JOE A. writes:

The London papers are a twitter (see here and here) with news of yet another sex scandal from the prime minister’s office. No one will say who or what, but a few weeks ago it was revealed a Tory MP and deputy speaker of the Commons was arrested for homosexual rape and assault, with other allegations against him surfacing soon afterward.

Not to be outdone, a Liberal Democrat peer (House of Lords) is under investigation by Scotland Yard for sex assaults on women. Another Lib Dem MP faces charges of sexual assault this coming week.

Is it any wonder to hear such allegations from a government that has literally sodomized England, shoving “gay” marriage down the throats of the English people?

Not to me. In fact I will speculate it is their sexual deviancy that drives the entire legalization project. Their Festingerian need of external validation is commanded by their guilty consciences, to hell with the consequences to others.

— Comments —

Michael Blazewicz writes:

Joe A. has an interesting theory about the government”s intention of sodomizing England that actually makes no sense to me. Sex scandals are even more common amongst already legalised “straight “marriages (be they straight or gay affairs ). Legal marriage makes no difference …. you either cheat or don’t depending on your views on honesty and trust, qualities that are not dependent on your sexuality. My gay daughter does not care what goes on in your bedroom nor does she care about any cheating government minister’s sexual peccadilloes, she just wants the same rights as the rest of the population — to love and honour her partner and for it to be celebrated, accepted and recognised by all.

Laura writes:

You misunderstood Joe A. His point was that decadent politicians want to validate their transgressions by doing away with traditional sexual morality.

I’m sure Joe A. doesn’t care what goes on in your daughter’s bedroom (although if he cared about her personally, perhaps he would), but he does care what happens to the social institution of marriage. Your daughter possesses the same rights vis-a-vis marriage as anyone else. She has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex of her choice. The laws do not restrict her more than others. Politicians shouldn’t demand that society celebrate and approve their sexual deviancy and neither should she. The institution of marriage protects the young and vulnerable. It makes demands of everyone, including those who, like your daughter, want to destroy it utterly.

Buck writes:

My son, now two years out of college, was given a too brief explanation of cognitive dissonance in a “communications” class. He puzzled over its relevance. No time to respond, I thought; he’ll find out. It’s everywhere.

Michael Blazewicz surely loves his daughter. But, just as surely, he wouldn’t argue that at her birth he dreamed of her living life a homosexual. He’s human. He wants her happiness. This is generally what we do.

Lawrence Auster’s Unprincipled Exception is cognitive dissonance writ large. This is yet another example of the insidious power that modern liberalism has over us.

Mary writes:

Michael B. wrote: “…My gay daughter does not care what goes on in your bedroom…she just wants the same rights as the rest of the population — to love and honour her partner and for it to be celebrated, accepted and recognised by all…”

Contrary to Michael and his daughter, those opposed to “gay marriage” have no interest in changing the face of Western Civilization but in preserving (what is left of) it.

At this late date in poor natural marriage’s demise, the “rest of the population” seems perfectly satisfied with living together and having babies out of wedlock. I would be mystified by the homosexual lobby’s keen interest in marriage if I didn’t understand it for what it was: the final step in a move for universal acceptance of homosexuality, taught in all schools as a normal and on a par with heterosexuality.

Perry H. writes:

“… and for it to be celebrated, accepted and recognised by all.” (emphasis mine)

Michael’s statement reinforces the fact that mere acceptance and tolerance is not enough for the proponents of so-called “gay marriage.” Unnatural sexual behavior must be affirmed and celebrated by everyone too.

Laura writes:

I believe Mr. Blazewicz thinks that the refusal to celebrate someone’s homosexuality is the denial of a basic human right.

Joe A. responds to Mr. Blazewicz:

Laura is of course correct as usual.  My point is that perverts and moral weaklings tolerate and encourage perversion and moral weakness to salve their guilty conscience.  This is the plain lesson of Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory as explained by him in Scientific American.

Michael proves the point perfectly: his emasculation upon deliberate validation of his daughter’s partaking of the forbidden fruit, of Biblical “knowledge,” parallels Adam’s fall from grace after  his deliberate validation of Eve’s partaking of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.  (Astute readers are no doubt aware of the many Lesbian subculture references to forbidden fruit: “Rubyfruit Jungle” and “Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit” etc.)

This power of emasculation lies within the volition of the victim – a self-imposed descension, by way of superstition – a spell.

Is our civilization now at the mercy of voodoo and magic spells?  It would seem so.

However, I see a silver lining to the dark clouds of effeminate masculinity that celebrates the end of its line:  As they filter our gene pool of decades’ of flotsam and jetsam, we shall have fewer Americans but better Americans.  With all due pardon to Uncle Joe.

Please follow and like us: