Other words have been replaced by nonjudgmental substitutes. Somewhere between 1960 and 1980, "promiscuous" gave way to "sexually active." What a phrase to describe the hopping into bed and meaningless coupling that has caused so much pain, heartache, sickness, and even death in our country. But then again, how can a society talk about promiscuity if it is unable to say that it is a good thing to be faithful or to postpone sexual intercourse until marriage?
If you think ten sexual partners a year is okay, on what grounds can you argue with someone else who believes twenty is acceptable? Unfortunately, for some in our society these are modest numbers. Studies of the earliest victims of AIDS showed that many of them had been involved with more than three hundred different sexual partners in the twelve months before coming down with the disease.
The word "pornography" is under similar attack. While most average Americans use this word, or the shorthand abbreviation "porn," most opinion leaders prefer the phrase "sexually explicit." Again, the new phrase is value free, it makes no judgment about the material other than the fact that more flesh is being shown.
In any debate on pornography, there is one phrase that will always be brought up. "Well," the liberal will argue, "one man's pornography is another man's art. Who is to judge?" A culture that cannot say what is obscene, and insist on its definition, is a society in deep moral trouble. One can always find a pervert, of course, who sees art in pictures of a woman or child being bound, tortured, and sexually molested, but a healthy society does not allow a sick mind to dictate its judgments about what should be illegal.
Oh yes, and what about that word pervert? Take a good look at it. I predict it too is on its way to the burial ground of words no longer acceptable. Things and conduct considered perversions just a few years ago are now considered mere "preference" or "orientation." None of us, we are told, has the right to describe someone else's conduct as perverted.
We are making a value judgment by using such a word--we are saying it is bad, should be punished, deserves condemnation.
When we lose the ability to use words to make such judgments, the slippery slope becomes extremely steep. At a recent conference of sexologists, a paper was delivered suggesting that pedophilia, the sexual attraction some men feel toward prepubescent children, may have to be redefined as an "orientation" rather than the perversion or sexual deviation it is.
I thought of this intellectual obscenity all through the summer of 1989 as a series of young girls in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. were being molested in a crime wave which culminated in the discovery of the lifeless and violated body of one little girl, dumped on a suburban street. Someone's "orientation" had brought incalculable pain and grief to a child, and to the mother and father who loved her.
The abortion debate is also filled with examples of word manipulation. The press seldom refers to the "pro-life" movement. Instead, they are either labeled "anti-abortion" or incredibly "anti-choice." Dan Rather even referred to pro-life advocates as the "anti-women's rights movement!"
The redefinition of words to make it nearly impossible to define normal and abnormal has been going on for some time. Homosexuality has been considered abnormal throughout the ages. But in 1973, under intense pressure from the homosexual lobby, the American Psychiatric Association redefined homosexuality as pathological only for those who sought psychiatric treatment for it. Two years later, the American Psychological Association followed suit.
This brings us to yet another verbal phenomenon--the recreation of new words--new weapons to be used in the civil war. If homosexuality is not considered abnormal, something else called homophobia is. Homophobia is an abnormal fear of and revulsion to homosexuality. The word is routinely leveled at anyone who opposes the gay rights agenda. It is now commonly used in the leading newspapers in the country and by trendy talk show hosts.
The word "homophobia" did not even appear in our major reference books until quite recently. But Webster's New World Dictionary, Funk & Wagnall's, and Random House's Dictionary of the English Language each not list the word. And each has adopted a "politically correct" definition of "homophobia." This is a further example of the power of liberal interest groups to force their own brand of thinking on the country. Clearly, here is a "sickness" the modernists are willing to identify and hurl at their opponents. Never mind that the research studies show that in 1987, fully 81 percent of the American people believe that it is "always wrong," or "almost always wrong," for two adults of the same sex to have sexual relations.
This redefinition of an old word--homosexuality--and the creation of a new word--homophobia--is not a minor event or a mere curiosity. Through these semantic changes, normalcy is put on the defensive. Parents who want to resist the demands of the homosexual movement are easily labeled with a condemning word.
Children, in turn, are quickly taught to accept the new value system. In a number of schools, new classroom material has already been introduced to teach children that homosexuality is normal and that those who oppose its political and social agenda are bigots.
Book: Children at Risk
By Dr. James Dobson and Gary Bauer