There’s another example of liberal double-dealing in the U.S. presidential campaign. This time, it’s on the issue of exposing young children to the “reality” of gay relationships.

There was a Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire late last month, and Allison King, a reporter for the New England Cable News, asked the candidates if they would be comfortable having second-graders learn about the realities of “gay love.”

In case you missed it, her question was phrased like this:

“The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second-graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children’s teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince.

“Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts but most of you oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?”

A sentimental question like this, designed to make homosexuality look mainstream and normal, can only get sentimental responses.

Which is exactly what she got.

John Edwards said that as a fair-minded father he really believes that children need “to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day.”

Hilary Clinton chimed in about hate, and said the only way to defeat hate is to teach diversity and respect.

Barack Obama was the most resolute, insisting that one of the things he wants “to communicate to [his] children is not to be afraid of people who are different.”

Like I said, sentimental responses to an equally sentimental question.

But neither the question nor the answers accurately reflect today’s culture, which is why I would have preferred more candor on everyone’s part.

First, we need to put this in context. Since the 1960s, not only has the traditional configuration of a one-man one-woman union fallen by the wayside, the numeric configuration of any two people committing to each other until death do us part has as well. In other words, if two people of the opposite sex constitute an antiquated relationship, so does the idea of any two people making a long term commitment to be a couple.

Obviously, everybody knows that heterosexual unions have suffered tremendously from the effects of the so-called sexual revolution. The ideas of free love, free sex and no commitment have had devastating consequences on the idea of monogamy.

Census Canada recently published new figures showing that traditional marriage has been in rapid decline since the mid ’90s. Not surprisingly, the mainstream Canadian media took great delight in reporting that statistic. However, the same media didn’t report that “gay marriages” were equally in decline, at least since they were legalized in 2003. Considering all the hype we heard before the move to change the law – hype about “gays wanting to get married” – it’s interesting that the decline in the number of those “marriages” didn’t also become headline news in Canada. But it’s not surprising.

The point is that the ’60s generation talked about free love and no commitment; our post-modern world is living that idea to the hilt. People just don’t believe in living in committed monogamous relationships – and the biggest culprits in that regard are homosexuals.

The basic premise of the second-grader story – about a prince falling madly in love with another prince, and the two of them dashing off into the sunset to live happily ever after in their little country castle with a white picket fence – is about as likely a scenario as Hillary Clinton crossing the floor to become a pro-life Republican.

Monogamous homosexual relationships, for the most part, exist only in the world of partisan propaganda, not in empirical reality.

If Ms. King really wanted to be honest with the presidential candidates, and if teaching tolerance, understanding and respect for “diversity” was really at the core of her question, she should have asked it differently.

Maybe something like: “Would you feel comfortable telling second-graders about the love lives of men and boys?”

Because if Edwards thinks that conventional gay couples – the two-people kind of couples – are having a tough time of it out there, just imagine how difficult it must be for pedophiles and the kids that love them. Or what about John, Jerry, Frank, Tom and Mike – their little “household of five”? Aren’t polyandrous groups finding it tough out there, too?

And as to Obama’s concern about teaching children not to be afraid of different people, why not get into some really “different” stuff? Maybe the love lives of men and their sheep, and women and their horses? Heck, why not necrophilia too, just for good measure?

Now, you and I both know that liberals are going to balk at this; they’ll insist that I’ve taken things too far. But I’m only trying to force some consistency here, some acknowledgement of the reality of where our culture has gone. And if you think this is extreme, just wait. It won’t be long before all of these different “orientations” will be screaming for their rights and access to your children, too.

Personally, I’m getting sick and tired of listening to the lamestream media incessantly talk about how the times are changing while repeating, at every opportunity, the lie that homosexual unions are really nothing more than a mirror image of traditionally straight marriages.

Of course, the cynical side of me understands exactly what they’re up to with this “gay-friendly literature” in second grade. This isn’t about tolerance, love, or understanding at all. It’s raw politics. It’s about votes. The homosexual lobby in the U.S. has lost the first round of battles to enshrine “gay marriage,” but if they get the kids, they’ll have the future wrapped up.

Related special offers:

“Whoever Controls the Schools Rules the World”

“Male and Female He Made Them”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.