Friday, June 7, 2019

Evangelists Of A Different Stripe

     The world simply abounds with coincidences. Here’s a passage from my latest novel:

     “What’s the suit about?”
     “The usual crap,” Pargeter said. “Discrimination against gays. One of their bigwigs applied for a franchise from her company. She turned him down, and that triggered the suit.”
     “Which group are we talking about?” Desjardins said.
     Desjardins’ face darkened. “Oh. That’s heap big bad news for MacLachlan. They’re weasels.”
     “Yeah. And when they bite, they don’t let go.”
     Pargeter grunted. “You know anything else about their policies and practices?”
     “Oh yeah. They proselytize. They seek out teen boys and young men and pitch gay sex and the gay life to them. ‘Can’t knock it if you haven’t tried it, lots easier than dealing with women’s crap,’ that sort of thing. Last year they actually managed to get into the San Fran schools. Caused a hell of a noise, for a while.”

     I did not know and would not have guessed that at least one homosexual-activist group exists that does that very thing:

     GLSEN? What's that? I'm glad you asked! GLSEN is a group of weirdos, perverts and communists (but I repeat myself) who want to push homosexuality on kindergartners in school. They're very fine people, that I can tell you! Normal and well-adjusted folks, just like you and me!

     Johnson and Johnson also supports this twisted group. Remember that the next time you're shopping. Here's a screen shot of some of GLSEN's work.

     Please read the whole thing – and remember: the great majority of avowed homosexuals claim they have no choice about their sexual orientation and would not have chosen it for themselves. Yet here we have a group laboring to persuade impressionable young kids to choose it.

     Draw your own conclusions.

     The Wise and the Mad is about the obligations and limitations of human tolerance. I proceeded, thematically, from two quotes by the great William Blake. If you don’t know him or his work, here’s a sample many will immediately recognize:

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

     Blake wasn’t merely a poetic genius. The opening stanza above notes – even celebrates – the terrible beauty of a lethally destructive beast, one whose predations could not be tolerated among humans. But the poem isn’t a paean to that deadly yet glorious beauty. It’s a speculation upon the ways and motives of the Almighty that reaches its apogee in this line:

     Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

     Note that Lamb is capitalized. I didn’t do it; Blake did. Think about that while I pour my fourth cup of cardiac starter fluid.

     Some time ago, I wrote about the detriments that pertain to male homosexuality. In my well researched, carefully thought out opinion, that sexual orientation is a cross to be borne and not a path to any degree of personal fulfillment. If I’m correct, then to choose a homosexual life path would mark the man who does so as seriously disordered. His attempts to persuade others to adopt it would indict him, in my eyes at least, as a villain.

     Nevertheless, note that my essay concludes thus:

     Homosexual behavior ought not to be illegal; nothing that involves only competent adults who've given their informed consent is a fit subject for the law. But this does not preclude a sober attitude toward the easily observed consequences of male homosexual behavior. It certainly does not preclude an attempt to protect one's children from the negatives that accompany homosexuality.

     The many factual citations in Warden’s essay are among the negatives I had in mind, though I name others as well. What, then, are we to make of a homosexual-evangelist group that attempts to lure the youngest and most impressionable Americans into that lifestyle? Were your young male children in the sights of such evangelists, what would you be moved to do?

     That question is for you to ask yourself. I don’t need to hear the answer.

     Here are the two William Blake quotes I mentioned above:

Wise men see outlines, and therefore draw them.
– William Blake, Songs of Innocence

Mad men see outlines, and therefore draw them.
– William Blake, Songs of Experience

     An outline is a boundary. It divides what’s inside it from what’s outside it. In the conceptual realm, it distinguishes the members of a category from all those things that are not members. In the realm of human experience and intercourse, it can separate persons into groups toward which varying attitudes must be maintained.

     The wise man must know when to see an outline and when to disregard what he sees. The mad man lacks or disregards such wisdom.

     The wise man sees an outline of sorts that divides heterosexuals from homosexuals. It normally has no real import, despite the Sturm und Drang that’s raged around the subject. A homosexual has all the rights that pertain to any heterosexual, and it is the obligation of a decent person to respect those rights. The mad man regards that outline differently. Some regard it as a justification for persecution.

     The wise man sees another outline as well: one that divides evangelists from the rest of us. Evangelism isn’t inherently objectionable. (At least I hope so, or what would you be doing reading my bloviations?) But when evangelism is mated to a destructive set of choices and behaviors, the outline becomes far more significant, one to be treated with the wariness appropriate to a sentry in wartime. Once again, the mad man regards that outline differently. Some regard it indifferently.

     Where do you see the outline that encloses evangelists for male homosexuality, Gentle Reader?

     The nature of social order can be summed up in a single question: What must we tolerate, and what must we not? On some subjects (e.g., murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, fraud) the consensus must be enforced by law. On others it can be left to the individual. But in every case the wise man ponders the relevant outline and asks:

  • What belongs within it?
  • What consequences would it have if it were “let loose?”
  • Could society tolerate those consequences?

     In the matter of homosexual evangelism, Americans must reach their own individual conclusions. The First Amendment protects the practice legally. That doesn’t mean that you and I must give it unfettered access to our institutions.

     Food for thought.


Tracy Coyle said...

It seems you are distinguishing between male and female homosexuality. The male version being much more public, overt, casual and openly offensive (think Pride Parades). And much more intrusive into childhood.

I agree. I think Pride Parades do much more damage to gay acceptance than any display of 'pride'. And groups that promote sexual behavior (of any kind) to children are in and of themselves offensive and dangerous.

We do not accept overt sexual displays of heterosexualism, homosexualism should have the same proscription. And certainly keep it out of the elementary schools. Biology classes in high school are different. But it should be noted that homosexuality is an extremely minor variation in normal human sexuality (less than 10%). And I do think it is biological founded, but like ANY human behavior, a matter of choice.

I've been married and partnered. The dynamics of both were very similar. It is rare for long term same sex relationships and that is probably the best indicator that it is a dysfunctional relationship foundation. I was married for only 4 years but partnered for 18+ (only ending when my partner passed away).

Francis W. Porretto said...

The critical difference, Tracy, is that male sexual behavior is aggressive, conquest-oriented. It was designed that way for a reason. Female sexual behavior is much more compliant, accommodating. Those differences give rise to others of considerable significance.