The next time someone asks you what homosexuality and abortion have to do with each other, tell them, "I dunno, why don't you ask these guys. I'm sure they'll be able to fill you in on the Big Picture."
~
Showing posts with label the love that won't shut up. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the love that won't shut up. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Feel the luuurve...
The next time someone asks you what homosexuality and abortion have to do with each other, tell them, "I dunno, why don't you ask these guys. I'm sure they'll be able to fill you in on the Big Picture."
~
Thursday, May 23, 2013
That does not go there
Speaking of "gay sex"...
I recall a conversation I had with a friend of mine, some time ago, discussing the objections to the global normalisation of homosexuality. She summed up the sexual progressive's position rather neatly, saying, "It fits there." She was, of course, responding to my simplification of the "naturalist" argument: "That does not go there."
"Yeah," I replied, "and it would fit down a vacuum cleaner hose too, but it doesn't go there either."
My friend was verbalising what has become the general view, which reveals much about what the world doesn't want talked about.
Homosexuality has come to be couched around with the same kind of protective verbal and social wadding that abortion has enjoyed for some years now. When you say the word "abortion" in most secular company, the thing that pops into the minds of your hearers is not going to be gruesome photos of dismembered infants, but a loud shout of "WOMEN'S RIGHTS!!!". In a similar way, when we hear the word "homosexual" we have recently been trained to think kind thoughts of civil rights and of friendly young men in turtlenecks who like showtunes and suffer "oppression".
But there are quite a lot of things about homosexuality that we might want to consider, if given sufficient "social space".
First, my response above was facetious: the truth is that it doesn't actually fit there. One of the nastier things that the public doesn't hear about on those charmingly written sit-coms promoting the ideology, is the physical damage entailed by repeated misuse of the posterior fundament. It's not pretty reading, but perhaps the terms "anal fissures," "chronic anal incontinence" and "rectal prolapse" would give the imagination a little boost. And it's difficult to see how "discrimination" accounts for the incredible profusion of incidents of anal cancer among gay men. In short, if we are speaking strictly in terms of biological function, that bit is designed to, ahem, have things come out, not go in and to attempt to use it regularly in a different way will cause extremely unpleasant, permanent harm.
And this brings me to my second thought, that homosexuality is a negation of a philosophical principle that says the purpose of a thing is built into its nature. Sex, and consequently the sex organs and the whole physical system, is something that exists to fulfill a specific biological function. The idea that it is also something that we like to do is a kind of bonus that makes us want to do it enough to set aside, at least long enough to get the job done, the less pleasant thoughts of what parenthood entails. Doing it in a way that is intended to thwart that natural purpose is going to cause harm. That's just the way it is with these biological realities: that does not go there.
In our times, starting with (as I have maintained for some time) the dismantling of the divorce laws and moving on to the incredible blow of artificial hormonal contraceptives, we have created a social myth, a Fantasy if you will, that sex does not have to have anything at all to do with its natural, biological function. Indeed, so enamoured have we become with this Fantasy that there are entire university faculties dedicated to teaching and expanding upon the idea that your reproductive bits are merely arbitrary flesh-bumps that can be used, cut off, drugged and modified to suit one's preferred peculiarities. It's called "gender theory," and, as an outgrowth of "women's studies" has become very popular among academics with more time and money than sense.
But in the Olden Days, we had other names for it. In the 13th century, we called it "nominalism," the idea that reality has no objective, external foundation, that it can, in the modern parlance, be anything you want it to be and that you can "create your own reality".
Nothing new under the sun, as they say, and nominalism is very popular today. It is the idea behind the notion that "gender," for example, is a merely arbitrary, cultural or social label, and that a person can be born into the "wrong" body, that he can designate himself a her. And even weirder, that he can have some kind of surgery or medical intervention that changes his sexual nature.
But sex is what it is, biology is what it is, no matter how the extreme feminists and homosexualists rant about its "injustice". And this denial of biology is, extended out to the furthest reaches of the envelope, a denial of external reality, and an assertion of the will to power, that we can just decide for ourselves how reality is going to go.
Of course, this kind of extreme relativism, probably better called solipsism, always works best for those with the most raw power. This is why homosexualists (those promoting the ideology, which of course, does not mean all homosexuals) have turned to the courts and to direct lobbying of government, to enforce their private Fantasy on the rest of the world. The one thing a Fantasy needs to survive is a safe environment: people have to be convinced to play along.
And play along we all have up to now. We are at the point, and long past it, where we all must say "Yay" and only "Yay" to "gay marriage". We have municipalities agreeing to let self-designated "trans" people, with or without the surgery, into the bathrooms of the opposite sex, and never mind that this means a grown man will now be allowed to flash his thing around a womens locker room at a public swimming pool. We have governments insisting that a man-who-wants-to-be-a-woman can change his sex on his passport.
My friend above was verbalising the general view, that your bits are just flesh-bumps, attached arbitrarily to a set of nerves that produce particular sensations when rubbed up against something else. And that all of this has nothing whatever to do with anything else. The notion is that sex is divorced (pun intended) from its purpose ... and living in Vegas.
We started with sex without marriage, moved on from there to sex without children and more latterly to children without sex. None of these things have necessarily anything to do with any of the others.
This Fantasy, however, is going to cause more and more problems, as any lie does when it is adhered to.
Do you remember when you were a kid, before you had learned that it's actually a good idea to try to be a moral person, and you routinely lied to get out of difficulties? Remember how the lie had to be maintained by more lies and bigger lies and eventually that it took over whole sections of your life? You had to maintain greater and greater contrivances to make sure The Real never broke in on the lie?
Well, it's kind of getting like that, around here, isn't it?
~
I recall a conversation I had with a friend of mine, some time ago, discussing the objections to the global normalisation of homosexuality. She summed up the sexual progressive's position rather neatly, saying, "It fits there." She was, of course, responding to my simplification of the "naturalist" argument: "That does not go there."
"Yeah," I replied, "and it would fit down a vacuum cleaner hose too, but it doesn't go there either."
My friend was verbalising what has become the general view, which reveals much about what the world doesn't want talked about.
Homosexuality has come to be couched around with the same kind of protective verbal and social wadding that abortion has enjoyed for some years now. When you say the word "abortion" in most secular company, the thing that pops into the minds of your hearers is not going to be gruesome photos of dismembered infants, but a loud shout of "WOMEN'S RIGHTS!!!". In a similar way, when we hear the word "homosexual" we have recently been trained to think kind thoughts of civil rights and of friendly young men in turtlenecks who like showtunes and suffer "oppression".
But there are quite a lot of things about homosexuality that we might want to consider, if given sufficient "social space".
First, my response above was facetious: the truth is that it doesn't actually fit there. One of the nastier things that the public doesn't hear about on those charmingly written sit-coms promoting the ideology, is the physical damage entailed by repeated misuse of the posterior fundament. It's not pretty reading, but perhaps the terms "anal fissures," "chronic anal incontinence" and "rectal prolapse" would give the imagination a little boost. And it's difficult to see how "discrimination" accounts for the incredible profusion of incidents of anal cancer among gay men. In short, if we are speaking strictly in terms of biological function, that bit is designed to, ahem, have things come out, not go in and to attempt to use it regularly in a different way will cause extremely unpleasant, permanent harm.
And this brings me to my second thought, that homosexuality is a negation of a philosophical principle that says the purpose of a thing is built into its nature. Sex, and consequently the sex organs and the whole physical system, is something that exists to fulfill a specific biological function. The idea that it is also something that we like to do is a kind of bonus that makes us want to do it enough to set aside, at least long enough to get the job done, the less pleasant thoughts of what parenthood entails. Doing it in a way that is intended to thwart that natural purpose is going to cause harm. That's just the way it is with these biological realities: that does not go there.
In our times, starting with (as I have maintained for some time) the dismantling of the divorce laws and moving on to the incredible blow of artificial hormonal contraceptives, we have created a social myth, a Fantasy if you will, that sex does not have to have anything at all to do with its natural, biological function. Indeed, so enamoured have we become with this Fantasy that there are entire university faculties dedicated to teaching and expanding upon the idea that your reproductive bits are merely arbitrary flesh-bumps that can be used, cut off, drugged and modified to suit one's preferred peculiarities. It's called "gender theory," and, as an outgrowth of "women's studies" has become very popular among academics with more time and money than sense.
But in the Olden Days, we had other names for it. In the 13th century, we called it "nominalism," the idea that reality has no objective, external foundation, that it can, in the modern parlance, be anything you want it to be and that you can "create your own reality".
Nothing new under the sun, as they say, and nominalism is very popular today. It is the idea behind the notion that "gender," for example, is a merely arbitrary, cultural or social label, and that a person can be born into the "wrong" body, that he can designate himself a her. And even weirder, that he can have some kind of surgery or medical intervention that changes his sexual nature.
But sex is what it is, biology is what it is, no matter how the extreme feminists and homosexualists rant about its "injustice". And this denial of biology is, extended out to the furthest reaches of the envelope, a denial of external reality, and an assertion of the will to power, that we can just decide for ourselves how reality is going to go.
Of course, this kind of extreme relativism, probably better called solipsism, always works best for those with the most raw power. This is why homosexualists (those promoting the ideology, which of course, does not mean all homosexuals) have turned to the courts and to direct lobbying of government, to enforce their private Fantasy on the rest of the world. The one thing a Fantasy needs to survive is a safe environment: people have to be convinced to play along.
And play along we all have up to now. We are at the point, and long past it, where we all must say "Yay" and only "Yay" to "gay marriage". We have municipalities agreeing to let self-designated "trans" people, with or without the surgery, into the bathrooms of the opposite sex, and never mind that this means a grown man will now be allowed to flash his thing around a womens locker room at a public swimming pool. We have governments insisting that a man-who-wants-to-be-a-woman can change his sex on his passport.
My friend above was verbalising the general view, that your bits are just flesh-bumps, attached arbitrarily to a set of nerves that produce particular sensations when rubbed up against something else. And that all of this has nothing whatever to do with anything else. The notion is that sex is divorced (pun intended) from its purpose ... and living in Vegas.
We started with sex without marriage, moved on from there to sex without children and more latterly to children without sex. None of these things have necessarily anything to do with any of the others.
This Fantasy, however, is going to cause more and more problems, as any lie does when it is adhered to.
Do you remember when you were a kid, before you had learned that it's actually a good idea to try to be a moral person, and you routinely lied to get out of difficulties? Remember how the lie had to be maintained by more lies and bigger lies and eventually that it took over whole sections of your life? You had to maintain greater and greater contrivances to make sure The Real never broke in on the lie?
Well, it's kind of getting like that, around here, isn't it?
~
Re-post: Let's Talk About Sex!
In honour of Britain's latest Great Leap Forward, a re-post of one of my most popular recent posts.
Let's talk about what we're talking about, for a change...
~
Let's talk about what we're talking about, for a change...
Specifically, gay sex.
Wait, where's everyone going?
It's a funny thing about the Newfangled people, that though the whole world appears to be totally obsessed with sex, the people at the heart of the Sexual Revolution (MPs) seem to be unable to bring themselves to talk about it. We talk around it. We look at nudie pictures and watch hotsie-totsie videos that imply all sorts of boinking, but the actual physical realities seem to be something none of the Englightened wish to address.
Consider this little point by homosexualist promoter Chris Ashford, writing about the "Gay Marriage" (yes, scarequotes are obligatory, especially now) bill in the UK:
He notes that the bill is actually pretty sweeping, and among other things, removes from the law on marriage the idea that sexual congress is a definitive requirement. "Gay marriages," under the new dispensation, will not need to be consummated in order to be considered valid. This appears on the face of it to be an acknowledgement that they can't be. That "gay sex" is not, in fact, sex at all...
The act of consummation is deemed not applicable as a voidable ground (whereby you essentially argue that a marriage never really existed as you didn’t consummate it with a sexual act) for same-sex marriage but remains in place for different-sex couples.
Why? Well, he says it's because "Civil Servants...just couldn’t figure out how to define the sexual act for same-sex couples."
Mmmm... actually Chris, I think that's probably not it. I think they know, as we all do, what "gay sex" is. It's just that one man sticking his thing into another man's bum, isn't. Sorry, but until very recently, all laws that ever had anything to do with sex, anywhere, ever, knew and acknowledged that sodomy is not sex. Sex, despite what the culture desperately wants to believe, is a biological thing about creating children. It's not about mutual self-gratification, but about physical survival of the species. And that part only works one way.
I think maybe it's time to start talking about what we're talking about. If the drafters of legislation that is proposing to abolish the legal traditions of nine or ten thousand years of human civilisation can't talk about what it's doing, then I think it's time that we stopped being little girls about all this. A man sticking his thing into another man's bum and jiggling it about until orgasm, isn't sex. At most it's a form of self-gratification, using another person as a sex toy that doesn't require batteries.
That in some cases some homosexual men may have genuine warm human emotions towards their sex dolls, is more or less beside the point in marriage law. In fact, wait, it's totally beside the point in marriage law, the same way laws regulating fishing quotas are beside the point in marriage law.
So far the entire argument has been "But we weally wuv each other!" and cries of "It's not FAIR!" But marriage law, sadly, has never had anything to do with love. It has never been interested in the question of how spouses feel about each other. That's because, until the Global Temper Tantrum, the law wasn't about feeeewings. It was about rather more hard-nosed things like biological reality, money, property and taxes. Things that are pretty relevant when you're making laws that pertain to children.
I don't know whether it is a good sign or a bad one that the UK's legislation drafters couldn't bring themselves to talk about the gruesome nitty gritty of homosexuality, but it seems certain it's a sign of something. Perhaps that, though the Sexual Revolution, shortly to be codified in law in Britain, is determined to continue not to believe it, and apparently to force everyone else to pretend it's not true, marriage is about sex and sex is about procreation. And rubbing your bits against another object, whether that object is another person or not, and whatever your feelings about the act or about the other person, doesn't make it sex.
Perhaps, and here's me going out on a wildly thrashing limb in a high wind, there was just enough of a grip left on reality by the bill's drafters to stop them from coming out and actually saying, "Why yes. Sticking your thing into another man's bum is exactly the same as natural procreative sex."
It has been noted elsewhere, here and there, that the Sexual Revolution has had some odd long-term side effects that weren't perhaps what everyone expected. It's being documented lately that people, though more saturated than ever by sexy stuff in the media, are actually having way less sex. Married women in some countries are just giving it up as pointless (since they're mostly contracepting, this seems merely sensible, actually). Men, in increasingly large numbers are giving it up as a bad risk (don't conceive and she'll start manipulating you; conceive and you'll find yourself in court and losing everything). I don't know about gay men, but I'll take a wild guess and say that the bath house parties are losing their cachet.
And the SR seems to have had the odd effect on legislators of turning them into even bigger prudes than our Victorian ancestors. At least we could be sure that Queen Victoria, Shelley and Lord Byron knew what sex was. And all without the benefit of Marie Stopes bringing them condoms to fit on bananas in their schoolroom.
~ * ~
An interesting side-note: Chris Ashford also says that the only place in the bill where "gay sex" does actually get a mention is in the bit that "allows for a marriage to be voidable if a partner was suffering from a communicable venereal disease". Reality biting a little hard there?
~
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Hey gay people! you're being used
By an agenda not your own. One that, historically, hasn't had a lot of time for your rights... or anyone else's.
One of my conversations with the stem cell researchers I spoke to at a recent conference told me that the findings of the science of human embryology is "irrelevant" because it contraindicated what they were already determined to do. I noted it at the time as an example of the ability of humans to decide ahead of time what is and is not true depending on what they want.
And it's not about rights, either the rights of gay people to get "married" (according to the new definition) or about the rights of religious people to "freedom of worship".
It's about the state increasing its power.
More here, here, and here.
~
One of my conversations with the stem cell researchers I spoke to at a recent conference told me that the findings of the science of human embryology is "irrelevant" because it contraindicated what they were already determined to do. I noted it at the time as an example of the ability of humans to decide ahead of time what is and is not true depending on what they want.
"The state of California now bans therapies that seek to reorient homosexuals towards heterosexual behavior, on the grounds that doing so is psychologically damaging. The more likely objection is that the therapies challenge the conception that there are only two sexual orientations, 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual,' and that they are of absolutely unwavering constancy. This conception is false. In fact, the gay-rights movement itself used to stress the polymorphousness of human sexuality, back when the movement was focused more on liberation."
And it's not about rights, either the rights of gay people to get "married" (according to the new definition) or about the rights of religious people to "freedom of worship".
It's about the state increasing its power.
"The central problem with the gay marriage agenda is not that at some point in the future an unwilling man of the cloth might be strongarmed into giving his blessing to a gay union, but rather that it allows the state to do something that was traditionally considered beyond its purview…
Some have sought to depict the drive for gay marriage as a continuation of the struggle for civil rights that exploded in the mid-twentieth century; it’s better understood as a continuation, and intensification, of the modern state’s desire to get a foot in the door of our private lives and to assume sovereignty over our relationships."
More here, here, and here.
~
Friday, February 01, 2013
Let's talk about sex!
Specifically, gay sex.
Wait, where's everyone going?
It's a funny thing about the Newfangled people, that though the whole world appears to be totally obsessed with sex, the people at the heart of the Sexual Revolution (MPs) seem to be unable to bring themselves to talk about it. We talk around it. We look at nudie pictures and watch hotsie-totsie videos that imply all sorts of boinking, but the actual physical realities seem to be something none of the Englightened wish to address.
Consider this little point by homosexualist promoter Chris Ashford, writing about the "Gay Marriage" (yes, scarequotes are obligatory, especially now) bill in the UK:
He notes that the bill is actually pretty sweeping, and among other things, removes from the law on marriage the idea that sexual congress is a definitive requirement. "Gay marriages," under the new dispensation, will not need to be consummated in order to be considered valid. This appears on the face of it to be an acknowledgement that they can't be. That "gay sex" is not, in fact, sex at all...
Why? Well, he says it's because "Civil Servants...just couldn’t figure out how to define the sexual act for same-sex couples."
Mmmm... actually Chris, I think that's probably not it. I think they know, as we all do, what "gay sex" is. It's just that one man sticking his thing into another man's bum, isn't. Sorry, but until very recently, all laws that ever had anything to do with sex, anywhere, ever, knew and acknowledged that sodomy is not sex. Sex, despite what the culture desperately wants to believe, is a biological thing about creating children. It's not about mutual self-gratification, but about physical survival of the species. And that part only works one way.
I think maybe it's time to start talking about what we're talking about. If the drafters of legislation that is proposing to abolish the legal traditions of nine or ten thousand years of human civilisation can't talk about what it's doing, then I think it's time that we stopped being little girls about all this. A man sticking his thing into another man's bum and jiggling it about until orgasm, isn't sex. At most it's a form of self-gratification, using another person as a sex toy that doesn't require batteries.
That in some cases some homosexual men may have genuine warm human emotions towards their sex dolls, is more or less beside the point in marriage law. In fact, wait, it's totally beside the point in marriage law, the same way laws regulating fishing quotas are beside the point in marriage law.
So far the entire argument has been "But we weally wuv each other!" and cries of "It's not FAIR!" But marriage law, sadly, has never had anything to do with love. It has never been interested in the question of how spouses feel about each other. That's because, until the Global Temper Tantrum, the law wasn't about feeeewings. It was about rather more hard-nosed things like biological reality, money, property and taxes. Things that are pretty relevant when you're making laws that pertain to children.
I don't know whether it is a good sign or a bad one that the UK's legislation drafters couldn't bring themselves to talk about the gruesome nitty gritty of homosexuality, but it seems certain it's a sign of something. Perhaps that, though the Sexual Revolution, shortly to be codified in law in Britain, is determined to continue not to believe it, and apparently to force everyone else to pretend it's not true, marriage is about sex and sex is about procreation. And rubbing your bits against another object, whether that object is another person or not, and whatever your feelings about the act or about the other person, doesn't make it sex.
Perhaps, and here's me going out on a wildly thrashing limb in a high wind, there was just enough of a grip left on reality by the bill's drafters to stop them from coming out and actually saying, "Why yes. Sticking your thing into another man's bum is exactly the same as natural procreative sex."
It has been noted elsewhere, here and there, that the Sexual Revolution has had some odd long-term side effects that weren't perhaps what everyone expected. It's being documented lately that people, though more saturated than ever by sexy stuff in the media, are actually having way less sex. Married women in some countries are just giving it up as pointless (since they're mostly contracepting, this seems merely sensible, actually). Men, in increasingly large numbers are giving it up as a bad risk (don't conceive and she'll start manipulating you; conceive and you'll find yourself in court and losing everything). I don't know about gay men, but I'll take a wild guess and say that the bath house parties are losing their cachet.
And the SR seems to have had the odd effect on legislators of turning them into even bigger prudes than our Victorian ancestors. At least we could be sure that Queen Victoria, Shelley and Lord Byron knew what sex was. And all without the benefit of Marie Stopes bringing them condoms to fit on bananas in their schoolroom.
~ * ~
An interesting side-note: Chris Ashford also says that the only place in the bill where "gay sex" does actually get a mention is in the bit that "allows for a marriage to be voidable if a partner was suffering from a communicable venereal disease". Reality biting a little hard there?
~
Wait, where's everyone going?
It's a funny thing about the Newfangled people, that though the whole world appears to be totally obsessed with sex, the people at the heart of the Sexual Revolution (MPs) seem to be unable to bring themselves to talk about it. We talk around it. We look at nudie pictures and watch hotsie-totsie videos that imply all sorts of boinking, but the actual physical realities seem to be something none of the Englightened wish to address.
Consider this little point by homosexualist promoter Chris Ashford, writing about the "Gay Marriage" (yes, scarequotes are obligatory, especially now) bill in the UK:
He notes that the bill is actually pretty sweeping, and among other things, removes from the law on marriage the idea that sexual congress is a definitive requirement. "Gay marriages," under the new dispensation, will not need to be consummated in order to be considered valid. This appears on the face of it to be an acknowledgement that they can't be. That "gay sex" is not, in fact, sex at all...
The act of consummation is deemed not applicable as a voidable ground (whereby you essentially argue that a marriage never really existed as you didn’t consummate it with a sexual act) for same-sex marriage but remains in place for different-sex couples.
Why? Well, he says it's because "Civil Servants...just couldn’t figure out how to define the sexual act for same-sex couples."
Mmmm... actually Chris, I think that's probably not it. I think they know, as we all do, what "gay sex" is. It's just that one man sticking his thing into another man's bum, isn't. Sorry, but until very recently, all laws that ever had anything to do with sex, anywhere, ever, knew and acknowledged that sodomy is not sex. Sex, despite what the culture desperately wants to believe, is a biological thing about creating children. It's not about mutual self-gratification, but about physical survival of the species. And that part only works one way.
I think maybe it's time to start talking about what we're talking about. If the drafters of legislation that is proposing to abolish the legal traditions of nine or ten thousand years of human civilisation can't talk about what it's doing, then I think it's time that we stopped being little girls about all this. A man sticking his thing into another man's bum and jiggling it about until orgasm, isn't sex. At most it's a form of self-gratification, using another person as a sex toy that doesn't require batteries.
That in some cases some homosexual men may have genuine warm human emotions towards their sex dolls, is more or less beside the point in marriage law. In fact, wait, it's totally beside the point in marriage law, the same way laws regulating fishing quotas are beside the point in marriage law.
So far the entire argument has been "But we weally wuv each other!" and cries of "It's not FAIR!" But marriage law, sadly, has never had anything to do with love. It has never been interested in the question of how spouses feel about each other. That's because, until the Global Temper Tantrum, the law wasn't about feeeewings. It was about rather more hard-nosed things like biological reality, money, property and taxes. Things that are pretty relevant when you're making laws that pertain to children.
I don't know whether it is a good sign or a bad one that the UK's legislation drafters couldn't bring themselves to talk about the gruesome nitty gritty of homosexuality, but it seems certain it's a sign of something. Perhaps that, though the Sexual Revolution, shortly to be codified in law in Britain, is determined to continue not to believe it, and apparently to force everyone else to pretend it's not true, marriage is about sex and sex is about procreation. And rubbing your bits against another object, whether that object is another person or not, and whatever your feelings about the act or about the other person, doesn't make it sex.
Perhaps, and here's me going out on a wildly thrashing limb in a high wind, there was just enough of a grip left on reality by the bill's drafters to stop them from coming out and actually saying, "Why yes. Sticking your thing into another man's bum is exactly the same as natural procreative sex."
It has been noted elsewhere, here and there, that the Sexual Revolution has had some odd long-term side effects that weren't perhaps what everyone expected. It's being documented lately that people, though more saturated than ever by sexy stuff in the media, are actually having way less sex. Married women in some countries are just giving it up as pointless (since they're mostly contracepting, this seems merely sensible, actually). Men, in increasingly large numbers are giving it up as a bad risk (don't conceive and she'll start manipulating you; conceive and you'll find yourself in court and losing everything). I don't know about gay men, but I'll take a wild guess and say that the bath house parties are losing their cachet.
And the SR seems to have had the odd effect on legislators of turning them into even bigger prudes than our Victorian ancestors. At least we could be sure that Queen Victoria, Shelley and Lord Byron knew what sex was. And all without the benefit of Marie Stopes bringing them condoms to fit on bananas in their schoolroom.
~ * ~
An interesting side-note: Chris Ashford also says that the only place in the bill where "gay sex" does actually get a mention is in the bit that "allows for a marriage to be voidable if a partner was suffering from a communicable venereal disease". Reality biting a little hard there?
~
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Every day in every way
the pansexualist movement is revealing itself as Nominalist.
Oxford Shorter English Dictionary:
If "gender" is anything we say it is, no wonder the people in the Modernity Matrix are all so miserable. Imagine living in Upsidedownland, a universe where the real is only what we decide it is from moment to moment, where the walls don't have to hold up the ceiling, where up can mean down, where there is no difference between here and there and two opposing things can both be true.
But don't try to imagine it for too long or you might hurt yourself.
~
"But now you can choose whether to be male, female, or something else—and when the American Psychiatric Association releases their new manual, it will be perfectly normal."
Oxford Shorter English Dictionary:
Nominalism. The view which regards universals or abstract concepts as mere names, without any corresponding realities.
If "gender" is anything we say it is, no wonder the people in the Modernity Matrix are all so miserable. Imagine living in Upsidedownland, a universe where the real is only what we decide it is from moment to moment, where the walls don't have to hold up the ceiling, where up can mean down, where there is no difference between here and there and two opposing things can both be true.
But don't try to imagine it for too long or you might hurt yourself.
~
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
So hard to keep score!
OK, let's see if we can get this all straight (pardon the pun).
Maybe we can sort it out in point-form.
1. The Pope/Catholic Church is evil because (among other things)
2. Homosexuals
3. In general there is a vast difference between your "average" normal homosexual and a priest boy-molester because
Therefore we must arrest the Pope when he comes to Britain while we lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 14.
Do I get a prize?
~
Maybe we can sort it out in point-form.
1. The Pope/Catholic Church is evil because (among other things)
a) he wants to stop homosexuals from acting on their God-given impulses to put their parts into other men.
b) he didn't do enough to stop priests from molesting adolescent boys
c) he said that homosexuals shouldn't be ordained.
2. Homosexuals
a) are all just interested in a normal picket-fence-ish, PTA meeting,momdad-and-apple-pie sort of life as everyone else,
b) have just as much right to get married (to each other, that is) as everyone else and opposing "gay marriage" is a gross injustice
c) have no general predilection whatever for meaningless sexual encounters or young men
3. In general there is a vast difference between your "average" normal homosexual and a priest boy-molester because
a) priest molester problem is "all about power" and has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality
b) when a non-ordained homosexual is interested in 14 year-old boys, it's really only a natural, normal expression of his God-given sexuality that would be wrong to suppress.
Therefore we must arrest the Pope when he comes to Britain while we lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 14.
Do I get a prize?
~
Friday, August 20, 2010
Today's top Mad Britain headlines
From our "hell in a handcart" files...
Two that Kathy put together as a matched set:
Advertising Standards Authority to investigate offensive "gay ads".
I hope the ASA took the names and addresses of people making the complaints to give to police. Aren't assertions thathomosexuality same sex relationships are offensive and dangerous to children classified as hate speech in the UK?
Plus another item from the Chester Chronicle:
"Couple's Car Surrounded by 'Perverts'"
(I paraphrase here for brevity's sake)
A couple were returning from a holiday in Ireland when they decided to pull over into a picnic area for a rest and a bite to eat. Their car was immediately surrounded by "seven or eight men" who wanted to know if the couple were there to "put on a show" for them. When the couple reacted angrily, the men became threatening and told them to clear off, saying they were "spoiling their fun".
The picnic area is a notorious "dogging" site, meaning a place where homosexuals come to meet and do with their body parts whatever it is they do.
Police Inspector Phil Hodge told the Chron, "It's totally unacceptable and very intimidating and I will be looking to take positive action in the matter if the lady wants to make a complaint."
Remember, it's notorious.
Five "incidents" have been registered in recent months about errr... activities at the site.
The Inspector added, "information has been posted on various websites explaining that people may be committing offences such as outraging public decency. It does cause offence to people..."
But most important,
"the participants are putting their sexual health in jeopardy."
Well! we can't have that!...
Maybe the local constabulary should fill their pockets with condoms the next time they are patrolling the area, just to make sure no one's "sexual health" is being endangered.
Naturally, the Chron did not mention if the sexual activities going on "notoriously" in this roadside picnic area included women.
For some reason, only men were mentioned in the complaint.
~
Two that Kathy put together as a matched set:
England: Gay vicar, 65, to "marry" Nigerian male model less than half his age
Beware of the cobbles: Parishioners told path at 1,300 year-old medieval abbey is too dangerous to walk on
Advertising Standards Authority to investigate offensive "gay ads".
"The advert showed a family scene, but ‘mum’ is played by a man with a New York accent. During the ad he kisses another man who plays the father role.
Viewers said it was ‘offensive’, ‘inappropriate’ and ‘unsuitable to be seen by children’."
I hope the ASA took the names and addresses of people making the complaints to give to police. Aren't assertions that
Plus another item from the Chester Chronicle:
"Couple's Car Surrounded by 'Perverts'"
(I paraphrase here for brevity's sake)
A couple were returning from a holiday in Ireland when they decided to pull over into a picnic area for a rest and a bite to eat. Their car was immediately surrounded by "seven or eight men" who wanted to know if the couple were there to "put on a show" for them. When the couple reacted angrily, the men became threatening and told them to clear off, saying they were "spoiling their fun".
The picnic area is a notorious "dogging" site, meaning a place where homosexuals come to meet and do with their body parts whatever it is they do.
Police Inspector Phil Hodge told the Chron, "It's totally unacceptable and very intimidating and I will be looking to take positive action in the matter if the lady wants to make a complaint."
Remember, it's notorious.
Five "incidents" have been registered in recent months about errr... activities at the site.
The Inspector added, "information has been posted on various websites explaining that people may be committing offences such as outraging public decency. It does cause offence to people..."
But most important,
"the participants are putting their sexual health in jeopardy."
Well! we can't have that!...
Maybe the local constabulary should fill their pockets with condoms the next time they are patrolling the area, just to make sure no one's "sexual health" is being endangered.
Naturally, the Chron did not mention if the sexual activities going on "notoriously" in this roadside picnic area included women.
For some reason, only men were mentioned in the complaint.
~
Friday, July 23, 2010
Ineffective marketing
~
You'd think that an homosexualist lobby group would be alive to the negative connotations of a name like "Outhouse".
I'll spare you the link.
~
You'd think that an homosexualist lobby group would be alive to the negative connotations of a name like "Outhouse".
I'll spare you the link.
~
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Terrence Higgins Trust Guy
~
says gay men are dumb.
But I don't agree. I don't think they don't know that if you do what they do, you are likely to get a fatal disease. I don't think another "education campaign" is really what's called for. It's not ignorance. How could it possibly be, after 20 or 30 years of "safe-sex" propaganda?
I think it's something else.
I think the evidence is good that if you are so into self-destruction as to be in the "gay lifestyle" in the first place, you're probably not that far off from just being flat-out suicidal. I've talked to gay men about this stuff, and if you can get them to tell you the real truth, you find out pretty quick that the word "gay" is used ironically.
Something about this strikes me as not a little nuts though. These people say they're all on the side of gay men, and want to help them.
The Terrence Higgins Trust says, "We're here to provide information and advice about HIV and sexual health and offer a range of services including sexual health checks, counselling and support groups. We campaign for a world where people with HIV live healthy lives, free from prejudice and discrimination and we promote good sexual health as a right and reality for all."
and the lady from the Health Protection Agency says, "We must continually reinforce the safe sex message – using a condom with all new or casual partners is the surest way to ensure people do not become infected with a serious sexually transmitted infection such as HIV."
and they seem to think this is what passes for "caring".
Doesn't it occur to anyone, ANYone, to say, "Maybe it would be a good idea not to have 'casual partners'". That the whole notion of 'casual partners,' even in the implications of the language, is utterly demeaning. AND. IT. WILL. KILL. YOU.
Doesn't anyone want to say to these men, "Stop. You're going to die."
I think these "health agency" people actually hate gay men and want them to die.
The fact that many of them are gay men does nothing to preclude this. I don't remember meeting a gay man who didn't hate himself at least to some degree. Hating yourself seems to be a necessity for the "lifestyle".
Well, I'm going to say it.
Stop having 'casual partners'.
Stop.
You're going to die.
~
says gay men are dumb.
"Many gay men wrongly believe that you can tell someone’s HIV status by what they look like, how they act, or who they’re friends with. But you can’t tell whether someone has HIV by looking at them, and with a quarter of gay men who have HIV currently undiagnosed, he may not even know himself.
“The assumption that HIV is visible is almost certainly affecting whether men use condoms or not."
But I don't agree. I don't think they don't know that if you do what they do, you are likely to get a fatal disease. I don't think another "education campaign" is really what's called for. It's not ignorance. How could it possibly be, after 20 or 30 years of "safe-sex" propaganda?
I think it's something else.
I think the evidence is good that if you are so into self-destruction as to be in the "gay lifestyle" in the first place, you're probably not that far off from just being flat-out suicidal. I've talked to gay men about this stuff, and if you can get them to tell you the real truth, you find out pretty quick that the word "gay" is used ironically.
Something about this strikes me as not a little nuts though. These people say they're all on the side of gay men, and want to help them.
The Terrence Higgins Trust says, "We're here to provide information and advice about HIV and sexual health and offer a range of services including sexual health checks, counselling and support groups. We campaign for a world where people with HIV live healthy lives, free from prejudice and discrimination and we promote good sexual health as a right and reality for all."
and the lady from the Health Protection Agency says, "We must continually reinforce the safe sex message – using a condom with all new or casual partners is the surest way to ensure people do not become infected with a serious sexually transmitted infection such as HIV."
and they seem to think this is what passes for "caring".
Doesn't it occur to anyone, ANYone, to say, "Maybe it would be a good idea not to have 'casual partners'". That the whole notion of 'casual partners,' even in the implications of the language, is utterly demeaning. AND. IT. WILL. KILL. YOU.
Doesn't anyone want to say to these men, "Stop. You're going to die."
I think these "health agency" people actually hate gay men and want them to die.
The fact that many of them are gay men does nothing to preclude this. I don't remember meeting a gay man who didn't hate himself at least to some degree. Hating yourself seems to be a necessity for the "lifestyle".
Well, I'm going to say it.
Stop having 'casual partners'.
Stop.
You're going to die.
~
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Ah, it's that time of year again!
Ever wonder about the modern world's total inability to think clearly? Ever wonder why five manifestly self-contradictory slogans were effective in convincing the majority of people in western democracies that it's a good idea to legalise infanticide? Ever wonder why we now think it's the ultimate act of love to kill our closest friends and relatives?
Ever read any of my posts about the Logical Principle of Non-Contradiction?
OK, I can see we have some new people here.
A little while ago, a friend on facebook approvingly posted a link to a liberal US talking head who was saying how dreadful it is that "gays" are precluded from giving blood. It's DISCRIMINATION I tell you!!! Because in the cloudy pink-tinged intellectual netherland of Homophilia there is absolutely no problem involved in the "gay lifestyle" that is not created by homophobia.
The desire felt by a man for another man is indicative of absolutely no psycho-social distortion of any sort. And their activities have absolutely no medical consequences whatever. Pay no attention to those websites behind the curtain!
There is no such thing as the Logical Principle of Non-Contradiction either! And there are absolutely no absolutes!
Gay men are just nice artistically-inclined chaps in turtlenecks who are funny, friendly and ironic, and who are inexplicably hated and persecuted by Catholics and people who watch Fox. They are, to a man, as respectable and salt-of-the-earth as Ward and June Cleaver. Picket fence! Apple pie!
Nothing to see here...
Move along...
I see that Kathy has been using her brain in an unauthorized manner again:
As Gay Pride revs up yet again, thoughtful people are asked to swallow, as it were, the same tiresome and illogical worldview held by so many professional homosexuals.
Somehow, they manage to believe and promote the following contradictory "facts" at the same time:
* Gays are marginalized victims who live in the shadows -- with their very own corporately sponsored parades and festivals that shut down major cities once a year.
* These pride parades have been going on for twenty years -- BUT gays still claim to be as misunderstood, hated and persecuted as they were before Stonewall. Are these parades therefore ineffective? If so, what purpose do they serve?
* There is a "gay gene" -- BUT "everyone is really bisexual" and "sexuality is fluid" -- BUT despite said "fluidity", gays cannot and do not "recruit" or "groom" straight young people, ever.
* All the great people who ever lived were "secretly gay", like Shakespeare. No bad people like Hitler were "secretly gay" -- unless the pent up pain caused by their "secret gayness" was what really made them crazy murderers!
* Religious "gay to straight" treatments are considered a sinister, existential threat to gay culture -- AND can't possibly "work." Anyone who turns "straight" after therapy was never "really" gay anyhow, even though sexuality is fluid etc. The half dozen "gay people" I've known in my life who later "turned" straight (none of whom underwent treatment of any kind, but just... grew up) were also "not really gay" during the years they were having sex with same sex partners, coming out to their parents with mixed reactions, marching in the Pride Parade, taking "queer studies" and so forth. They were just "going through a phase" -- even though a perennially popular queer t-shirt proclaims "It's Not Just a Phase!"
* Gays commit suicide at high rates because everybody is persecuting them. Yet Lithuanians have the world's highest suicide rate despite total non-existence of "Lithuan-ophobia." Russians also have a high suicide rate. Can we somehow blame "residual Cold War hatred"? Discuss.
Blacks, Jews and women experience what leftists would describe as persecution, yet don't have comparable suicide rates.
Only gays practically brag about their alleged suicide rates. (Are they neurotically and pathologically prone to romanticizing self-destructive behaviors? If so, why?)
* Gay activists claim domestic violence is no more common in gay relationships than in straight ones. If self-loathing caused by "homophobia" makes gays beat each other up, then what causes straight domestic violence again...?
* Movies like All About Eve and Johnny Guitar, which feature no gay characters, are all "really" about gays. However, overwhelming evidence of actual gay behaviour in real life (such as the sexual abuse of teenaged boys by Catholic priests and Buddhist monks) is NOT gay, even a little tiny bit.
* Does a movement based upon junk science, urban legends, romanticized non-history, a few sappy Hollywood films (in which, for some disturbing and mysterious reason, the gay characters all die, sometimes horribly...) and an (un)healthy dash of narcissism and neurosis really deserve so much respect?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Hey, Gay People!
(as Kathy likes to say,)
this is why no one likes you.
Does it still surprise anyone that the Church describes homosexuality as a disorder of affective maturity?
Grow up, for Pete sake.
And if there is any doubt left about why thehomos sodomites are so obsessed with the Catholic Church:
...because the Vatican doesn't issue fatwas.
this is why no one likes you.
Selon le magazine Têtu (mensuel à destination de la communauté gay), Arthur Vautier organise un "Kiss-in" contre l'homophobie, sur les parvis de Notre Dame de Paris.
Ainsi, ce dimanche 14 février à 14h00, plusieurs dizaines d'homosexuels prévoient de s'embrasser pendant 5 minutes, dans l'objectif de «banaliser ces marques d'affection» et de «dépasser la gêne, tant du coté des homos que du public sur place».
«Nous étions sans doute plus d'une centaine, lors du dernier kiss-in», se réjouit Arthur Vautier, qui appelle également à la participation des couples hétéros, car «c'est aussi à eux de se battre, et c'est aussi à eux de montrer aux autres hétéros qu'ils soutiennent notre action».
Le ras-le-bol des chrétiens
Le blog catholique Cité et Culture n'a pas tardé à réagir, dénonçant une «nouvelle provocation du lobbie gay» et soupçonnant une complicité de la part des médias. Par le biais d'un communiqué, ils en appellent à la responsabilité des chrétiens, afin que «certains groupuscules» ne prennent pas «la mauvaise habitude de venir insulter les chrétiens devant les églises».
Par ailleurs, non sans ironie, le communiqué s'étonne que «les extrémistes de la cause homosexuelle ne se rassemblent pas devant la Grande Mosquée de Paris», quand on considère que c’est en terre islamique que les homosexuels souffrent le plus de la persécution.
Le blog catholique donne rendez-vous ce dimanche à tous les chrétiens, «de façon spontanée ou avec une association», dans le but de «répondre avec fermeté et courtoisie aux provocateurs !».
Does it still surprise anyone that the Church describes homosexuality as a disorder of affective maturity?
Grow up, for Pete sake.
And if there is any doubt left about why the
Strangely, the extremists of the homosexual cause do not gather
at the Grand Mosque of Paris. However, it is in Muslim countries
(where applies Sharia) that homosexuals are executed!
In reality, the initiators of the gathering know they are unlikely
[to experience] anything making fun of Catholics. We read
elsewhere in Tetu, Arthur Vauthier is "not afraid of backlash."
...because the Vatican doesn't issue fatwas.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Moving right along
The Episcopals are moving forward on Gene Robinson's suggestion that they transform themselves into the Church of Holy Gayness.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Gay Pride Roma: Reflections on Cultural Suicide
Here's the version that LifeSite didn't use with the pictures that are "too offensive" to print.
...actually, I think we didn't use all these pics because it would have taken up a huge amount of bandwidth.
Gay Pride.
an interesting name for it.
One which theologians have noted is certainly apt, given the gravity of the sin of pride and the magnitude of the societal alteration that has come about in the last 40 years to make this
kind of display
accepted.
Of course, the significance of the location was a major part of the message. Rome is the home of what they imagine to be their greatest enemies. On its surface, obviously it was a calculated insult aimed at the Church. One about as subtle as a punch in the face.
But, despite these rather trite and unimaginative blasphemies, it was a punch thrown not only at the men in black down the road, but at anyone, whether believer or not, who might object. The primary object is the re-education of any observers who have not yet gone along with the general programme. The people like me, who were perhaps raised in the squelching depths of the sexual revolution but who were finally repelled by and consciously rejected it. The post-baby boom refuseniks.
Many writers, (I am thinking especially of Canadian novelist Michael O’Brien) have said that the cultural revolution that came to power in the 1960s is turning the world into a vast cultural gulag. It is, in its essence, a totalitarian ideology. It will allow no pocket of dissent.
The Gay Pride parades that went on in Europe this weekend were all merely an exercise in pedagogy, the kind that used to be blasted out of loudspeakers in remote settlements of Siberia. The Gay Pride parade, along with the millions of images of slightly lower-grade vulgarity that hourly bombard the TV-watching, is part of the cultural gulag’s vast re-education programme.
It is notable that the one display not seen on Saturday was any kind of opposition.
The Carabinieri lined up in front of St. Mary Major Basilica, were leaning on their riot shields taking pictures of the show. There was not a hint of any kind of dissent. No counter protesters were holding signs on the sidewalks. No groups of nuns or priests were there talking to passers by or media. As far as I know, no official or unofficial word came from behind The Walls to refute or rebuke.
Silence. It made me wonder why they are still bothering with their traditional anti-Catholic protests. They seem to have won the field.
I took a bus up to the Piazza della Repubblica and caught up with the parade as it was starting out. It was sometimes hard to tell who was in it and who was just running alongside. Everyone was taking pictures, the people in cages on the flat-bed trucks, the reporters with their enormous black lenses, the police who led in a phalanx at the head of the parade.
But despite the somewhat strained exuberance of the proceedings on Saturday, what was clear above all was that these are not happy people. I haven’t studied the question, but I wonder if the first person to use the term “gay” did so in conscious irony. I know we have differing explanations for it, but everyone agrees that "gays" are among the unhappiest people on earth. And watching the show on Saturday, it was not difficult to understand why.
The denial and physical rejection of so basic a reality as sex, both the the state and the activity, is tantamount to a rejection of the self. Imagine the all-encompassing bubble universe of self-hatred this life would create.
Imagine bringing it to this kind of surgical and medicalized conclusion.
Imagine for a moment the horror of believing you were “born in the wrong body”. Consider what that expression would really entail if it were true. It reminds me of a comment made by C.S. Lewis: “To fear one’s self is the ultimate horror.” He was describing the miseries of the damned.
It has been noted by psychologists that often a person’s nation or religious identity is his primary self-descriptor. If I stopped to think about and define my identity, I would probably say something like Anglo-Canadian Catholic. What is the first thing one notices when meeting someone new? His accent or language. These are the most fundamental of personal identity building blocks.
Is this identification, “gay,” a replacement for all those? It certainly seems to provide an alternative to all of a person’s original set of identity building blocks, right down to accent.
The people in this movement have defined themselves according to a single and entirely artificial criterion. They have rejected the organic criteria they were born with. They are are not, primarily, Italians, or sons or even students or business men or artists or employees. They are not even men or women. They have created a new all-embracing identity. It isn’t a “lifestyle”; it’s a nationality. A religion.
As I walked along, often with my fingers stuck in my ears to avoid having my hearing damaged by the thousands of whistles being blown, I wondered repeatedly what was on the minds of people like this,
who probably remembered Mussolini, lived through at least one of the last two big European wars, survived the Nazi occupation of their city, struggled through the difficult post-war years, saw the political dischord of the 60s and 70s and lived finally to see the great EU-generated economic surge that has come in tandem with the erasure of their cultural values, indeed, of their deepest and most natural instincts.
Italians whose parents and grandparents were mostly peasants from huge families, are now rich as Croesus but their iPods and mobile phones must be a poor substitute for the children they have mostly refused to have. Isn’t the Gay Pride parade and all its goals merely a symptom of this malaise? Italy has a birth rate of 1.31 children born per woman with a median female age of 44.8 years. Mark Steyn has described this situation as the “death spiral”. It means the end of their world. An end the Italians, like most of the rest of the men of the west have eagerly embraced.
The Gay Pride parade has a great deal to do with this fun-filled, wealthy, childless, and ultimately temporary new world that has been created since 1968. It is not merely the embracing of total sexual license but the resolve to live only in the most immediate possible now. It is the abandonment of the impulse, that had long been assumed to be hardwired into human DNA, to remember our past and project our existence into the future.
The rejection of Italy’s national religion that is so much at the core of the Gay Pride movement, is the rejection of Italy’s shared historical narrative. This shared identity is what sustains a healthy society. This is something I noted in my year living in Britain; that the British too have been afflicted with a terrible social and religious illness that has caused them to forget who they are and how they are supposed to live.
Can this societal loathing of the past and refusal to project itself into the future, shared by Quebec, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Ireland and Britain and nearly all the western countries, as well as China, Japan and Korea, really be so easily explained by the standard feminist tropes? Can the hatred of the natural family and terror of motherhood, the rejection of such primal, elemental, instincts, really be put down to something as banal as the feminists’ political slogans about “choice” and “freedom”? Isn’t there something else, something deeper and more sinister, perhaps even something more eschatological at work? Simply from the natural point of view, how can any species abandon its own survival the way we have?
The Gay Pride movement, an offshoot, or perhaps the ultimate expression, of the sexual revolution is the unprecedented rejection of societal coherence. A society that embraces it has changed from being one that is interested both in remembering its past and identifying with it, and in perpetuating itself into the future with its cultural memory intact, to being, well, gone.
I was about to say that no other society had ever done this to itself, but I am reminded that I was taking these pictures in front of the Imperial Forum, the place from which the proud Romans once ruled much of what was then the western world. The crumbling columns and fallen capitals, the field of broken pavements are a testimony to what happens when a society embraces what we were embracing on Saturday.
* ~ * ~ *
here if you like that sort of thing, is a link to the rest of the photos.
...actually, I think we didn't use all these pics because it would have taken up a huge amount of bandwidth.
Gay Pride.
an interesting name for it.
One which theologians have noted is certainly apt, given the gravity of the sin of pride and the magnitude of the societal alteration that has come about in the last 40 years to make this
kind of display
accepted.
Of course, the significance of the location was a major part of the message. Rome is the home of what they imagine to be their greatest enemies. On its surface, obviously it was a calculated insult aimed at the Church. One about as subtle as a punch in the face.
But, despite these rather trite and unimaginative blasphemies, it was a punch thrown not only at the men in black down the road, but at anyone, whether believer or not, who might object. The primary object is the re-education of any observers who have not yet gone along with the general programme. The people like me, who were perhaps raised in the squelching depths of the sexual revolution but who were finally repelled by and consciously rejected it. The post-baby boom refuseniks.
Many writers, (I am thinking especially of Canadian novelist Michael O’Brien) have said that the cultural revolution that came to power in the 1960s is turning the world into a vast cultural gulag. It is, in its essence, a totalitarian ideology. It will allow no pocket of dissent.
The Gay Pride parades that went on in Europe this weekend were all merely an exercise in pedagogy, the kind that used to be blasted out of loudspeakers in remote settlements of Siberia. The Gay Pride parade, along with the millions of images of slightly lower-grade vulgarity that hourly bombard the TV-watching, is part of the cultural gulag’s vast re-education programme.
It is notable that the one display not seen on Saturday was any kind of opposition.
The Carabinieri lined up in front of St. Mary Major Basilica, were leaning on their riot shields taking pictures of the show. There was not a hint of any kind of dissent. No counter protesters were holding signs on the sidewalks. No groups of nuns or priests were there talking to passers by or media. As far as I know, no official or unofficial word came from behind The Walls to refute or rebuke.
Silence. It made me wonder why they are still bothering with their traditional anti-Catholic protests. They seem to have won the field.
I took a bus up to the Piazza della Repubblica and caught up with the parade as it was starting out. It was sometimes hard to tell who was in it and who was just running alongside. Everyone was taking pictures, the people in cages on the flat-bed trucks, the reporters with their enormous black lenses, the police who led in a phalanx at the head of the parade.
But despite the somewhat strained exuberance of the proceedings on Saturday, what was clear above all was that these are not happy people. I haven’t studied the question, but I wonder if the first person to use the term “gay” did so in conscious irony. I know we have differing explanations for it, but everyone agrees that "gays" are among the unhappiest people on earth. And watching the show on Saturday, it was not difficult to understand why.
The denial and physical rejection of so basic a reality as sex, both the the state and the activity, is tantamount to a rejection of the self. Imagine the all-encompassing bubble universe of self-hatred this life would create.
Imagine bringing it to this kind of surgical and medicalized conclusion.
Imagine for a moment the horror of believing you were “born in the wrong body”. Consider what that expression would really entail if it were true. It reminds me of a comment made by C.S. Lewis: “To fear one’s self is the ultimate horror.” He was describing the miseries of the damned.
It has been noted by psychologists that often a person’s nation or religious identity is his primary self-descriptor. If I stopped to think about and define my identity, I would probably say something like Anglo-Canadian Catholic. What is the first thing one notices when meeting someone new? His accent or language. These are the most fundamental of personal identity building blocks.
Is this identification, “gay,” a replacement for all those? It certainly seems to provide an alternative to all of a person’s original set of identity building blocks, right down to accent.
The people in this movement have defined themselves according to a single and entirely artificial criterion. They have rejected the organic criteria they were born with. They are are not, primarily, Italians, or sons or even students or business men or artists or employees. They are not even men or women. They have created a new all-embracing identity. It isn’t a “lifestyle”; it’s a nationality. A religion.
As I walked along, often with my fingers stuck in my ears to avoid having my hearing damaged by the thousands of whistles being blown, I wondered repeatedly what was on the minds of people like this,
who probably remembered Mussolini, lived through at least one of the last two big European wars, survived the Nazi occupation of their city, struggled through the difficult post-war years, saw the political dischord of the 60s and 70s and lived finally to see the great EU-generated economic surge that has come in tandem with the erasure of their cultural values, indeed, of their deepest and most natural instincts.
Italians whose parents and grandparents were mostly peasants from huge families, are now rich as Croesus but their iPods and mobile phones must be a poor substitute for the children they have mostly refused to have. Isn’t the Gay Pride parade and all its goals merely a symptom of this malaise? Italy has a birth rate of 1.31 children born per woman with a median female age of 44.8 years. Mark Steyn has described this situation as the “death spiral”. It means the end of their world. An end the Italians, like most of the rest of the men of the west have eagerly embraced.
The Gay Pride parade has a great deal to do with this fun-filled, wealthy, childless, and ultimately temporary new world that has been created since 1968. It is not merely the embracing of total sexual license but the resolve to live only in the most immediate possible now. It is the abandonment of the impulse, that had long been assumed to be hardwired into human DNA, to remember our past and project our existence into the future.
The rejection of Italy’s national religion that is so much at the core of the Gay Pride movement, is the rejection of Italy’s shared historical narrative. This shared identity is what sustains a healthy society. This is something I noted in my year living in Britain; that the British too have been afflicted with a terrible social and religious illness that has caused them to forget who they are and how they are supposed to live.
Can this societal loathing of the past and refusal to project itself into the future, shared by Quebec, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Ireland and Britain and nearly all the western countries, as well as China, Japan and Korea, really be so easily explained by the standard feminist tropes? Can the hatred of the natural family and terror of motherhood, the rejection of such primal, elemental, instincts, really be put down to something as banal as the feminists’ political slogans about “choice” and “freedom”? Isn’t there something else, something deeper and more sinister, perhaps even something more eschatological at work? Simply from the natural point of view, how can any species abandon its own survival the way we have?
The Gay Pride movement, an offshoot, or perhaps the ultimate expression, of the sexual revolution is the unprecedented rejection of societal coherence. A society that embraces it has changed from being one that is interested both in remembering its past and identifying with it, and in perpetuating itself into the future with its cultural memory intact, to being, well, gone.
I was about to say that no other society had ever done this to itself, but I am reminded that I was taking these pictures in front of the Imperial Forum, the place from which the proud Romans once ruled much of what was then the western world. The crumbling columns and fallen capitals, the field of broken pavements are a testimony to what happens when a society embraces what we were embracing on Saturday.
* ~ * ~ *
here if you like that sort of thing, is a link to the rest of the photos.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Found him!
The only Catholic in America who didn't know.
[Auxiliary Milwaukee bishop William] Callahan, who's known Weakland for years, said he's
surprised by Weakland's admission that he is gay.
Update:
Oooohhhh silly me! I see now that he meant that he was surprised Weakland has admitted it.
I'm so slow.
[Auxiliary Milwaukee bishop William] Callahan, who's known Weakland for years, said he's
surprised by Weakland's admission that he is gay.
“I think it caught me off guard. It was not necessarily something I was ready to hear coming from the Archbishop,” Callahan said.
Update:
Oooohhhh silly me! I see now that he meant that he was surprised Weakland has admitted it.
I'm so slow.
Friday, May 01, 2009
An interesting rhetorical development
The president of Brazil, the odious Luiz Lula, has said that he will pass legislation to "criminalize words and acts offensive to homosexuality".
But observe the way he has used the noun 'homosexuality'. He has used it, not to describe an "orientation", but in the way one would describe a religion.
Stick "Catholicism" or "Judaism" in there and you will see what I mean.
But observe the way he has used the noun 'homosexuality'. He has used it, not to describe an "orientation", but in the way one would describe a religion.
Stick "Catholicism" or "Judaism" in there and you will see what I mean.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Peace n' Luv
Roma: Conferita Cittadinanza Onoraria a Dalai Lama
Well well,
I hope that our friends at Arcigay won't fail to go and protest.
Well well,
I hope that our friends at Arcigay won't fail to go and protest.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
But it's all about tolerance,
right?
A couple has been refused permission by a council to adopt their own grandchildren and the kids are being given to a homosexual "couple" for permanent adoption. Because they objected, they have been told that they will never see their grandchildren again.
A nurse has been suspended because she offered to pray for the recovery of a patient.
A couple has been refused permission by a council to adopt their own grandchildren and the kids are being given to a homosexual "couple" for permanent adoption. Because they objected, they have been told that they will never see their grandchildren again.
Last week the grandparents were told they would never see their grandchildren again because they had made public the fact that the children were taken from them and to be adopted by two homosexual men.
A nurse has been suspended because she offered to pray for the recovery of a patient.
Mrs Petrie, a committed Christian since she was aged ten when her mother died of breast cancer, routinely offers to pray for her patients' speedy recovery. Many of them find it a great comfort.
In this case, 79-year-old May Phippen said: thanks, but no thanks. No offence given or taken. But when Mrs Phippen mentioned it to another nurse, all hell broke loose.
Monday, February 02, 2009
like the subjects of some insane, sex-obsessed Stalinist state
Peter Hitchens:
If I never again had to read or write a word about homosexuals, I would be very happy. I really don't want to know what other people do in their bedrooms. But these days they really, really want us all to know. And, more important, they insist that we approve. No longer are we allowed to keep our thoughts to ourselves, while being polite and kind.
We are forced to say that we think homosexuality is a good thing, that homosexual couples are equal in all ways to heterosexual married couples. Most emphatically, we are compelled to agree that homosexual couples are just as good at bringing up children as the children's own grandparents. Better, in fact.
We cringe to the new Thought Police, like the subjects of some insane, sex-obsessed Stalinist state, compelled to wave our little rainbow flags as the 'Gay Pride' parade passes by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)