The Difference Between Seems, ‘Tis, and ‘Tisn’t

              The Difference Between Seems, ‘Tis, and ‘Tisn’t

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 4/29/18

We know what Thomas Jefferson meant, so let’s not quibble too much.  But he actually was wrong when he implied that truth is “self-evident.”  In classical 18^th century prose, Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident …” then went on to name five truths in his famous Declaration of Independence.

            Some 1800 years before Jefferson’s day, Cicero declared, “If truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence.”  Or for debate of any stripe, we might add.  Historically, people have attended debates because they wish to discern the truth about a matter and hope that debate will somehow help them hammer it out.  Some, of course, attend debates simply because they enjoy a verbal contest.

            Our current culture is proof enough that truth can be elusive, not in and of its own nature, but because so many are now trying to alter it, cloud it, or even deny it exists. 

            There are certain indisputable truths that no one can deny.  One is that everybody has a mother and a father.   Does this fact not imply that we all need a mother and father?  Do the image and the reality of a mother, a father, and a child not provide a societal nucleus, a fitting little unit of government?  Did the tribe not pre-date the state?  And did the family not pre-date the tribe?

            “Nay, not so,” says the LGBTQ lobby and its sympathizers.  A family is merely a “social construct,” a tradition.   For those who believe that, country singer George Strait has “some oceanfront property in Arizona.”

            Family-to-tribe-to-state is something that family-deniers just don’t like.  Family being mere sociology, we can re-construct or re-define it any way we wish.  Two mommies, two daddies, no mommies, no daddies - what’s the problem?

            The problem is biology, chromosomes, anatomy and physiology, and the human heart.   Those who are so bent on normalizing homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality and other such formerly unthinkable aberrations are trying to cram their aberrations down our throats.  We could say they are engaging in social constructs themselves, denying true science.  Little does it matter that for millennia, civilization has been well served by the model of a mother, a father, and a place called home.  But why does this matter?  This is the 21^st century.  Let’s try arrangements beside family, the argument goes.

            But the human heart resists.  It wants a mom and a dad and a pillow.  Consider what is happening now, all because of fatherlessness.  Today in almost every major city young men gravitate to gangs because gangs provide them a family.  Countless former gang members have so testified.  Fatherless, with single, unmarried mothers who are away at two jobs, many 14-year-old boys have sought family – not just money or drugs – in gangs.  Gangs satisfy their emotional needs.  They can become “men” fast.

            In his article, “Wanting More in an Age of Plenty,” psychologist David G. Meyers states that if one had fallen asleep in 1960 and woke up in 2000, he would be awakening to a tripled teen suicide rate, a quintupled prison population, sextupled percent of babies born to unmarried parents, sevenfold increase in cohabitation, and a soaring rate of depression ten times the pre-World War II level.  It was during that 40-year period that the sexual revolution took root, sprouted, and bore its fruit.

             Prince Hamlet, Shakespeare’s most famous character, argued with his mother, despairing over her quick marriage after the murder of his father.  His mother, the Queen, says to him, “All lives must die.  Why seems it so particular with thee?”

            Hamlet replies, “Seems, madam? I know not ‘seems.’ ‘Tis!”

            Unlike the brooding Hamlet who knew the difference between “seems” and “tis,” truth-deniers hold to no absolutes.  Gender is a myth, marriage is out of style, and sexuality is a mere physical characteristic, and a fluid one at that.

            G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”  As more fences fall, I wouldn’t be surprised if the grandchildren of the sixties eventually rebel against the emptiness their grandparents and parents bequeathed them and look for meaning that “free love” didn’t provide.  Offspring of a self-centered generation, they could well re-establish the loving family, one that again has fences.

 “‘Tisn’t beyond belief,” Chesterton would say.  Seeing there are no pearls in the hog pen, they might search elsewhere.

I pray for the day that a generation of youth will see exactly what their parents’ culture has led them into.  Only then will the yearning hearts of children and the confused, angry minds of teenagers be assuaged.

Roger Hines

4/25/18