Jinping, Hallmark groveled. In contrition, it promised to work with homosexual advocacy group GLAAD “to better represent the LGBTQ community across our portfolio of brands.” Zola’s chief marketing officer Mike Chi (any relation to President Xi?), who was astute enough to observe that only the commercials with “a lesbian couple kissing” were pulled, will not give absolution. After ritually intoning the LGBTQ credo that “all kisses, couples and marriages are equal celebrations of love,” he let the ax drop: “we will no longer be advertising on Hallmark.”
Ouch! After all, what would the holiday season be without lesbians kissing under the mistletoe? Isn’t that why Baby Jesus came in the first place? So we could all love each other equally? It’s alright, though. Hallmark CEO Mike Perry courageously announced that the company is committed to (guess what?) “diversity and inclusion” and will reinstate the commercials. GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis says she is “thrilled” with the reversal because, as she explained on CNN, “for my wife and I to try to explain this to our 10-year-old twins is mortifying.” The mortifying thing in this sentence is not only its grammar: “for my wife and I” should be “for my wife and me.” But that’s okay because Sarah could not possibly have a wife because she’s a woman. And they could not possibly be “our 10-year-old twins” because only one of them could possibly be the mother, and the other one could not possibly be the father. Where’s the “inclusion” when it comes to dad?
In the Analects, Confucius taught: “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.” The corruption of language prevents us from knowing what things are, or how to speak of them properly, or how to use, rather than abuse, them. Philosopher Eric Voegelin said: “The obsession of replacing the world of reality with the transfigured dream world has become the obsession of the one world in which the dreamers adopt the vocabulary of reality, while changing its meaning, as if the dream were reality.” Thus we have Buttigieg and his male “wife.” And we have Sarah Kate Ellis as the “husband” of her “wife” and their twins.
“In the Gnostic dream world,” Voegelin explained,
nonrecognition of reality is the first principle. As a consequence, types of action which in the real world would be considered as morally insane because of the real effects which they have will be considered moral in the dream world because they intended an entirely different effect. The gap between intended and real effect will be imputed not to the Gnostic immorality of ignoring the structure of reality but to the immorality of some other person or society that does not behave as it should behave according to the dream conception of cause and effect.
If we are not behaving as we should in accordance with the dream world, it is probably because we’re “haters.” Charity and compassion are the trump cards played by those who accede to and insist upon the Buttigieg-like normalization of homosexual behavior. It’s all part of “caring.” Charity is indeed an obligation, but it never trumps truth. Plato said that to lie in one’s soul about “what is” is the worst thing a human being can do because the person so possessed would no longer be able to distinguish truth from falsehood, and consequently would speak untruth without even knowing it. In Buttigieg’s terms, getting “used to it” means transforming an individual lie into a collective one in the souls of us all. I see no better way of doing this than by making him president. He should run some campaign commercials on the Hallmark Channel to make the dream come true.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!