We read:
"Dear Sodomite," the letter began. It arrived in the mail on 9-11. It was mailed in Lansing on 9-10. The letter went on to tell me I had been found "GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!" (capital letters in the original). After introducing me to scripture I have read and heard numerous times from right wing zealots and white supremacy leaders, the letter closes as follows:Special law for homosexuals again.
"REPENT IN THE NAME OF JESUS FROM YOUR FILTHY LIFESTYLE OF SATAN, OR IN THE ETERNAL LAKE OF FIRE YOU WILL EXPERIENCE AGONIES THAT MAKE AUSCHWITZ SEEM LIKE PARADISE!" ....
And while nothing in the letter was illegal per se, we do after all live in a country where free speech is a sacred tradition, and religious speech even more so, the act itself is one of terrorism. I have contacted law enforcement and there is now an investigation.
Source
Louisiana State U: ANY questioning of homosexuality is "hate speech"
There is a perfectly civil article here offering a scientific argument against the "gay gene" theory and complaining about the impossibility of saying what you think about homosexuality because of an oppressive university speech code.
We read here that the letter has been widely condemned as "hate speech" and we read here that someone who claims to believe in free speech still thinks the letter should not have been published.
Why is a sexual perversion so sacred? Presumably because most normal people have an instinctive revulsion against it and upsetting normal people is what it is all about.
Other sexual perversions -- such as pedophilia -- are not sacred even though both do harm. The way AIDS (which is overwhelmingly a disease of homosexuals) shortens the life of homosexuals is beyond question. I myself had two homosexual friends who succumbed to it at an early age.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
10 comments:
AIDS is a hetro disease in Africa.
And you know there are a lot of things that used to revolt or shock us. Interracial marriage for instance. The aversion to homo sex is cultural. The Greeks and Romans didn't see things the way we do.
Think of what the Romans said about Julius Cesar. "Every woman's husband, every man's wife".
In any case you may be right about DNA. That still does not prove the origin (at least for some gays) is not biological. It may be hormonal if the pig studies have any validity.
We have lots of biological switches in our mechanism. Some are turned on automatically. Some are turned on by general environment. Some are turned on by specific events.
Just as with climate - our ignorance is much bigger than our knowledge.
As to the call for genocide - it is a socialist thing. The idea of making the whole group liable for the behavior of some is anti-liberty.
m simon u r wrong:
homosexuality is deviant unnatutal behavior.
when you get hungry you do not put food in your ear.
when you get thirsty you do not pur water on your feet.
when you get horny you should not put your penis in the anus of another man.
the idea that homosexuality is okay and that there is no normal was deliberately caused by the postmodernists, and the gramscians in order to destroy traditional family and the Judeo-Christina Civilization.
the turn of the century and post-WW1 anthropologists who INVENTED cultural relativism fabricated a lot of their data in order to make a political statement which would undermine the West -- which they blamed for the horrors of WW1.
like kinsey - who himself was a DEVIANT.
the whole idea that all cultures are morally equivalent is BOGUS.
so is the idea that their is no such thing as normal and that natural behavior is culturally defined.
m simon: you are still in the thrall of leftism and post modernism.
homosexuality is deviant. it is unnatural.
many homosexuals are probably "wired" that way. not all, but many, maybe most. i don;t know.
we shouldn't discriminate against them just because they are deviant as long as their deviancy is not
anti-social.
the trouble is they want to tear down all our traditional institutions.
gay marriage!?!?!? sheesh.
as abe lincoln famously said - just because you call a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
calling two deviant homosexuals who are contractually bound "married" is a joke.
a joke meant to undermine marriage.
this has ALWAYS been the left's goal, gramsci wrote about it. the 19060's culture wars were all about this.
wake up!
For a behavior that is unnatural we see it in the animal kingdom and in humans we have at least a 2,000 year record.
If it was unnatural we wouldn't find it in nature.
A trait that is anti-survival would have disappeared a long, long, long, time ago. For sure it would not appear in the animal kingdom, even if humans were so perverse as to go against nature.
Republicans used to respect the natural world and human nature. They used to be laissez faire about human behavior that did not directly injure others.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. - Jefferson
I think the same applies to sex.
Walt Whitman *U.S. poet, author, 19th c.
Cole Porter *U.S. composer, 20th c.
Leonard Bernstein *U.S. composer, 20th c.
Tennessee Williams *U.S. Playwright, 20th c.
Herman Melville *U.S. author, 19th c.
Willa Cather *U.S. author, 19th c.
Amy Lowell *U.S. author, 19th & 20th c.
Bessie Smith *U.S. singer, 20th c.
Pope Benedict IX *1032-1044
Langston Hughes *U.S. author, 20th c.
Ralph Waldo Emerson *U.S. author, 19th c.
James Dean *U.S. actor, 20th c.
Baron VonSteuben *German General, Valley Forge
Quite a list of unnatural people wouldn't you say?
I really am not interested in what consenting adults do. I prefer to mind my own business.
As to the letter in question. It sounds like a threat to me and it ought to be checked out. You can deplore and disparage something without threatening people.
My attitude is simple: if the Austrian Corporal put them in camps then I would stand up for them even if I was uninterested in doing that sort of thing or even found it disgusting.
M SIMON YOU WROTE:
"If it was unnatural we wouldn't find it in nature."
THIS IS A JOKE! BWAHAHAHAH!
WHAT: ARE YOU GOING TO ARGUE LIKE A HIGHSCHOOL KID!?!?!
USING IDIOTIC SEMANTICS!?!?!?
YOU KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT UNNATURAL MEANS. IT DOESN'T MEANS THAT THERE ARE NO DEVIANTS IN NATURE.
SHIT.
OF COURDSE THERE ARE.
LOOKIT PRO-DRUG M SIMON:
THERE'S A LOT OF BEHAVIOR THAT'S "NATURAL" AS YOU WANNA USE THE TERM THAT IS BAD: LIKE MURDER. PEDOPHILIA. CANNIBALISM. POLYGAMY. SLAVERY . ETC.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.
NOW, I AM NOT ARGUING FOR OUTLAWING QUEERS/HOMOS/LESBIANS/SAPPHITES/FAGGOTS.
BUT I AM AGAINST THEIR POLITICAL/GRAMSCIAN AGENDA.
I HAVE KNOWN MANY GAYS. FOR DECADES.
I RESPECT THEM A HUMAN BEINGS.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD TURN OUR FAMILY INSTITUTIONS UPSIDE DOWN TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR DEVIANCY.
WE CAN TOLERATE THEM WITHOUT MAKING MARRIAGE SOMETHING IT HAS NEVER EVER BEEN ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME.
DRUG ADDICTS NEED HELP.
MAKING THEIR ADDICTIONS LEGAL AND THE SUBSTANCES THEY ARE ADDICTED TO LEGAL WON'T HELP ONE SINLGE SOLITARY DRUG ADDICT OR CURE THEM OF THEIR PROBLEM.
SELF-MEDICATION WITH UNREGULATED DRUGS IS AN IDIOTIC "SOLUTION".
THEY NEED TREATMENT. THEIR PUSHERS NEED TO BE ARRESTED.
QUEERS DON'T NEED TO BE MARRIED. THEY CAN ENTER INTO PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL STATES AND INDIVIDUAL CORPORATIONS CAN DEAL WITH AS THEY CHOOSE.
WE DON;T NEED TO LOBOTOMIZE QUEERS OR DRUG ADDICTS, OR DEMONIZE THEM.
BUT WE SHOULDN'T DEMOLISH OUR ANCIENT TRADITIONS FOR THEIR DEVIANCY.
IT'S ONE THING TO TOLERATE THEM.
IT'S ANOTHER TO ALLOW THEM TO CHANGE OUR CIVILIZATION.
IN EFFECT, YOU ADVOCATE DHIMMITUDE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY AND DRUG ADDICTS AND DRUG PUSHERS.
LOOKIT M SIMON: I DO NOT THINK THAT GAY MARRIAGE AND THE WHOLE QUEER/GRAMSCIAN AGENDA IS BENIGN.
IT'S PART OF THE LEFT'S "CREEPING SHARIA."
ALL THE BEST.
AND ANOTHER THING:
ALL THE FOLKS YOU LISTED AS GAY LIVED FINE WITHOUT TURNING THEIR CULTURES UPSIDE DOWN.
MANY WERE MARRIED.
IN FACT; POUR CURRENT MARRIAGE LAWS, WHICH LIMITS MARRIAGE TO A MAN AND A WOMAN ARE NOT DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST GAYS.
THE LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT THE COUPLE BE HETEROSEXUAL, JUST THAT ONE BE A HUSBAND AND ANOTHER A WIFE.
THAT'S WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
AND ALWAYS WILL BE.
TWO MEN, OR TWO WOMEN, CAN NEVER EVER BE MARRIED.
IT'S JUST CALLING A TAIL A LEG.
My culture has not been turned up-side down by gays. My mate is not going to divorce me just because gays can marry.
Let me repeat Jefferson - they neither pick my pocket nor break my leg. Even if they marry or have some other kind of contract.
Deviation is, of course, what you would expect when there is variation.
I once found an interesting statistic on human variation. About 1% of women and 3% of men are into fetishized sex. Statistically what that means is that the population difference between men and women in terms of sex is about one half a standard deviation. Not much statistically. For me, what America is about is accommodating as much deviation as possible consistent with not breaking legs or picking pockets.
As to Gramsci - how does that explain Log Cabin Republicans?
Destroying American apartheid may have been a Gramscian tactic. It was still a good idea. Reproductive freedom may have been a Gramscian project. It is still a good idea.
I'm kind of funny in that respect. I think the way the founders did - liberty is the ultimate value.
You can't fool mother nature by trying to repress natural desires (assuming they neither break my leg nor pick my purse) you create strains in the system. When the strain is released the system oscillates (the pendulum swings - eventually, absent other shocks to the system or forced deviations the pendulum comes to rest near the center.)
BTW for me the 60s have nothing to do with it. It is about Liberty. Minimal government.
By the same token if you wish to counter agitate against gays (keep it civil - unlike the letter writer) I have no problem with that.
Culture is not static. The beauty of America is that it ultimately co-opts its revolutionaries. What was once abnormal becomes just another tile in the mosaic.
Divorce has done more to destroy marriage than married gays ever will. I still would not reverse our system of easy divorce. It hasn't affected my marriage a bit.
I see all systems in terms of amplification, loss, feedbacks, and natural frequencies. From what I can see it appears that the natural time constant for human change in culture is about 50 years (about what you would expect given human life spans). Which means that it takes 150 to 200 years for a change to be nearly fully accepted.
What makes marriage so important is that we have a socialist system. Gay marriage will be much less important once we trim back American socialism.
The history of the USSR re: sex is interesting. They tried abolishing marriage altogether. They had to give up that project. It didn't work. Humans refused to fit in with communist theory.
The only advantage Gramscians have is that due to various constraints on the system they get discontented populations they can manipulate. Just as the left did with blacks. The way to beat the Gramscians is more Liberty.
The Gramacians use our lapses of Liberty against us.
The only way to beat that is more Liberty.
as always m simeon u make many good points.
u miss a fgew.
of course gays can be GOP.
not all queers are lefties.
it's a deviancy, not always a lifestyle.
im not advocating making gayness illegal.
i just want oiur institutions prot4ected.
ur marriage is not the institution of marriage.
google novak at nro - he's done a lot of research which proves that liberalizing marriage to include gays has diminsished marriage wherever it's been dun.
hayek wrote about the principle here.
i know gays who are opposed to the gay political agenda.
that's what i oppose.
there will always be gays.
that' doesn;t mean we have to destroy our civilization to tolerate their gayness.
there's a difference between LIBERTY and
LIBERTINAGE.
"Libertinage is liberty without adherence to Natural Law."
a nice quote.
itz mine.
kurtz not novak:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWYyMDhkOWYwOWU4YWZlMTkwMWEzMDY0MTA0MGM0YmY=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWIzMTY5OThiNDZhOWNhNzZlZDdjMDQ5NmE5YWU3YmM=
Post a Comment