For the past several decades, the steady stream of sodomite propaganda has assured us that all gays want is a bit of privacy since what one does in the confines of one’s own bedroom is no one else’s business. But as these activists stand on the threshold of having their liaisons sanctified in the eyes of the law and thus the broader culture, it becomes more apparent that their interests do not lie so much with being left alone as in being granted special privileges and in compelling the rest of us to accept their aberrancy as legitimate.
During the Clinton administration, Americans were assured under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that, if we minded out own affairs, gays would be content to stay to themselves and out of everybody else’s way. However, in the decade or so since that policy first came before the public as a grand socioethical compromise, American politics has seen gays grow increasingly bolder about wearing their sexuality on their sleeves.
Equality use to mean that those aspects of an individual that set them apart from their peers were not taken into consideration when dispensing the rewards of achievement or the privileges of status. Yet as the cognitive and linguistic revolution continues to tear down the traditional understandings of the most basic concepts, equality now means conscientiously taking into account the very characteristics we were once told were of little consequence in determining who among a particular group is worthy of a specific honor.
Democrats, though the record of the Republican leadership is often little better on the issue, have become renowned as supporters of Affirmative Action, the idea that someone deserves a given accolade for no other reason than that the individual happens to belong to an identifiable social group. Now the party of the ass wants to take this controversial public policy one step further by extending it to homosexuals.
Claming they want to be a reflection of America, party leaders across the country are aiming for up to 10% of the delegates to be homosexual --- double the number fielded at the 2000 convention. Never mind the fact that actual estimates for those practicing buggery are considerably lower, giving this population an undue influence over party policy and proceedings.
Regardless of one’s position for or against quotas in relation to racial matters, at least with that issue they can be applied in a manner approaching at least a warped sense of objectivity. For in most instances, a Black person looks like a Black person and the same generally applies for most other ethnic groups.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a behavior. Though you can sometimes tell because of the overly feminized behaviors of gay men such as limped wrists and a propensity to squeal like schoolgirls and the tendency of lesbians to exhibit an affinity for flannel shirts and close-cropped haircuts, one cannot always spot a homosexual so easily or with the same degree of certainty of knowing you have stumbled across a Black person or a Chinaman.
Often the only way to ascertain someone’s sexual preference is to ask. But what about the fundamental tenet of the homosexual creed that it’s no one else’s business what goes on in another person’s bedroom between two consenting adults?
Conversely, if privileges are to be granted over aspects of an individual’s nature its practitioners assure us bears no impact upon their qualifications for the beneficence under consideration, aren’t we engaging in a new form of discrimination against those not answering questions about this specific characteristic in a politically correct manner? And if “discrimination”, meaning the application of arbitrary criteria by which to exclude a particular class of individuals from a particular prize or privilege who would other wise be qualified for it, is acceptable in this context, then why is it now unacceptable to apply the standards and qualifications inherent to traditional conceptions of marriage when adhering to these is not a form of discrimination since (to borrow terminology from the world of employment) they are bona fide occupational qualifications that can be met by anyone willing to abide by them --- unlike, of course, the inability to alter one’s race or ethnicity no matter how much one might like to.
Even those swept up in the intoxicating rush of revolutionary fanaticism have to stop and admit such a system is easily prone to abuse. For whereas most of the time you can look at a Black person and tell if they are being truthful about being Black, often you only have someone’s word as to whether or not they are gay.
How are you going to get them to prove it? Show them a bawdy picture and ask them to raise something other than their right hand if they find it appealing if you catch my drift?
Furthermore, in this day of privatized relativism, why should anyone be rewarded over how they like to have their fancy tickled? Some people are repulsed by redheads; does that mean those attracted to this particular follicular coloration deserve political favoritism and patronage made available through special interest groups?
Some just sit back and say, “What else do you expect from a bunch of liberals and radical Democrats? The Boston convention has little bearing on my life.” Thing is, though, radicals are never content to sit back patting each other on the back (maybe on the behind in the case of this crowd) over how broadminded and progressive they are but instead insist upon changing your mind --- or at least your way of life --- whether you want them to or not.
Metaphorically kissing the backsides of gays won’t confine itself to the corridors of Democratic lunacy and foolishness. It will eventually work its way out into the rest of society into places where those opposed to such practices cannot as easily avoid them as is the case with party membership or political participation.
People of sound moral character do what they can to avoid corruption by the debauched extremes of contemporary culture, often separating themselves from the institutions celebrating the most degraded tendencies. However, there some aspects of society such as public education whose demands and influence can’t be avoided absolutely by even the most fastidiously scrupulous citizen.
As part of the system of racial preferences set up under Affirmative Action, many institutions of higher education have funneled scholarship dollars and set aside programs for students who have accomplished little more than having been born into a certain ethnic group. As has transpired at the upper echelons of the Democratic party, some partaking of the same manner of blasphemies at similar levels of power within the corridors of higher education now want to extend preferential treatment to the libidinously aberrant.
At Michigan State University the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gender Concerns and the Office of Financial Aide have set up a scholarship exclusively for Black homosexuals. Since this is a public university, much of the finances for this program have no doubt been hijacked from the pockets of taxpayers repulsed by the gay lifestyle.
But even more importantly, by setting up a system of academic recognition that celebrates and rewards perversion, educators are showing students (or as Rush Limbaugh use to call them years ago, young skulls full of mush) that these lifestyles are acceptable and perhaps even preferable if its going to set them up on easy street with all kinds of sweet handouts. After all, what’s permissible in the eyes of the state has a way of becoming a behavioral norm in the minds of many people.
Some natural laws are so fundamental to the moral order of the universe that should the finite, corrupt understanding of man try to recast things to his own twisted likening he will ultimately cause all of the rational foundations culture rests upon to come crashing down all around him. One cannot attempt to legitimize something as antithetical to God’s purpose as homosexuality and not expect such a decision not to impact all other facets of the complicated undertaking referred to as civilization.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins