They claim the right to do wrong, or more accurately, that the wrong they do is their right

 

Conclusion

This brings us to the conclusion of this sad story and its lessons. In his debates with Stephen Douglas on slavery, Abraham Lincoln said that one “cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong”.1 The insistence of certain homosexuals to foist their personal moral confusion—as a “right” mandated by the courts or state legislatures—upon the general populace so that it becomes public moral confusion is not some harmless caprice. They claim the right to do wrong, or more accurately, that the wrong they do is their right. I have tried to demonstrate that this is dangerous for more than them.

STo paraphrase Roger Scruton’s remark about the phony in modern art, activist homosexuals and others campaigning for same-sex marriage are asking us to conspire in their own self-deception, to help them create a fantasy world, to join in their flight from reality.2 Their goal is to make the flight enforceable, in fact mandatory, to have society reorganized around it so that nothing can interrupt the flight. I have endeavored to show how the homosexual rationalization has eaten its way through America’s civic and political institutions with dire results. Since the moral acceptance of sodomy requires the denial of a teleologically ordered Nature, it, in turn, necessarily affects everything—including the ultimate ends of life, as perceived by Socrates and Aristotle. They are part of the loss.

Nevertheless, same-sex proponents insist that their unreality will not affect the reality of others. Same-sex marriage, they say, will leave real marriage untouched, but the denial of reality never remains partial. The unreal part is in tension with the real part, even if the two are not directly in contention on a specific issue. The ultimate vulnerability of the rationalization is reality, which remains despite the rationalization’s denial of it. To support itself, unreality must advance, or be advanced upon. Assertions of unreality are always aggressive—not only because they are a negation of something, but because, like Napoleon, they must conquer to survive

A perfect example of this is the spread of heterosexual sodomy subsequent to its moral approval in homosexual relationships. Dr. Mark Regnerus reports that “there’s been a wide and comparatively recent uptake of anal sex in heterosexual relationships, boosted by the normalization of gay men’s sexual behavior in the American [male] imagination.”3 And the purveyors of sex education and contraception are keeping up with, or perhaps even promoting, the trend. Recently at a public high school in San Francisco, a heterosexual female student was provided with a flyer that included instructions on how to use female condoms, including in anal intercourse. The information is the same as that on the Planned Parenthood website, which says that women can use such condoms “for vaginal and anal intercourse.” (Interestingly, the Mayo Clinic website instructs women not to use a female condom for anal sex.) It is worth repeating Mary Eberstadt’s line, quoted earlier, but now in reverse order: “Once homosexuals start claiming the rights of heterosexuals, it would not be long before heterosexuals started claiming the right to act as homosexuals.

The denial of reality imperils even prohibitions that some homosexuals may wish to keep. But on what grounds can they now be retained? As formerly active homosexual Ronald G. Lee observed, “If you support what is now described in euphemistic terms as ‘the blessing of same-sex unions,’ in practice you are supporting the abolition of the entire Christian sexual ethic, and its substitution with an unrestricted, laissez faire, free sexual market. The reason that the homosexual rights movement has managed to pick up such a large contingent of heterosexual fellow-travelers is simple: Because once that taboo is abrogated, no taboos are left.”4 Exactly. All rationalizations for sexual misbehavior, no matter of what sort, are allied to and reinforce each other. The rationalization being complete, anything goes, including “bug chasing”—the new craze in which homosexuals actively seek HIV infection because of the added sexual thrill. They call the men who infect them “gift givers”. One bug chaser said, “It’s about freedom.”5 Freedom is slavery. Others claim that the virus and its treatment impart a better quality of life.6 Indeed, sickness is health, just as death is life—remember Dr. Brandt

Lee needed only add that, in addition to Christian morality, the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” are also abolished—with some rather grave political consequences. The price for this has not yet been paid in full. The nineteenth-century French political philosopher Frederic Bastiat warned: “When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe.”7The celebration of the “rich diversity” to which we are all being invited or coerced is not diverse enough to include those who have not shared in the unreality or who have refused to join in the flight—that would include the observant followers of every major religion. Those religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, hold that homosexual acts are morally repugnant. Therefore, their teachings must be privatized, while homosexuality is publicized and celebrated. Fr. James Schall remarked that “we are seeing more and more not just the legally enforced living of disordered lives but the official effort to repress any speaking or information that suggests anything is wrong with it. This is really what is behind the establishment of ‘diversity’ as the only criterion of truth. It is a form of relativism that seeks to silence any possibility that ‘the goodness and humanity of God’ are the true keys to human living and its ultimate destiny in eternal, not political, life.”8 This is no longer permitted speech

The problem with our civilization is that the moral convictions underlying its public order have been undermined to the point of near collapse. No doubt there are many fine families and individuals continuing to live very good lives in the United States and the Western world, and this is a cause for hope. But those are now “private” lives, based upon “personal” choices, and all choices are therefore equal. What has been lost from public discourse is the rhetoric with which to address what distinguishes the very goodness of their lives as essential to our survival as a republic from the public immorality that is bringing about its demise

Evidence of legal enforcement is present wherever the homosexual ethos has been publicly embraced. After all, what is the good of a rationalization if it cannot be made compulsory? A woman in Washington State was sued for refusing to arrange wedding flowers for a homosexual couple.9 An inn owner in Vermont paid a large fine in a dispute over hosting a lesbian wedding reception.10 A photography studio in New Mexico that refused to shoot a same-sex wedding was found guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination” and given a fine.11 A Hawaii judge found against a woman who refused to rent a room to a lesbian couple at her in-home bed and breakfast.12 An African-American woman lost her job at Toledo University because of her op-ed in the local newspaper disputing that the “gay rights” movement had anything to do with the civil rights struggles of African-Americans.13A friend from Great Britain reports that a police chaplain was removed from his post because he voiced his support for traditional marriage on his personal Internet blog. “Strathclyde Police say Rev. Brian Ross can believe in marriage in private if he so wishes, but he can’t express his opinions in public—not even when he’s ‘off duty’. It’s a breach of their equality and diversity policies, say the police.”14 This happened even before the law on same-sex marriage was changed by Parliament. Since then, a wealthy homosexual couple in Great Britain has already threatened to sue the Church of England to force it to perform same-sex weddings. Logically enough, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said: “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church. It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us. It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works. . . . As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”15 There are many such stories. There will be many more

Ultimately, of course, none of this is going to work because reality will always, if only eventually, win over unreality. Those involved in this effort, both homosexuals and their allies, are simply contributing to what Italian law professor Francisco D’Agostino calls the “illusion that a more pervasive legalization of their existence can give homosexuals that interior balance whose lack they so clearly suffer”.16 Unfortunately for them, as former lesbian Linda Jernigan said, “There is not a law that can bring you peace.” To repeat the quote at the beginning of this book from former lesbian Melinda Selmys, “A man may lie to himself very prettily, but he can never really escape from the knowledge that it is a lie.” Illusion will finally lead to disillusion, perhaps at the cost of the catastrophe that Bastiat predicted

Of course, we cannot blame homosexuals for all of this. As mentioned before, first came contraception and the embrace of no-fault divorce. Once sex was detached from diapers, the rest became more or less inevitable. If serial polygamy is okay, and contraceptive sex is okay, and abortion is okay, what could be wrong with a little sodomy? First, short-circuit the generative power of sex through contraception; then kill its accidental offspring; and finally celebrate its use in ways unfit for generation. Contraception used to be proscribed, then it was prescribed, and now has become almost obligatory in the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, which proposes to penalize employers who do not provide it, along with abortifacients and sterilization procedures, to their employees with fines of $100 per worker per day. I only wish there were survivors from the 1930 Lambeth Conference—which first endorsed a limited use of contraceptives—who might be forced to attend the Gay Pride events and officiate at same-sex “marriages”, so they could dwell upon what they hath wrought. Just as there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, there is no such thing as a little compromise on moral principle, as the Boy Scouts will soon discover. If the ideology behind the Casey decision is correct, then the homosexual position is the right one. It substitutes the primacy of will for the primacy of reason. If we can make it all up as we go along, then there are no moral standards in Nature to distinguish between the use and the abuse of sex, only personal taste. The broad embrace of this view has opened the floodgates to a sexual dystopia. The problem with this inundation is that it threatens the very democracy that allows it

Evil is particularly contagious when it is institutionalized. The institutionalization of immorality leads to more moral disorder, not to its attenuation, and then to political disorder and eventual collapse. There is a kind of Gresham’s law of morals: just as bad currency drives out good currency, so bad morals drive out good morals. The Spectator provided a compelling example of this regarding legalized prostitution in the Netherlands: “Legalization has not been emancipation. It has instead resulted in the appalling, inhuman, or degrading treatment of women, because it declares the buying and selling of human flesh acceptable.”17 The institutionalization of homosexual marriage likewise declares sodomy acceptable, even sanctified. Similarly, it will make things worse, not better

If life is sacred, then the means of generating it must also be sacred. If generation is intrinsic to the Nature of sex, then sex possesses immense significance. It is not a toy, or simply an amusement, or an item for sale. It is profoundly oriented to creation—creation emanating from union. It has a telos. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse said: “The human person is meant for love, and the human body cries out to be fruitful.”18 As stated earlier, the fruit is the incarnation of the love. If generation is artificially separated from it, sex lapses into insignificance and triviality. This denial leads to its desecration and is contemptuous of what human beings are meant to be

For everyone’s sake, it is essential to recover the sensibility underlying the prohibition against the desecration of sex. That it must be recovered is not simply the agenda of the religious right, but a deeply political concern for the future of freedom. That freedom is already imperiled by the effects of the sexual revolution: widespread divorce, single parenthood, cohabitation, child abuse, rampant pornography, and the promotion of homosexual acts and homosexual marriage. Sex is so important that its misuse has become the principal means for dismantling our culture and political order

We have blinded ourselves to the connection between the abuse of sex and the dissolution of the American family, which can be seen in these results: as of 2010 those with children now represent only 20 percent of American households, according to the US Census Bureau;19 35 percent of children are in single-parent families; sexual crime is up more than 200 percent in public schools since 1994; there has been a precipitous rise in illegitimate births (now 40 percent of all births); 60 percent of African-American children are born out of wedlock; some 50 percent of marriages end in divorce;20 there are some one million abortions per year on average, or 55 million since 1973; and our culture has coarsened in brutal ways. Yet the misuse of sex has so corrupted our society that no one dares mention it as a principal cause of our debasement. As Justice Kennedy teaches, unassailable “private conduct between consenting adults” made under the inviolable “autonomy of self” is at the heart of liberty. But this cannot be right, particularly if it leads to self-destruction

The reason is that the key to democracy is not free choice. As we know from the Weimar Republic, people can freely choose anything, even Hitler. The key, as our Founding Fathers knew, is virtue. Only a virtuous person is capable of rational consent because only a virtuous person’s reason is unclouded by the habitual rationalizations of vice. Vice inevitably infects the faculty of judgment. No matter how democratic their institutions, a morally enervated people cannot be free. And people who are enslaved to their passions inevitably become slaves to tyrants. Thus, our Founders predicated the success of democracy in America upon the virtue of the American people

Our culture no longer corners us into virtue, however, but impels us into vice. Almost every contemporary cultural signal militates against chastity, which is why the fabric of society is falling apart. The effort to construct a political order on Eros, of which homosexual marriage is simply the capstone, will end in the same way as Pentheus’ Thebes—in slavery, subjection, and destruction. A society that is no longer willing to guarantee the institution that is fundamental to its survival—marriage, the family—and that so loses a proper sense of the Founding principle of equality that it uses it to undermine the family will not long endure. Will we lament with Euripides’ Agave, “Dionysus has undone us. Too late I see it”

Fr. Schall’s diagnosis is tha

we would like to “free” ourselves from nature in order that we become what we “want” to be. And what we “want” to be must, logically, eliminate any sign that something in us is better made than what we ourselves could conjure up. This result is why so much of our contemporary life is taken up with ways of life that deny marriage, children, and seek to glorify ways of life that are intrinsically opposed to them. To achieve this latter goal of complete independence from God, we must lie to ourselves about what we are. . . . No one, Plato said, wants a “lie in his soul about the most important things.” But if we do want to replace God with our own definition of ourselves, we must lie to ourselves, deceive ourselves, about what we are. We must seek ourselves independently of what we ought to be. If we succeed in this endeavor, we will make ourselves into monsters and oddities.2

These remarks are flares in the night, distress signals, calls for moral rescue before a tsunami engulfs all memory of moral order. Signals have been sent. They still hang in the night sky, the last illumination before bearings are lost. In the darkness that descends, who will answer the cries for help? Will it be those who have been told to be less than men and women in marriage

Controversies about life, generation, and death are decisive for the fate of any civilization. Each distinction we erase makes it harder for us to see or make other distinctions. The ability to discriminate is, of course, essential to the ability to choose correctly. If we lose it, the change in our own moral character cannot help but profoundly change the character of our government. This is because, as Fr. Schall has written, “Where truth cannot be spoken, no one can reform his life.”22 With the loss of the possibility of virtue goes everything that depends upon it. A society can withstand any number of persons who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But it cannot survive once it adopts and enforces the justification for those moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war. This is why everything is changing.

from the book Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything

THE GUILTY MIND SYNDROME (GMS)

 Yes, ‘Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder’ ".

For years I have heard conservatives call liberalism a mental disease and have generally viewed this as hyperbole. Recently, however, it has occurred to me that people like Michael Savage, the talk show host, are right. For if the essence of liberalism is self-hatred – hatred of one’s race, of one’s sex, of one’s ‘sexual orientation’, of one’s religion, of one’s ethnicity, of one’s nation(ality), indeed, even of one’s species (vis a vis ‘animal rights’) – and if the essence of such self-hatred is taking the enemy’s side and being against one’s own interests – then what better measure of mental illness could there be than acting in furtherance of one’s own destruction? Think about it. If suicidal impulses makes an individual ‘sick’, then surely it makes a society, a people and a race just as sick – and just as certainly, doomed.

Feminism and the Homosexual Lobby: Truly A Sickness Unto Death

Notice how this self-destructive self-hatred, which lies at the heart of liberalism, fits seamlessly with feminism and the promotion of homosexuality. While feminism is inherently destructive because it leads to negative population growth, it has become increasingly – and openly – anti-family, anti-marriage and anti-child-bearing. When a friend, teaching at a junior college in Los Angeles, played a video about the dangers of women not having children, his female students were outraged. They were going to have good jobs – and that was that!! Reasoning with them, he assured me, was out of the question. This is bedrock feminism.

Moreover, it is clear that this assault on marriage and child-rearing is part and parcel of the agenda to legitimize homosexuality – and, preposterous as it might seem, to de-legitimize heterosexuality. Precisely because they are so aware of the abhorrent nature of their own behaviour sodomists will savagely insist on precisely the opposite; hence, e.g., the campaign to institutionalize homosexual marriage.

Thus, two of the dominant ‘liberation’ movements of our time – feminism (with its pro-abortion zealotry) and the promotion of homosexuality – have identical goals and consequences: a suicidally reduced birth rate. Add to this their penchant for taking the side of an enemy sworn to their destruction (...).and what you have, are people whose goal seems to be the destruction of their own society: discouraging marriage and child-rearing is anti-life, as of course is abortion, as is the active encouragement of homosexuality.

Ergo, to the extent these ideas become dominant, they point in only one direction: death. A people who refuse to reproduce obviously has no future. Whites may bury their heads in the sand, but hispanic groups like La Raza, advocating the reconquista of the American southwest, know better.

"Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die. Through love of having children, we are going to take over.” [My emphasis.] Truly, a sickness unto death.

Explaining The Rise of the Homosexual Movement

It may seem that the rapid acceptance of homosexuality (since the 1960s) was somehow inevitable. Nevertheless, specific circumstances are relevant. The New York Times has an enormous influence on public opinion in America, far out of proportion to its circulation (in November 2008 only about one million). This is apparently due to the fact that what appears on the Times’ front page largely determines the lead stories on network TV news – which, for the vast majority of Americans, is their only source of news. And who determines what is on that front page? Frequently, says Richard Berke, the Times’ National Political Correspondent and himself a homosexual, ‘literally three-quarters of the people deciding what’s on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals’.

It is disturbing, to say the least, that such a relative handful of people, completely hidden from public view, could have such a profoundly insidious impact on the very survival of the Western world. And make no mistake about it, homosexual advocacy groups are often genuinely evil. ...

THE GUILTY MIND SYNDROME (GMS)

Over the past several years an idea has been gestating in the back of my mind, which I have dubbed The Guilty Mind Syndrome (GMS).

Examples (1) In the early 1980s I heard an item on the BBC about a high-ranking Soviet defector who had said that many of the top Communist leaders lived in constant dread of an nuclear attack from America, almost, he said, as if they were looking over their shoulders expecting it at any moment.

(2) In 1973 homosexual activists stormed a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) ‘demanding’ that homosexuality be removed from their compendium of illnesses. Though successful in their intimidation, a small group resisted and formed a subgroup within the APA offering their services to anyone wishing to become straight, claiming a small but significant success rate. The ‘activists’ were incensed by this, insisting that such therapy, though strictly voluntary, must be prohibited and the group disbanded.

3) In The Mail & Guardian, a leftwing weekly in South Africa, there are these paragraphs about Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa (“Mbeki in bizarre Aids outburst”, by Drew Forrest and Barry Streek, week of 26 Oct – 1 November 2001, p.4; all emphases added):

… after referring to medical schools where black people were “reminded of their role as germ carriers”, [Mbeki] says: “Thus does it happen that others who consider themselves to be our leaders take to the streets carrying their placards, to demand that because we are germ carriers, and human beings of a lower order that cannot subject its passions to reason, we must perforce adopt strange opinions, to save a depraved and diseased people from perishing from self-inflicted disease”.
… “Convinced that we are but natural-born, promiscuous carriers of germs, unique in the world, they proclaim that our continent is doomed to an inevitable moral end because of our unconquerable devotion to the sin of lust”.

(4) In late 1999, during a visit to the US, my recently divorced brother had acquired a much younger girlfriend whom his teenage son Clark despised. Approaching the living room, through which he had to pass to exit, my brother says in a conspiratorial whisper, “Is Clark there?”. No, I said, but why are you whispering? Oh, he said, he was carrying a bag with some shoes for his girlfriend. And so? “I don’t want him to see!” Satisfied that the room was ‘clear’, he left.

(5) In Johannesburg, a lesbian couple were convicted of murdering a four year old child. The headline says it all: “SLAIN because he refused to call his mother’s lesbian lover ‘Daddy’” (The Star, 23 March 2006, p.1). (For a frighteningly similar example from the U.S., involving black lesbians, see here.)

Examples Analyzed

(i) Let us assume that Soviet leaders did in fact expect to be attacked by America. The question is, How can one explain this, given that it was totally at odds with reality?

The defector had said that most of these leaders were guilty of terrible crimes, and let us assume that that is also true. I would claim that, with few exceptions, people who do wicked and evil things know that they are wicked and evil – and that they deserve to be punished.

These beliefs – that they were evil and deserved to be punished – were basically true. But they also believed things which were flagrantly false, specifically, that American leaders knew, as the Soviet leaders did, that these Soviets were criminals who deserved to be punished. In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. 

The Glaring Light Phenomenon (GLP)

So why did the Soviet leaders believe these things? First – and what is typical of someone who’s aware that he’s doing wrong – he assumes that his behaviour and its wrongness are glaringly apparent to everyone and anyone, like a flashing neon light, even when this is not remotely the case (The Glaring Light Phenomenon [GLP]). And secondly, they believed that American leaders not only knew this but would act upon it.

Note, therefore, that what these communists were assuming with regards to what the Americans believed – that they (the Soviet leaders) were evil and deserved to be punished – is nothing more nor less than what these Soviets themselves believed, viz., that they deserved to be and would be punished. And what could be less surprising and more natural than that they should think that others would believe about them precisely what they believed about themselves?

Hence, we get exactly what the defector said: the Soviet leadership living in dread of a nuclear attack from America. GMS.

(ii) Why did homosexual activists demand that psychiatrists offering to help homosexuals wishing to become straight be stopped? First, I would assert that they feel shame and revulsion about their lifestyle and assume that everyone else feels the same way. Anything, therefore, which could even remotely be interpreted as casting aspersions on their behaviour will immediately be seen as a neon light broadcasting their disgusting behaviour for all to see (GLP). ‘What could these psychiatrists be saying other than that our lifestyle is filthy and disgusting?’ (After all, that’s what we think!) And that will not be tolerated! Once again, they are merely assuming that others feel towards them precisely what they feel towards themselves. GMS.

iii) Thabo Mbeki’s accusations against whites are remarkable on several counts. First, the idea of whites ‘carrying placards’ with such allegations is not only false but absurdly so.

Even in America, where whites are still a large majority, this is unimaginable; how much more so in South Africa where they are a small minority recently stripped of political power?

How does one explain Mkebi making such a charge? Well, virtually everything Mbeki accuses whites of saying about blacks is true – and uncannily accurate: they are promiscuous; black men do have higher levels of testosterone and hence are more ‘lustful’; they are more impulsive and have less self-control; and they are ‘disease-carriers’ – besides AIDS and TB, the rate of other sexually transmitted diseases amongst blacks is astronomical; and whether or not Africa is ‘doomed’, it is clear that Mbeki, for one, thinks it is.

But why does he make these ‘bizarre’ charges? Well, once again, he is assuming, first, that blacks’ numerous moral malfeasances are glaringly obvious to everyone (GLP) and hence he is merely assuming that others believe about his group what he himself believes. And so he expects them to say such things because that’s what he thinks they ought to say. In other words, the GMS.

(iv) Though really doing nothing wrong, my brother nevertheless felt like a child-with-his-hand-in-the-cookie-jar. He therefore assumed that everyone somehow ‘knew’ what he was doing (GLP), and that his son Clark, like his namesake Clark Kent, would use his x-ray vision to see through the bag and know immediately who these shoes were for and would (of course!) ‘challenge’ him. Hence, his need to ‘sneak out’. Once again, a clear case of the GMS.

(v) When I saw the photographs of the lesbian couple I thought it was a mistake, because one of them was clearly a man. But no, this was the ‘male’ partner and, as I guessed, the one who beat the child to death.

Inner Turmoil

Why would the child’s refusing to call her ‘daddy’ provoke her so? First of all, and like most homosexuals, she feels (genuine and warranted) self-loathing. Combine this with the unrelenting drumbeat promoting homosexuality as healthy, normal, even desirable, and you get an inner turmoil resulting from the clash between the fantasies she hears and the reality she knows. And once again, she assumes that others regard her with the same disgust with which she regards herself; consequently she expects to be treated with the contempt which she feels towards herself, and, which she thinks she deserves.

Thus, extraordinary as it might seem, when this four year old boy refused to call her ‘daddy’ – which would have been an affirmation of her normality – she can only ‘see’ this as an accusation of what she herself believes and expects to hear: that she is abnormal and disgusting. And so she lashes out. GMS.

How ‘’Liberation’ Has Made Things Worse for Homosexuals

I believe it is precisely this inner turmoil which causes the numerous pathologies so common amongst (male) homosexuals – promiscuity, drug abuse, pedophilia, et. al. – all of which are attempts to reaffirm their sexuality, something which is only necessary because of the self-loathing intrinsic to their lifestyle.

I would further conjecture that this self-loathing has been greatly exacerbated by homosexual ‘liberation’, as a result of which they are constantly having to confront the reality of their behaviour vs. the ‘normality’ they are supposed to believe in, making it much more difficult to ‘ignore’ this reality than before, when the ethos was pretty much: ‘you keep to yourselves and we’ll keep to ourselves’. They were, indeed, living ‘in the shadows’; but that, after all, is pretty much where this behaviour should be. Not in jail, certainly; but not ‘parading’ down main street either.
This murder underscores the very real consequences of Sickness-Unto-Death

Political Correctness: this little boy had a father who wanted to take care of him; instead, he was – of course! – given to this ‘perfectly healthy and normal’ lesbian couple!

Gedaliah Braun
From: Racism Guilt Self-Hatred and Self-Deceid

Homosexuality in Africa

When the AIDS pandemic started in Africa there was much speculation about its source, from infected needles to homosexual transmission etc. I knew that neither was true. Hypodermic needles are not generally available in black Africa, and homosexual behaviour is, to understate the matter, highly frowned upon. When I had mentioned to students in Nigeria (in the late 70s) that in America there were men who have sex with other men, they flatly refused to believe it, the very idea filling them with disgust and revulsion. 

There are naturally effeminate men in Africa, but since the idea of engaging in sex with men never occurs to them – much as, a few hundred years ago, no one ‘missed’ electricity – they mostly live ordinary lives, marrying and having children. Their lack of sexual ‘freedom’ is a small price to pay compared to the increasingly hysterical promotion of homosexuality in the West. 

Peter Akinola Note these remarks by Peter Akinola, head of the Anglican Church in Nigeria (whose 18 million members dwarf the four million in all of North America): “I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don’t hear of such things” (“Defender of the Faith”, The Atlantic Monthly, November 2003). That such a prominent public figure would speak thus indicates that political correctness continues to have little impact on black Africa – and on American blacks as well. 

Homosexual Marriage: Black Instincts Rule In the 2008 U.S. elections, California voted on whether to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It passed by a 52-48 margin, with a majority of whites voting against it (and hence for same sex marriage). The only reason it passed (and homosexual marriage ruled unconstitutional) is that 70% of blacks voted for it (and against homosexual marriage)! Blacks tend to vote en masse, and the vast majority voted for the far-left Barack Obama, but when it came endorsing homosexual marriage, they voted against everything they were supposed to believe in. I can only attribute this to the same instinctive revulsion I found in my students in Nigeria, illustrating another remarkable congruence between American and African blacks.

Unfortunately, this ‘last-gasp’ attempt to stem the decline of America – a decline manifested by this frantic promotion of sexual perversion – is almost certainly doomed to failure.

Gedaliah Braun

from: RACISM, GUILT, SELF-HATRED AND SELF-DECEIT