 |
I wrote in my post yesterday on Mona Charen's sell-out post on traditional marriage (:
In her post "Can We Still Make the Case that Mothers and Fathers Matter" she cushions her words with:Laura Wood, at The Thinking Housewife posts an article by Joe Sobran from 1981. Here is an excerpt on the otherwise straightforward, commonsensical, honest article:
That the court has struck a blow for gay rights is true enough (and treating homosexuals with respect is long overdue).
Why even add that bracketed apology? And why use the words "struck a blow for gay rights?" as though we are unfairly attacking, striking against, those sorrowful gays who need our sympathy? If she wishes to sympathize with her gay friends, than do so in private. Better yet, as a journalist, and as someone opposed to gay marriage, cut off ties with those gays. Then she can be honest in her articles and op-eds.
I did. I liked my two gay friends tremendously. James was (is) kind, baked cakes for my birthday, discussed the nuances of French New Wave cinema with me, and better yet, ran a quirky, interesting cinema studio where he showed all the international films of the time (from France to Iran to Korea, and of course those "underground" American films).
Normal people find homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, repellent. We’re supposed to apologize for that? Our slang words for the anus, and their use as insults, express our disgust with the whole idea of anal sex. Apart from the personal defilement it involves, it’s grossly unsanitary.I suppose that being a man, Sobran is especially repelled by male homosexuality.
I would say, that as a woman, I find female homosexuality to abhorrent of the two. That could be why I found my homosexual friends to be good friends, and I accepted their "chocie" without too much question.
On a tangent note, all homosexuality, especially when cushioned by the "niceness" of those involved, is aggressive and militant. James and Norman would take me to lesbian parties, and introduce me to their lesbian friends. They were subtly trying to convince me that that lifestyle was good, and what I should opt for. IF not, even bisexuality was good, since at the end of the day, bisexuals are homosexuals who haven't made that final leap. Interestingly, strict homosexuals abhor bisexuals, because they think bisexuals are going for whatever comes their way, and their indecisisveness hurts the homosexual movement.
In a sense they are right to demand unequivoval commitment, since most bisexuals go back to heterosexuality at some point.
I can even surmise that bisexuals are influenced by this very volatile culture we have, where sexuality is something we can navigate around, depending on our mood.
And homosexuals can therefore return to their heterosexuality. But, that leap to homosexuality is often permanent since "returning" to a normal sexuality becomes difficult because of homosexuality's permanent trap, with its addictive sexuality, its tight social circle, its anti-social and anti-mainstream clique,
Therefore, to keep their "members" permanent homosexuals, and to recruit new ones in order to add to their numbers to fight the normals world, all homosexuals are militant.
That is why, the only way to fight homosexuality is to remove it from our culture. If people decide to be homosexual, then they should keep silent, find ways to appear normal, etc...
That is how society, Judeo-Christian society, has handeled homosexuality until now.
They wanted to destroy the norman, heterosexual world, and make it into this ambigious, sexualized, "everyt