Where's the Gay movement leading?
February 11, 2014
So there I was playing a very disciplined game of blackjack and enjoying my Diet Coke, sadly-sans-Jack, when I looked up and had my attention assaulted by, hands-down, the ugliest woman I have ever seen in my life. She was Medusa reborn, her face best described as a cross between Peter Griffin and Grendel. In that face there was no trace of that grace or sweetness which, regardless of how ill-favored by nature a woman may be, can command the respect and admiration of men and women everywhere and can capture the heart and imagination of some man somewhere. It was a face truly hideous, completely devoid of that femininity that can even be discerned behind the dead or scornful eyes of the most jaded prostitute.

Not many seconds ticked by before the shocking truth became apparent. This was no woman. This was a 50-something-year-old man in drag-- wig, dress, and the whole nine yards!

I cannot help but pity such brazen and shameless men and wonder what happened to them (or just what happened) that turned them so.

However! It is one thing to be that way. It is altogether another thing to boast of it, declare it a normal condition, and demand that society accept it as such.

And to militant homosexual men one thing needs to be made perfectly clear…

No matter how many sit-coms promote their sexual proclivity… no matter how many Northern states legalize gay marriage… no matter how many Supreme Court justices they have in their back pocket… no matter how long a liberal media dominates public discourse… no matter how relativistic society becomes… there is one fact of nature that will never change… one goal that is a bridge too far.

Openly gay men will always creep out straight men. Stallions and geldings will sooner reconcile their differences.

Contrary to liberal doctrine, human nature is not subject to change. It has not changed. It is not changing. It will not change. Two men will never saunter down a sidewalk hand in hand without remark, neither will they kiss tenderly across a table in public without producing shudders and winces.

Like anyone who labors under the burden of powerful passions, homosexual men should be treated with compassion. It is not, after all, wrong to be tempted. You may go so far as to say that homosexuals ought to be left well enough alone to use themselves as they wish.

But the homosexual activists and their liberal supporters who are demanding that homosexuality be normalized and that the word marriage be redefined should be treated like the Turks outside the walls of Vienna in 1529—as irreconcilable enemies. They must be abhorred the same as the stranger in trench coat trying to give candy to a child.

That history may provide ample evidence that the existence of homosexuals in human society is all but timeless and universal, as well as examples of isolated homosexual sub-cultures is not proof that it is natural or can ever gain widespread acceptance, and contrary to the pot-banging coming from the Northeast and Hollywood, it is not doing so now.

Any gain in popular acceptance of homosexuality will be as temporary as society’s acceptance of abortion, mass divorce, or any other inherently self-destructive cultural phenomenon. Such societies are inevitably forced to return to a more natural order, and those that do not inevitably decline and decay into some form of barbarism until societal death finally overtakes them and something new is born in their place.

That homosexual activists and their liberal supporters have the audacity to declare homosexuality a good shows just how far the faith assumptions of the 18th Century Enlightenment have sunk into the marrow of our culture. Until we conservatives understand these false assumptions, we will never be able to refute them, or even to fully understand what in heaven’s name we are actually trying to conserve.

There is a vast gray area wherein we can debate the wisdom of indulging in the many ways human beings seek pleasure or escape, be it games of chance, whiskey, marijuana, xanax or all-you-can-eat buffets. But in the case of homosexuality it is truly black and white, far and away trumping its double-cousin, feminism, in its defiance of human nature.

Homosexuals are not akin to negro slaves who would be free or black men who would be equal before the law. Homosexuals are bound by nothing more than a pathology that I posit is directly linked to childhood abuse and/or neglect (hardly an original thought). It is a dysfunction that, regardless of its root causes, ought to be avoided if possible, corrected if it cannot be avoided, and resisted if it cannot be corrected.

It should certainly not be fertilized by the sanction of law or the applause of society, and regardless of what homosexual activists want to believe, the legitimization of homosexuality is a gateway to the long-term legitimization of pedophilia… and polygamy, and prostitution, and consensual cannibalism, and whatever else toots some sub-group’s horn.

But they are right on one thing. Gay marriage will not kill marriage… because no-fault divorce already has. The homosexual marriage movement is but desecrating the corpse.

Commentary by Mark Atkins, Cottage Grove, Tennessee. He considers himself a Paleoconservative.

Editor's note: The viewpoint expressed is that of the author. We encourage an alternative viewpoint.

Go Back


You are currently not logged in. If you wish to post a comment, please first log in.

 ThreadAuthorViewsRepliesLast Post Date

No comments yet.