Logical and Spiritual REFLECTIONS
Book 6.No to Sodom
Chapter 13.A social revolution
As already indicated, there has in the last few decades been a radical upheaval in social and political attitudes towards homosexuality. What was, still some fifty years ago, generally condemned, was gradually legitimatized; until today, when homosexuality seems to be not only tolerated, but even promoted.
The laws, and even constitutions, of most Western nations have been changed to grant homosexuals every right to practice their form of sexuality freely. There are laws that force employers to employ (or keep in their employ) homosexuals, however distasteful the life of other employees (who are captive audiences) may be made thereby.
Many religious institutions, including the Jewish Reform movement and the Anglican Church, have effectively legitimatized sodomy, in direct denial of their own Scriptures, by admitting “gay” rabbis or priests.
We have now reached the point where homosexuality advocates in the U.S. are trying to get schools to teach children about homosexuality. On the surface, the intention seems to be to remove all stigma from homosexuality, letting people so inclined do as they will. Butde facto, the social machine is producing more and more homosexuals. The measures taken ostensibly “in defense of” homosexuality result in more of it than there would otherwise be – which means that they positivelyspreadhomosexuality.
Tragically, the propaganda and legal efforts of the proponents of homosexuality in the past generation or two have been largely successful. Very many of today’s youths have been brought up to believe that defending homosexuals is a good deed. Even if many of them remain heterosexual, their tolerance level of homosexuality has clearly increased. The border between decency and indecency has gradually been shifted, so that people previously regarded as moral deviants have now become acceptable, in large segments of public opinion, the media and political forums.
The social change began as a trickle, and has lately become a tsunami. What was a rare phenomenon is fast becoming widespread. At first, there were appeals to tolerance of difference; lately, we witness the media flooded daily with reminders of homosexuality as if their goal is to make it the new social norm. Business interests can smell a lucrative thing when they see it, and have started to flaunt homosexuality in their advertising, further corrupting youth.
What was through much of our history considered manifest wrong has suddenly been declared a “human right” by some of the people in power, and inscribed as such in law books. The word “right” here used is intentionally equivocal – superficially, referring to a political and legal condition; but additionally, suggesting that it is something morally acceptable and even good.
Future historians will shake their heads in wonder and disbelief, in the aftermath of this policy, when the destructive effects of this modern plague become apparent.
Such radical social changes have of course not occurred suddenly and by chance, but only gradually and through the intentional active involvement of very many people. This was “the gay/lesbian liberation movement”.
First, more and more people, let loose by the general “sexual liberation movement” of the late Sixties and early Seventies, became homosexuals. Then, many of these people took to the streets, in mass demonstrations called “gay prides”. These parades shocked a large part of the public, but also served to enlist many new adherents, either to the practice of homosexuality or at least to its cause.
First, people were told to bekindto homosexuals, to feel pity for their difficulties and not add to them. Then, people were told to betoleranttowards them, to accept that they have a right to make their own choice even if others disagree with that choice. Now, people are effectively told toshut up– homosexuality is considered a settled issue, not open to any doubt or discussion. A new faith and dogma has been established; it is forbidden to oppose homosexuality or even make it an issue any more. It is afait accompli, a done thing.
The subject is loudly declared closed, and it is heavily hinted that attempted objections may result in legal proceedings. The spin-doctors having applied the “civil liberties” notion to homosexuality, any contrary notion is made to seem illegal. Freedoms of speech and of political opposition, which are defended in all other domains as fundamental to democracy, are considered null and void when the issue of homosexuality is raised. Under a cloak of “liberalism”, a new dictatorship has emerged.
Verbal expressions of disapproval of homosexuals are indignantly reproved and savagely repressed by people in positions of authority (editorialists, politicians, educators, and so forth), as if criticism of such behavior is simply inconceivable.
In this matter, exceptionally, very little moral or political discussion is tolerated by our democracies – a totalitarianism of the “politically correct” has been instituted. It is implied that just to voice disapproval of this class of people is to insult them, to belittle their human dignity. We must thus remain silent as to the indignity they bring upon themselves, and the whole human species, by their behavior.
The matter is compared to racism or anti-Semitism, as if a genetic subset of humankind or some new spiritual path would be under attack. That this comparison to Homos might seem like an insult to many Blacks or Jews is not considered. It is pointed out that Hitler tried to kill off homosexuals, as well as Jews and Gypsies – the implication being that our moral standards are to be set by way of the contradiction of Hitler’s.
Some of these arguments were formulated by homosexual activists who happened to be (sorry to say) Jewish or Black. These people cunninglytook over the language and arguments used in defense of Jewish and Black rights, and transposed them to homosexual “rights”. The latter group was thus effectively presented to the public as just another ethnic or religious minority. They asked only to be treated fairly and without discrimination, as if what they were doing together was morally and socially totally irrelevant.
This may have occurred through a culture of unchecked heterosexual promiscuity, which in due course made way for orgies (often drug-induced), during which sexual lusts and contacts between people of the same sex could and sometimes did arise.
In French, the terms Negrophobia and ‘Judeophobia’ are also commonly used. Note that a comparison is also sometimes made to xenophobia – the rejection of ‘foreigners’ – on the ground that antipathy to homosexuals is merely psychological intolerance of ‘difference’; this is of course just more balderdash.
Consider in particular whether any of the victims of the Holocaust would have appreciated the comparison, which is none too flattering for them.
The absurdity of such thinking can be seen if we apply the same logic to other categories of behavior. E.g. does the fact that Hitler had some murderers executed imply that we should henceforth legalize murder? Clearly, the antitheses of Hitler’s peculiar mix of value judgments cannot be used as universal norms.
And without respect for the sacred memory of victims of the Holocaust, and other such persecutions and pogroms.