Forcing “Tolerance”: UNC’s New Lexicon

by

The results of academia’s new “tolerance” movement have been visible for years now as the homosexual agenda has strengthened its grip on higher education. So-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, and Allied Resource Centers” have sprung up at virtually every major public university in the country. Purportedly created to provide an inclusive environment for everyone in the university community, in reality such centers work—at taxpayers’ expense—to redefine marriage, family, and sexuality.

A prime example is the LGBTQ Resource Center at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, which is an officially recognized department under the Division of Student Affairs. The Resource Center promotes its own lexicon of preferred terms for students and faculty to use when discussing sex-related issues, including, “heterosexism,” “biphobia,” “genderqueer,” “intersex,” and “same gender loving.” A sample of the lexicon’s terms is quite enlightening.

“Heterosexism,” for example, is “[s]ocietal and institutional reinforcement of heterosexuality as the privileged and norm.” The term exemplifies UNC’s radical views on sex issues and posits the idea that heterosexuality is a worn-out concept merely upheld by the inertia of the status quo. Apparently, UNC is unconcerned with the fact that heterosexuality has been the norm for the entire history of mankind’s existence. Indeed, mankind would not exist if homosexuality was the “privileged” and the “norm.” UNC’s definition seeks to cast heterosexual relationships as merely a societal construct, rather than the natural building block for the perpetuation of human existence.

“Partner” is the preferred term for one’s “boyfriend/girlfriend” or “husband/wife” because it is “gender neutral and non-heterosexist.” The “neutral” nature of the term literally neuters the importance of the male and female sexes by making them irrelevant. But it does more. It does away with the uniqueness and permanence of the marriage relationship by equating it with any other fleeting sexual relationship. When you hear the term “partner,” do you think lifetime commitment or do-si-do? We all instinctively think the latter, and this association is intentional. To UNC, sexual relationships are nothing more than a temporary dance which you can join or leave at your leisure.

Another liberating term is “polyamory,” which is defined as “the ethical philosophy and practice of having nonpossessive, honest, responsible, loving and/or sexual relationships with multiple partners within parameters that are known and agreed upon by all people involved.” What is remarkable about this terminology is that it turns fidelity on its head. So if you sleep with someone other than your spouse, you aren’t “unfaithful,” you’re “polyamorous.” Where I come from, we simply call that “adultery,” a term noticeably absent from the LGBTQ’s lexicon, and one that UNC would undoubtedly consider intolerant. UNC’s terminology not only neutralizes the importance of the respective sexes and removes the idea of fidelity, it eviscerates the traditional, two-person model for marital relationships and opens it to an uncapped number of “partners.” In doing so, the advocates of this position eliminate the stability inherent in the traditional model and actually undercut the very joy and fulfillment they desperately seek in human relationships. King Solomon, who had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines,1experienced “polyamory” to its fullest, and he counseled young men to follow a different path:

15 Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares?                                                      17 Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.2

Students would be wise to heed Solomon’s advice rather than UNC’s recommendations for hollow and short-term sexual relationships.

This small sampling of terms illustrates that the overarching aim of UNC’s lexicon is to normalize deviant and promiscuous sexual behavior and to deconstruct norms such as marriage, fidelity, and commitment. Words matter and UNC knows it. That is why UNC is using your tax dollars to re-educate your children with a new “tolerant” vocabulary, one that you may not recognize when they come home for summer break.

Footnotes
1. I Kings 11:3 (New International Version).
2. Proverbs 5:15-19 (New International Version).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: