Friday, October 08, 2010

Progressives Use Recent Gay Student Homicide To Attack Those Who Seek To Retain Our Present Social Order

Beyond the transactional incident of the college student in New Jersey who committed suicide after being recorded in a homosexual relationship there is agenda to use this incident as a means to advance a broader agenda.  (If only these same people used the death of young Black males as an impetus to go after the "Hip Hop Voice Of The Street Pirate" genre of music which is full of threats that look eerily like the violence that occurs in the real world.   This is not going to happen because the progressive targets their indictments against a POWER that they seek to take down.   Don't confuse their agenda with a transparent attempt at 'helping all people')

I should also note that while Tim Gunn talks about how the pressures of being a gay teen lead him to a suicide attempt I recently heard of the tale of a suicide attempt by the love interest of  male radio host Michael Krasny.  This female love interest was fatally attracted to him.  He tells of how she survived the attempt and is presently a PhD.  Instead of us all talking about how the pressures of being a teenager cause some of them to do self-destructive things because they can't cope - those with an agenda attempt to use these exceptional situations to advance their larger agenda.  The agenda is to isolate and marginalize those who dare seek to retain traditional values in opposition to their secular progressive theories.

What we see are people who operate under the guise of "progressivism" to render their latest assault upon the Judeo-Christian cultural ethic that has brought us to our present state of societal order and prosperity.   They see as their biggest threat to retiring this standard as being the "conservatives" who dare to stand against their onslaught.

I reject the notion that the mere filming of a sex act is cause for suicide.  Clearly Raymond Chase has some other psychological issues that he was suffering from.   Beyond that point, however, the question must be asked to those who are seeking to "normalize" homosexual behavior - "ARE there any attributes to this type of behavior that are intrinsically psychologically burdensome to the individuals that practice it BEYOND that which the 'bigoted' society around them trigger upon them?"

I am not yielding from my viewpoint that there are intrinsic information that can be obtained from the complimentary genitalia that are present in males and females - INCLUDING those who are homosexual.  A talkshow host who is in support of homosexual behavior and the normalization of these relationships noted that "GOD created the hormone imbalances" that cause some females to act 'butch' and some males to act sissified".   In her rationale since GOD made them this way - who are we to judge?

What she couldn't grasp in her own bigotry was that God also created them with fully functioning reproductive systems that were still attuned to operate in relationship to the opposite sex.  If hormone treatments are available from the hands of man to correct OTHER 'hormone imbalances" then why is it that this talk show host promoted the state of the hormone levels beyond the presence of fully functioning genitalia?  Which is a greater, more permanent statement from "GOD"?

The Need For Elements Of Social And Behavior Control In Society

I realize that among the avent garde progressives it is "cool" to stand against "social control".  The more libertine we are as a society the better we are. We should pitch the dogmas and instead live free.

They say this from the vantage point of living within a society that was built up and handed to them.  It is far easier to disassemble a society than it is to put together a functional culture as people with ideas that are mutually exclusive attempt to live in the same time or space. (without killing each other)

This is what a commenter on this site named D Roberts wrote in response to another entry:
Again, I think that you are making a big deal out of nothing. Gay marriage is going to happen, bottom line. And we will go on like Canada, Mexico City, Spain, Sweden, CT, DC, IA and the other places where the people have decided to wake up without any glitch in marriage or heterosexuality.

Furthermore, I don't believe that masses of people "don't care because it doesn't impact us." Instead, I think we are tired of the "tired" argument/notion that one thing is a direct threat to another. THAT notion has been the basis behind stopping any type of change in society.

And even though your argument is eloquent, it runs parallel in structure and eloquence to the sa

This not an attack on D.R. but an attempt to more fully expand my views.

As gay relationships are "normalized" and gay marriage is accepted in our secularizing society I will NOT be in the streets setting off firebombs in protests nor will I be marching in a parade to note our "progression" in consciousness and tolerance as a society.

A CHOICE will have been made by our society and there are responses and consequences that emanate from these choices.

We will have chosen to edit the list of valid points of discrimination (ie: No adult male should get romantically involved with a 15 year old girl), removing the long held prohibition against same sex relationships.

My personal view is that I don't hold such relationships up as "evil" - where "the Lord" will come and strike down such a person when he returns, banishing them to hell. This is not me.

Instead I make an evaluation of how the removal of cultural repression of same sex behavior will have upon our ability to continue to make absolute forward progress BECAUSE the rules (the levee walls) have been well defined and thus the flow is made more straight and narrow. Remove more of these rules and we will have more lateral battles that will slow down our forward progress.

A same sex relationship is said to be one made out of the person's "preferences". In as much as today's society has a goal of "maximizing our discrimination/oppression removal activities" the people who are opposed are put under the spotlight as neo-Klansmen. Those who support the change are seen as enlightened. In truth a person's preferences does not override all other societal constraints that are maintained. As a man I see a series of younger women each day that cause my mental tongue to start panting at their sight. As a married man in this culture that pushes for monogamous relationships I am forced to issue a mental "down boy" to myself.  I realize that there is a substantial COST that will be borne by me in the disruption of my relationship with my wife and my family.

Someone wanting to pursue his desires that appear to be his defacto orientation IS NOT in and of itself a justification for the society to permit it.  My defacto orientation is to be with as many differnt women as is physically possible.  At the same time I beg anyone to find evidence that homosexual sex is banned anywhere in the United States, punishable by imprisonment or fine?

Cultural prohibitions which channel his behavior are not always "discrimination" of the "EVIL"-type.

Today we have a commitment to populism while having lost the sense of functional purpose for these cultural norms. Many of the people who drive their point in the name of progress-ivism are also of the group that won't be standing beside "the baby that they have birthed" if it produces more societal dysfunction. In my view these same people will be protesting that the continued dysfunction is a failure in government compassion and entitlement. They will always shift the burden for governance away from the individual and toward the central agency that is "NON-judgemental" in its resource allocation.

The cultural based governance in which a central authority JUDGES human behavior based upon a set of unchanging behavioral norms is likewise seen as oppressive.

In summary and in their view:  a government that SUBSIDIZES the changes that the masses are permissive of, removing any consequence off of the backs of the individuals that are participating in this leading edge - is favorable.

A governing authority that TAXES/PENALIZES the changes that are proposed as they cleave to firm references from the past are called "oppressive and out of touch".

As a society we are going to see that there is a wide gap between what the GOVERNMENT has as its official dictates and what the cultural and societal institutions on the street express as the prevailing condition of the people as they live their lives.  To translate into more clarity - IF the best of intentions (relaxing cultural regulation)  were all that were needed to engender favorable results - the places that have already exercised this agenda would not be more dysfunctional than when they started.

No comments: