Vincent J. Curtis
20 December 2013
In the news this week are the kerfuffle over the wildly
popular reality TV show Duck Dynasty and the announcement by Lockheed-Martin
that it would join United Parcel Service and computer chip maker Intel Corp. in
denying charitable donations to the Scouting movement of the United
States. What is in common between these
two seemingly unrelated events is the thuggery anticipated from the so-called
LGBTQ community.
My hometown newspaper has a Lesbian-in-residence who
writes a column every week. The theme of
practically every column she writes is the angst of the LGBTQ community. LGBTQ stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, Queer. The last term is
added by the writer-in-residence to the more usual LGBT designation as a means
of reclaiming the term for this community.
This term is used within the community itself in the same way as the
term Ni**er is used within the black community to refer to its own members.
Now, there are two theories for the acquisition by a
person of LGBTQ behaviors. These
behaviors are either: (a) a ‘life-style choice’ or (b) they are the product of
a genetic predisposition in the same way, for example, that some women are
genetically predisposed towards developing breast cancer.
These are the only two explanations extant for LGBTQ
behaviors.
If the cause of LGBTQ behaviors is personal choice, then
the maker of that choice is responsible for it.
Presumably that choice was made in light of the consequences of that
choice, which would include knowledge of the response that that choice would
evoke in the heterosexual community. We
all make choices; and not all the consequences of those choices are entirely
happy ones. One may grumble about the
unhappy consequences of a choice, but in the aggregate we make that choice
because of the happiness it brings, or the lesser unhappiness that it
entails. The nature of LGBTQ behaviors
is such that the choice can be changed at any time. If LGBTQ behaviors bring one unhappiness,
then they can and should be changed.
If LGBTQ behaviors are the consequence of genetic
predisposition on the other hand, then treatment may be a way of correcting
it. A person, in general, is not held
responsible for being sick, but they are held responsible for not seeking
treatment if they are sick.
Be it choice or be it the consequence of genetic
predisposition, the writer-in-residence never fails to blame others for the
pain she feels. She either, (a) made the
choice and is sticking with it, or (b) recognizes that she is sick but refuses
to seek treatment for her sickness. She
blames others for the pain she feels that are consequence of her choices.
The LGBTQ community reject the assumption that LGBTQ
behaviors are not normal. What they fail
to distinguish in making this mistake is the difference between normal and
common. Colds are common; but to be sick
with a cold is to be not in a normal condition.
That which is normal is also normative. Human beings have to be heterosexual for the
species to continue into the next generation.
If human beings were normally homosexual, the species could not continue. Heterosexuality is therefore the norm for
human beings and homosexuality is not.
It cannot be normal however common homosexuality appears to be.
Over the last forty years, the LGBTQ community has
responded to the pain they feel by attacking others who accuse them of being
in the wrong. They do so in a very public
fashion and with a considerable degree of viciousness and vindictiveness. The long history of these attacks have served
gradually to intimidate the public at large, which is not organized to meet the
attacks of a tightly coordinated community that is capable of harassing private
individuals and even corporations unmercifully.
There is something to be said about not creating legal
obstacles to the routine enjoyment of life by people thought to be sick. Laws prohibiting discrimination in general
against people who exhibit LGBTQ behaviors are reasonable within the general context
of ordinary life. Within the last twenty
years, the LGBTQ community have pushed to have their behaviors accepted as
normal rather than common both by the community at large and in law through such initiatives as
gay “marriage.”
Now, “marriage” is the name of a specific kind of
relationship that obtains between a man and a woman. It names not just any relationship between a
man and a woman, but a specific one; and it is associated with a licit conjugal
relationship, not an illicit one.
So important , however, is marriage to the community that in common
law a man and a woman living illicitly together in a conjugal relationship for
a long period of time are deemed to be married, even though no formal
recognition of a marriage by an act of law or of religion was ever made between
the two. It follows then that the
expression “gay marriage” seems to mean something contra-factual in the
ordinary sense of the word and meaning of “marriage.” It would be like trying to conceive of a
square circle.
Nevertheless, it became the object of the LGBTQ community
to have some of their relationships that also involve conjugal relations
recognized as “marriage.” To select some
other word to specify that relationship was not good enough for them as it
would signify that that relationship was somehow different from a specific heterosexual
relationship. The very fact that one
relationship is heterosexual and the other homosexual in nature is held to be of no
consequence by them, though of course it is and must be. Their persistence amounts to viciousness.
Other examples of viciousness are found in the need to
destroy those who uphold that difference on religious grounds. Thus we have seen the spectacle of the
Catholic organization the Knight of Columbus sued because they would not rent
their hall for the reception of a gay couple.
A team of photographers were sued for refusing to photograph a gay
wedding because of the religious beliefs of the photographers. A company which made cupcakes was forced into
receivership because the owners declined an offer of business for a gay wedding
on religious grounds. Respective judges
found in favor of the gay couples in these cases, and the defendants were
subject to heavy financial penalty. One
could surmise that religious beliefs held no weight with the judges because the
judges themselves were afraid of the retribution they might get from the LGBTQ
community if they found in favor of the defendants, or they had simply lost
their common sense.
The Lockheed-Martin decision, along with that of UPS and Intel,
was made against the Scouting movement in the United States because the latter
decided to continue to refuse to permit persons known to exhibit LGBTQ
behaviors from the ranks of those permitted to supervise Scouting activities. Lockheed-Martin and their executives do not
need the harassment which the LGBTQ community is capable of, and made the
decision to protect their business and themselves. They might honestly believe that they are
acting from the best of motives, but I doubt it. The decision was made to appease adults, and
harms the kids.
The decision of the Scouting movement was made with the
best interests of the movement in mind.
It is only heterosexual couples who send children and adolescents into
Scouting. One of the aims of the Scouting
movement is to develop in their charges good character. Rightly or wrongly the members of the LGBTQ
community are believed by the heterosexual community to be of a greater
proclivity towards pederasty than the members of the heterosexual
community. If homosexuals were readily
admitted to supervisory positions in the Scouting movement, the movement might
well find itself with plenty of supervisors and nearly void of scouts. Between this fear and the belief that LGBTQ
behavior is not an example of desirable conduct and good character, the
Scouting movement made the decision it did.
Rather than accept the decision of the Scouting movement
as it is and move on, the LGBTQ community has made the decision to force itself
visibly into the movement regardless of consequences. Pressuring the movement indirectly by
attacking its sources of funding is one tactic by which the Scouting movement
will be forced to submit or be destroyed.
In the case of Duck Dynasty, one of the cast members,
Phil Robertson, called the patriarch of the family, made unkind comments about LGBTQ
behaviors in an interview with GQ magazine.
Mr. Robertson asseverated his religious belief that those who exhibit
LGBTQ behaviors would burn in hell, or some such.
If you believe in Christianity or at least the Old
Testament, that conclusion is rational and supportable. But if you don’t believe in either, then the
conclusion is simply non-sense since hell does not exist. His statements amount to an expression of
gibberish. However, the transgression
here is not that Mr. Robertson expressed gibberish; he expressed a dislike and
downright disapproval of LGBTQ behaviors.
In contrast, Pope Francis has expressed merely disapproval of LGBTQ
behaviors, but holds that we must nevertheless not, on that basis alone,
dislike those who exhibit LGBTQ behaviors.
“Hate the sin but love the sinner,” in other words. And the LGBTQ community has so far withheld
its opprobrium from Pope Francis. Where
Mr. Robertson and Pope Francis may differ is on the prior dislike of those who
exhibit LGBTQ behaviors.
But dislike is one of those behaviors evoked in the
heterosexual community by LGBTQ behaviors.
And those who exhibit LGBTQ behaviors know it, or should have known it,
before they made their lifestyle choice or chose to forego treatment, whichever
theory one subscribes to.
Duck Dynasty was subject to a preemptive strike by
A&E, the network which televises the series. Mr. Robertson was banned by A&E from
appearing on any future shows, out of fear of retribution by the LGTBQ
community.
A&E can make whatever decisions it wants, and this
may turn out to be a bad business decision given the popularity of the series
and the likelihood of the show moving to another network. If A&E suffers in consequence of its
decision to ban Mr. Robertson, it deserves to.
One hopes the shareholders make known their displeasure of the executives
who made the decision, and that they be made to pay for what is widely regarded
as their act of cowardice.
The LGBTQ community has become so forward that it expects
the heterosexual community to fall on all fours and prostrate itself whenever
LGTBQ behaviors are thrust in its face.
Such is the power of its hubris and past successes that the heterosexual
community now seems to police itself whenever LGBTQ community thuggery seems
likely.
It is said that a personality can be destroyed if the person
suffers constant, long term physical pain.
Perhaps the same is true of a person suffering psychological pain. And there is no doubt that the response of
the LGBTQ community to disapproval is one of pain. Its drive for the recognition of gay marriage
and the otherwise complete acceptance of homosexuality as equal to
heterosexuality is an attempt to assuage the pain they feel, and perhaps to
inflict pain on the heterosexual community that rejects them.
Such pain as they feel in the LGBTQ community is, as
shown above, the consequence either of a choice they made in full consciousness
of the disapproval they would encounter, or the choice not to seek treatment
for the behaviors they exhibit. That
members of the LGBTQ community choose to inflict pain on others is perhaps
another indication of the morbid psychological condition they suffer from.
The LGBTQ community demand tolerance and yet exhibit
profound intolerance themselves. They
require that free speech be silenced if they don’t like what was said. They demand freedom from being bullied, yet
bully mercilessly themselves.
Regardless of the amount of thuggery the LGBTQ community
can get away with, no degree of acceptance which it can obtain or extort from
the heterosexual community is going to assuage the pain they feel. The problem which gives them pain arises in
them.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment