DANIEL S. writes:

In Poland the legislative body voted down draft legislation that would allow for the legal recognition of homosexual civil unions. This means of course that Poland will come under even more pressure from the American government and Soros-funded NGOs to jettison its Catholic tradition and accept “human rights” and the open society to usher in the reign of abortion on demand, homosexuality, and other sacred cows of cultural Marxism and American liberalism.

The Russian Duma has been even more proactive in opposing the homosexual agenda. They took their first legislative steps toward banning homosexual propaganda and public expressions of support for homosexual “rights.” Expect the media in America and Europe to ratchet up their efforts to demonize Vladimir Putin as a ruthless, reactionary autocrat who stands in the way of democracy and human rights.

—- Comments —

Thomas Osborne writes:

Laura writes:

Nice try, but your accusation that the proposed Russian ban is akin to Stalinist persecution or Czarist massacres is hysterical exaggeration. According to Fox News:

Cities started adopting anti-gay laws in 2006. Only one person has been prosecuted so far under a law specifically targeted at gays: Nikolai Alexeyev, a gay rights campaigner, was fined the equivalent of $160 after a one-man protest last summer in St. Petersburg.

The proposed Russian federal law does not even ban sodomy or private homosexuality, as laws did in the United States back in our totalitarian heyday, but public displays of homosexual behavior aimed at children and homosexual rights events. According to Reuters:

The ban was submitted by deputies from the Novosibirsk Region in Siberia, who had earlier introduced similar local regulations. If approved, it would introduce heavy fines for the promotion of homosexuality among children. Those found guilty of the offence could be fined up to 5000 roubles (about $160), but the fines increase 10-fold for officials and 100-fold for companies.

I don’t know all the details of the proposed law because news reports are sketchy, but fines such as these are entirely reasonable and civilized. “Gay pride” events encourage homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior causes premature death, loneliness, sterility, and unhappiness. A gay pride parade makes as much sense as an alcoholics’ pride parade or parades for drug dealers or teenagers who smoke three packs a day. You are terrifically ignorant. The Christian compassion you boast of is callous indifference. You’re right though — I am afraid of homosexuality. I’m afraid of more people meeting an untimely end, as did a friend of mine who died in his early 30s because he engaged in the medically treacherous practice of sodomy. I am afraid of more people being drawn into the empty, soulless existence that goes by the name of  “gay pride” and is mindlessly promoted with crayon-colored rainbows.

By the way, the idea that a comedian speaking in favor of homosexual “marriage” is somehow bravely speaking the truth is just plain laughable. Sykes’s argument is not only unoriginal, it’s the official party line, endlessly popularized by selfish adults like you who deny that homosexual “marriage” is a rank injustice to children and to society at large no matter how many homosexual “marriages” there are (and there are more than a few already). Did you grow up with a mother and father? If not, did you desire to know and live with your real mother and father? If neither, then perhaps you might step into the shoes of a normal child for just a moment and try to imagine what it is like to be deliberately deprived of one of your parents because two homosexuals insist that their desires are superior to the love and care due a child. Again, your “Christian” compassion looks remarkably like cruelty. You might give some serious thought, if such a thing is possible, to the roots of such cruelty. Is it conscious or do you simply suffer from the herd-like mentality that is incapable of differentiating real suffering from political slogans?

Jeanette V. writes:

Laura writes:

Notice the argument made by the Evangelical minister mentioned in the article Jeanette links. It’s interesting because we almost never encounter this commonsensical rebuttal in the West to the claim that public homosexuality is a matter of freedom of expression. From the article:

After a rousing service in the church’s warehouse-like auditorium focusing on the agonies of sin and bliss of salvation, I meet the chief pastor, Valery Reshetinsky. For him, the fight against homosexuality is a matter of “national security” upon which the survival of the nation depends.

In his opinion, freedom of speech for sexual minorities is a violation of what he considers his inalienable right not to have to hear something he finds offensive.

“You can’t do everything that you want to do, because there are people who have the exact same rights as you do,” he insists.

James P. writes:

Thomas Osborne describes opposition to homosexual unions as “totalitarianism.” By this standard, literally every society in human history for thousands of years before the late 20th century was “totalitarian,” because no nation before very recently has permitted this. The absurdity of this hysterical claim ought to be obvious, but apparently it is not obvious to Mr. Osborne.

I’d be perfectly happy to remain forever at the level of tolerance of homosexuality that existed in the United States in 1992. Were we a “Soviet police state” then?

Laura writes:

To Mr. Osborne, there is no difference between disapproval of “gay pride” parades and throwing homosexuals in concentration camps.

Laura adds:

I should add that normally I would not post a comment in which a reader accuses me and other readers of delighting in the prospect of cold-blooded murder, but since Mr. Osborne’s particular brand of sloganeering is so common, I included it here.

January 29, 2013

Mr. Osborne writes:

This is in response to your answering post to me that began with “Nice try” and went on to claim that the tiny fine in Russia for the transgression of demonstrating in favor of gay rights was “civilized.”

The actual potential penalty for holding up a sign that said “Homosexuality is Normal” in St. Petersburg is the equivalent in U.S. Dollars of $17,000, which is more than the average annual salary in Russia. See this.

It seems that we have different news sources. Well, I am sticking with mine; it seems to back up the seriousness of this.  You stick with yours, if you want, which views it as nearly trivial.  Either way, it’s actually quite bad for Russia; it shows that their country is much worse off then I had thought, this looking for scapegoats.   But at least they no longer have much power to be a dangerous enemy to the United States, then.

I go back to my original point that one should not admire the totalitarians, even when one agrees with the specific end of their tactics.  The same thing could happen to you, here, where you live, or worse, with a different set of politics.  You could be charged with a hate crime for stating the beliefs that you do even now, or circumstances could ultimately twist opinions around to the extent that the things you say about homosexuality could be similar to Holocaust denial in Germany, and you would find yourself rotting in prison like some historians that we know about.  I am not saying that these things should happen to you…I’m the one who is outspokenly against that kind of thing, remember…but it could, so I wouldn’t be so celebratory or accepting when it happens elsewhere for the issues you agree with.  Such things certainly aren’t “civilized”, as you seem to think, which you certainly wouldn’t think if you were the victim.

Also, being so excited about immense hordes of the French parading against homosexual marriage, and then being disgusted by France’s president saying he would approve of gay marriage anyway…somewhere along the line, you forgot about the republican distaste for “rule by majority”, which actually led to the election of a government in the U.S that you despise, but you would nevertheless wish to apply it to France in this case.

I think it is fascinating to have seen, as I have recently, how both the far left and the far right end up being exactly the same.  For example, the “Sandy Hook” issue.  The far left want to ban all guns, as if an inanimate tool is the cause of murders (and as facts have later been revealed, what the left wants to ban wasn’t even the kind of weapon that was actually used at Sandy Hook).  But the far right is rabidly bent on locking up all the people with mental disabilities, or even people taking anti-depressant drugs  (or trying to get off of them).  Each solution, which speaks nothing to the actual problem of school shootings (which in any case is a statistically rare event), is a totalitarian response and only increases the power of the police state.  They win either way, the people lose yet more freedoms, and the problems, rather than solved, are antagonized even further.

Same here with this issue regarding homosexuality, which really has nothing whatever to do with the lives of the vast majority of the population, and certainly does not pertain to you or me; you praise the loss of free speech rights (sure, they’re Russians, who never had them anyway, but they are still human beings) when the speech is regarding an issue you disagree with, and, like, liberals, you justify doing it “for the children.”

Laura writes:

The article you link refers to a St. Petersburg law, not the proposed federal law which was the subject of this entry. A $17,000 fine is excessive. Note, the article states that this is the maximum fine. Whether it will be imposed by a judge remains to be seen. Again, the Russians have not criminalized homosexual behavior itself, so I flatly disagree with you that this is a question of “looking for scapegoats.”

Since you believe that speech should never be regulated because if it is then it will automatically lead to totalitarian suppression, I assume you would advocate no action against pornographic ads aimed at children or someone who was standing outside an elementary school everyday holding up obscene signs.

You are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting things I have said. I have never advocated locking up “all the people with mental disabilities” or people taking anti-depressants.

Your argument that homosexuality has nothing to do with anyone who is not homosexual is oblivious to the cultural deification of homosexuals. A friend of mine recently asked two teenagers what percentage of the population was homosexual. They estimated 25 percent. And, it’s no surprise they were wildly off base. That’s how pervasively homosexuality is discussed and idolized.

[The comments below in response to Mr. Osborne were received before his latest reply above was posted.]

Daniel S. writes:

Since the original comment was mine, I am taking Thomas Osborne’s comment as being directed primarily at myself. He writes:

Witness this most recent posting about “Poland and Russia Resist Homosexualition”, wherein you are willing, and in fact eager, to embrace totalitarianism in service of your anti-homosexual fear and disgust.

So anything short of a complete embrace and validation of homosexual behavior and relationships is to embrace totalitarianism? Really?

To resist the approval of “gay marriage” is one thing, but to celebrate the legislative steps of “banning homosexual propaganda” and “public expressions of support” is to brand you as akin to Nazis.

Resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum? Truly the last refuge of the scoundral. Lacking an argument you compare or equate Laura, the Russians, the Poles, and myself to Nazis, the Taliban, and Soviet communists and suggest we support shooting demonstrators. You are truly an irrational, hateful hysteric.

Among those who have a public forum, sometimes it is comedians who are the most wise (like court jesters, they alone have the full freedom to tell the truth).  I always liked what comedian Wanda Sykes once said, “If you are against homosexual marriage, then don’t have a homosexual marriage.”

Sykes is hardly someone speaking truth to power. She is a boilerplate liberal and her “comedy” doesn’t illuminate the issue in the least bit. Her argument is beyond absurd. The Russians and the Poles (and I include myself in their company) oppose homosexual “marriage” and the propagation of homosexual propaganda to children because they believe in both a transcendent truth (i.e. the Triune God of Christianity) and the common good. I would be more than happy to elaborate on this position if you would cease comparing me to Nazis and the Taliban.

It’s really that easy…this is something that has absolutely nothing to do with you and me.  We have our own concerns (the “planks” in our own eyes) to deal with; no one is truly a Christian who is so relentlessly concerned about the splinters in the eyes of so many others, as you all here, are.

So if it has nothing to do with you then why the rant accusing me of being a Nazi? Why are you not bound to follow your own “advice” here? Furthermore, Christ’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount has nothing to do with excusing moral relativism or being indifferent to wickedness in our society. Indeed our Lord instructed us to judge with righteous judgement.

Get a grip.

Right back at you.

Proph writes:

Mr. Osborne’s comment cries out for response, summing up as it does every leftist sentiment that could be mustered in response to Russia and Poland’s actions.

First, I suspect he doesn’t know what “totalitarianism” means. We might usefully define it as the ideology which endeavors to subject all aspects of man’s social life to a single, organizing institution, typically the state. In other words, the state does not only do what the state normally does but also what the Church does, the family does, etc., and these things are typically abolished in the process if they can’t be made organs of the state. What the Russian state is doing is, essentially, aggressively acting to maintain the moral consensus of the Russian people. Yet this just is a duty of the state (c.f. the Catholic Church’s Dignitatis Humanae), which means it is, by definition, not totalitarianism but just social order. If this particular policy is unjust, then, it can only be because the means are disproportionate to the threat. But if that’s the case, we’re owed more than bleating platitudes about “totalitarianism,” we’re owed an actual argument, which isn’t on offer.

Complaining that this makes us “exactly like our enemies” is sort of besides the point. Do our enemies not also believe the sky is blue? Must we repudiate that belief to maintain our integrity? Of course not. More specifically, though, our objections to, say, leftist thugs imprisoning Christians and Russian police imprisoning homosexual activists are not equivalent. We don’t object to the state locking people in prison. We object to the state locking people in prison unjustly. When Christians are put in prison for their opposition to the leftist fantasy of an utterly autonomous superman totally liberated from all history, tradition, and morality, that’s unjust. When Russians imprison homosexual activists who go about scandalizing children and threatening to deform the sensibilities of an entire culture, that’s not unjust. People have the right not to be exposed to pernicious evil, after all.

Which gets at another of Mr. Osborne’s points. Because it is, in fact, our business how other people live. Man is a social animal, after all, not an atomized mess of particles floating in the void. Our individual good is always bound up with the good of others. When my culture begins to celebrate perversion, it makes it difficult for me to live the sort of virtuous life which is conducive to human flourishing. This is especially true of sexual morality, which corresponds to the most basic demands of human nature. This doesn’t mean the state has license to do anything and everything, but it certainly means it has an interest in those behaviors that have an explicitly social dimension (as sex always does), and an even stronger interest when those behaviors touch most directly on communal interests (as sex, again, always does, by virtue of its link to the propagation of the nation). Thus, as you say, what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom really is their own business, but then Russia’s actions have nothing to do with that. Russia’s actions have to do explicitly with what is done outside the bedroom, to and with and in the presence of others, including children. This is exactly the sort of tactical equivocation leftists engage in to deliberately frustrate rational thought about these sorts of issues.

What’s especially grating about this is that Mr. Osborne defends his position by references to film and media, including the detestable Wanda Sykes (by the way, check out my earlier post over at Collapse: The Blog about comedians, the vanguard of leftist mockery). In other words, he takes his cues about what is right and just and acceptable to believe from other people, a sure vindication of what we’ve been saying all along.

Laura writes:

Excellent.

Hannon writes:

I was struck by this infantile refrain from Mr. Osborne:

I always liked what comedian Wanda Sykes once said, “If you are against homosexual marriage, then don’t have a homosexual marriage.” 

This is a sign of a mind that got stuck somewhere, not very far along, in the developmental process involving the ability to think and argue rationally. Such a formulaic retort is standard liberal drivel intended to make the speaker feel good and to disengage from his interlocutor. It follows the logic of “If you are opposed to child molesters then don’t be one,” or “If you are offended by my obscene [T-shirt, poster, tattoo] then don’t look at it.”‘

Mary writes:

It’s hard to tell if Thomas Osborne is naive or mendacious, but no matter.

Mr. Osborne wrote: “Just how many gay people do you think actually want to get married? Very, very, very, very, very few.”

Homosexuals according to a recent study comprise under 4 percent of the population. If very, very, very ,very, very few of them will actually get married, why on earth are we redefining natural marriage, which predates Christianity and upon which all great civilizations throve, for this tiny group? The answer is because to the homosexual activist homosexual marriage is beside the point. It is merely a stepping stone to teaching in all public schools, for they alone provide universal access to still-young minds, that homosexuality and it’s partners transgenderism and bisexuality are natural and therefore good and healthy and on a par with natural marriage – that they are an option open to any and all children to choose as they see fit. As has already been proven, once homosexual marriage is legal business owners are forced, even if their religious beliefs are jeopardized, to provide services to homosexuals getting married, or pay huge fines. Several businesses have already closed due to this. Churches will eventually be obligated to hold homosexual marriage ceremonies, or pay huge fines. Priests cannot from the pupit denounce homosexuality. These activists know that marriage, as the bedrock of civilization, is the shortcut to “normal” and that with this achievement open homosexuality will be found in all professions with powerful and unprecedented legal protection behind it.

Mr. Osborne commented that Russia’s attempts to thwart this sort of mind control makes them akin to Nazis and embracers of totalitarianism. I don’t like to state the obvious but in this case Mr. Osborne’s comments prove he doesn’t understand the idea of ramifications so I feel it necessary if not imperative: the tactics of homosexual activism are the tactics used by Nazis. Hitler Youth absorbed any and all youth organizations into itself, including boy scouts and Lutheran youth groups, etc. for the purposes of indoctrination. Millions upon millions of German children were brainwashed. With the government’s backing, homosexual activists seek the same access to children through the public schools. That, Mr. Osborne, is what totalitarianism looks like.

Mr. Osborne claims that homosexaul marriage is no big deal – then it naturally follows that not allowing homosexual marriage is no big deal either.

Comedians tell the truth?! They have done more to soften and shift views on politics and morality than perhaps any other group, and their audiences have no idea it’s happening: like a parasite, they numb their victims, but using humor, before they strike. Laughter is truly the best medicine if the goal is to cure the general population of their Christian values.

Paul writes:

Looking with hope to wannabe dictators such as Putin in complex far-off nations is odd considering our nation was founded on opposing a dictator.  This time it is the dictatorship of the proletariat we are faced with.  After all, the proletariat half of the people are demanding the other half pay to support the proletariat half.  And the dictator is inciting indigenous people, Mexicans, to join with the dictator as the British incited the Indians (Native Americans).

Freedom of speech has been a cornerstone of America.  But for the critical First Amendment, the great American leaders we have seen would never have come forth.  America would have dissolved.  Words are powerful.  During the Northern occupation of New Orleans during the Civil War, New Orleanians were imprisoned if they dared to insult a Northern soldier.  Order could not have been kept.  Without America, the world and we Americans would not be as we are today.  Who knows what we would be?  Who knows how much wealth and security we would have?  We do know how much wealth and security we do have partially as a result of the First Amendment.

The dictator wants to suppress sites such as this, which posts ideas far more threatening than those posted by Fox News, which is often demonized by the Proles and their leaders.  Fighting for principles that exclude dictators is a better basis for hope.

The focus should be on outlawing public homosexual behavior, especially around children.  Homosexuals dressing and acting as homosexuals in a parade or anywhere public should be criminalized.  Homosexuals carrying signs and using slogans are not the major threat.  Outlawing the right of homosexuals to speak their minds is a major threat to us all.

Terry Morris writes:

I have three words for Mr. Osborne: Folsom Street degenerates. Google it. Such scenes are commonplace at so called ‘gay pride parades.’

If supporting laws prohibiting public displays of human genitalia and deviant sexual behavior is totalitarianism, then count me a proud totalitarian. But of course this is not the definition of totalitarianism. Does Mr. Osborne really believe that anyone, homosexual or otherwise, has the right to masturbate in public? Does he believe that I have the right to solicit and then engage even normal sex acts in broad daylight on women in public?

Mr. Osborne fails to recognize that homosexuals must be specifically targeted by laws prohibiting such behaviors because when many homosexuals get together under the auspices of so called ‘gay pride,’ they refuse to obey the rules of common decency and self-restraint.

Michael S. writes:

Thomas Osborne writes:

“… under the power of immense blasts from fire hoses (many of whom were later stoned to death).

I have to say, I’m intrigued. I’ve never seen a fire hose get stoned to death. What was the name of that movie, again?

Mr. Morris writes:

Excellent comments in this thread! Especially Proph’s and Mary’s.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

It is common for unreflective people to advance the silly claim that “comedians are truth-tellers.”  No, they aren’t.  Comedians don’t tell the truth, they tell jokes.  The best jokes contain, not so much a grain of truth, but a grain of what people think is true, or a grain of what the comedian wants his audience to think is true.  This is why what a society thinks is funny tells you a lot about that society (for example, why no one in the 1920’s would have understood why Seinfeld is so hysterical to a contemporary American audience.)  Often you might laugh at a joke, and exclaim, “It’s so true!”  But this is just a demonstration of humor’s power to disarm you, and to sneak the knife in during that instant when your guard is down.  It doesn’t mean that the premise of the joke is really true.

Sometimes humor can be crafted in the service of objective truths, of course.  Just as often it is made in the service of lies.   I think Mr. Osborne’s gut might be telling him something more along the lines of, “Liberalism has to be true because all those funny, clever, sarcastic people on the television think so.”  In other words, “Liberalism, because Tina Fey.”

And in a much deeper place, something cries out to the conventional liberal Internet troll, possessed of strong opinions but few good reasons for them, “God forbid I should be one of those people, whom all the clever, funny, sarcastic people hate.”  It’s been a theory of mine for some years, based on spending a lot of time around young adults of college age, that this negative pressure not to be one of those people is the biggest reason so many young people identify themselves with liberalism, even though when you discuss the issues with them they have no serious, defensible intellectual commitment to any particular liberal premise.  What they are really sure of is that the social consequences of being a “social conservative” would be impossible to bear.  It would mean that all the celebrities around whom their lives revolve hated them and what they stand for, and that all their friends would be mocking them when they mocked some common-sense conservative position like opposition to homosexual “marriage.”

Obviously, I could go on and on about this topic, but I’ll add this, since we’re talking about humor:  The laugh track is one of the most pernicious things about television.  A few moments’ consideration of what the laugh track is, how it is used to influence people’s ideas about what is funny, what is acceptable, and what is true, should make this plain.  Its principal use has long been as a tool of thought-formation.  Watch an old episode of Archie Bunker, or Three’s Company, if you doubt this.  To call the laugh track openly propagandistic is not an exaggeration, and if Mr. Osborne is concerned with creeping totalitarianism, he perhaps should ask himself why such unalloyed uniformity exists in the entertainment business (particularly comedy), and why it is so openly manipulative, when of course the intended audience is anything but uniform in its sensibilities.  Finally, he and those like him should ask themselves why their every opinion and sensibility concerning anything of real social import coincides so neatly with that of trashy, no-talent “comedians” like Wanda Sykes, if they have come to their conclusions in such a sober and dispassionate way as they claim.

Alissa writes:

Laura writes:

I gather Alissa means that people who are immune to social consequences are less easily swayed by popular ideas.

Mary writes:

Thomas Osborne wrote: “The same thing could happen to you, here, where you live, or worse, with a different set of politics. You could be charged with a hate crime for stating the beliefs that you do even now…I am not saying that these things should happen to you…I’m the one who is outspokenly against that kind of thing, remember…”

Strange that Mr. Osborne should state that he is one who is “outspokenly against that kind of thing” when the homosexual activists whose activities he is opposed to curtailing have been pushing for hate speech legislation for several years now – as protection and cover for advancing their agenda. Very strange indeed. They will keep pushing until it is passed. Look to Canada and see the future, where Mr. Osborne’s frightening hypothetical has been realized.

Thomas Osborne wrote: “I think it is fascinating to have seen, as I have recently, how both the far left and the far right end up being exactly the same.”

Of course there is some truth to this. But there’s also a danger in languishing in the center between two extremes. Although being the voice of reason feels good, there’s a kind of dead spot in that comfortable center, in which one can become blinded, can be prevented from seeing issues clearly – from taking any kind of stand at all.

Laura writes:

I don’t see any immediate similarities between people who believe it’s okay for children to be exposed to gay pride parades or it’s okay for homosexuality to be promoted publicly and those who don’t.

Mary adds:

Sage McLaughlin wrote: “In other words, Liberalism, because Tina Fey.” (Brilliantly funny)

And: “… It’s been a theory of mine for some years, based on spending a lot of time around young adults of college age, that this negative pressure not to be one of those people is the biggest reason so many young people identify themselves with liberalism, even though when you discuss the issues with them they have no serious, defensible intellectual commitment to any particular liberal premise. What they are really sure of is that the social consequences of being a “social conservative” would be impossible to bear. It would mean that all the celebrities around whom their lives revolve hated them and what they stand for, and that all their friends would be mocking them when they mocked some common-sense conservative position like opposition to homosexual “marriage.”…”

This is so important to understand. Pop culture has an iron grip on this country. All the cool kids voted for Obama.

Laura writes:

And many of those cool kids were in their fifties and sixties.

Please follow and like us: