Sore Winners
June 27, 2015
KARL D. writes:
If one didn’t know better, you would think that the Supreme Court decision struck down “gay marriage,” judging from the way the homosexual “community” and their supporters are acting! First, you have the White House itself being lit up with the “gay pride” rainbow flag. That in itself shows you how far we have moved in just the last ten years! Looking at that photograph I found it hard to believe that that house once held men and represented a nation so serious, that we won the Second World War and held off the Soviet Union for close to fifty years. It has now been reduced to a juvenile version of its former self. Putin and the Chinese must be shaking in their boots! Forget about the Muslims.
Meanwhile in the social media world which includes Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, today you will find that thousands of people (mostly young, and mostly female) in yet another viral Internet trend have all superimposed the rainbow flag over their profile photos. I ask you? What is the point in doing this? They have won. They got what they wanted. Yet this is typical of the left and their juvenile antics. Worse than being sore losers, they are sore winners. This is nothing more than a bunch of five-year-old sticking out their collective tongues and singing na-na-na-nana!! Its telling anyone who still disagrees that you are an official bigot and horrible person. Why? The Supreme Court tells us so! This is why anyone who believes this court decision is the end of it is sadly mistaken. This is going to go on and on. I guarantee their next target is going to be the Church and its tax exempt status. As sure as I am sitting here.
— Comments —
Bill R. writes:
Nothing has ever so thoroughly characterized pro-homosexual politics in this country as this sort of “in-your-face” arrogance. It is a foretaste of what to expect now that the war against Christianity is about to enter a considerably escalated phase where, I fear, it will remain for the foreseeable future (their cowardice will compel them to leave the far more anti-homosexual Muslims alone, just as they leave Muslim bakeries alone, and probably Negroes as well who continue to be noticeably less taken with them than the rest of the country; they know a white Christian won’t shoot them or fire bomb their house for taking them to court).
Karl D. is exactly on target likening it to the behavior of a five-year-old sticking his tongue out and singing noisy taunts. I’d be worried if they weren’t doing it, though. If they were being a bit more subdued and humble, it would be so completely out of character, I might start doubting my conclusions about them, and wondering if perhaps they were actually growing up a bit. But how much chance is there of subdued and humble poise from people who find it necessary, in the first place, to have public parades in the street celebrating what they seek in the way of sexual gratification? As for growing up, we see today just what we expected — the five-year-old hasn’t aged a day.
JD writes:
Why do seemingly healthy non-homosexuals approve of, celebrate, and advocate for the unconstrained, liberal dysfunction of others? What’s in it for them? There has to be something that they want, something that they desire for themselves. Do they think and hope that they can pave the way to the satisfaction of their own desires or to some future acceptence or forgiveness for something they harbor inside? What is it that they want?
What ever it is, they want the state to give it to them. They want the state to substantiate it, since it can’t be found in nature or in the natural order of being.
Is it the “dignity” that this degenerate court writes incessently about, that all parties to this new “right” ultimately desire?
Where does the trivial “dignity” that this court writes about come from? Them?
Laura writes:
They want something to worship. They don’t worship God, so they worship human desire.
Cassandra writes:
I would like to answer the question that JD poses as to why non-homosexuals approve of, celebrate, and advocate this dysfunction. I honestly think they are afraid. They know how vociferously the homosexual lobby goes after companies who defy it, and they are making a pragmatic business decision. They want to stay in business.
Laura writes:
I think that may be true of businesses, but not individuals.
Ignatius A. Chesterton writes:
JD: “What is it that they [non-homosexuals] want?”
It’s shockingly simple: They want to be thought of as NICE. By everyone.
Niceness is their highest value… the coin of the realm. Nice people are nice. Not nice people are mean. And they don’t want mean people to think they’re not nice, either, so it’s a double-bind worldview. They’re trapped in the social empire of nice, and there is no escape.
However, there is a prize: everyone thinks the nice person is nice. Not much more, but certainly nice. No one can say anything bad about the nice person, which isn’t a fully human, fully-alive experience, but it is nice.
They don’t want to be thought of as mean, so they follow the nice trends and celebrate all kinds of nice self-congratulation. It’s a dualistic worldview, brought to them through television, internet, viral emails, movies, social media, cute JPEGs, et cetera.
The Glowing Box tells them what is nice, and how to think. They imitate, and pass it on.
That’s what they want: to be nice, for others to think them as nice, for others to be nice to others, and the world to be a nice place. They want to be comfortable. People who create discomfort — by thinking or encouraging others to think — are not nice. Just like their most challenging teachers in their school years, who created a “not nice environment” that demanded the best of them and others… the highest effort, playing on their growth edge. Standing for something beyond the comfort zone of niceness. That wasn’t nice because some people couldn’t get an A because they wouldn’t think or work hard enough to get it, creating despair. That’s not nice. And this view of thinkers — those with higher standards for humanity — continues to this day. Thinkers are mean, caught up in their heads. Unrepentant thinkers are haters. They have no heart.
Fun, huh?
Laura writes:
So true. Thank you.
The great irony is that the Lovers of Nice are not nice.
They are not nice to the children who will be confused when they are told in first grade that a mommy can marry a mommy or the children who will never know their fathers, the men who jacked off in fertility clinics and then left them for good. They’re not nice to the victims of homosexuality who will kill themselves, end up murdered by a not-very-nice partner, die prematurely from a not-nice disease such as anal cancer, bacterial pneumonia or AIDS, or if they are one of the small number of homosexuals who survive into old age, die alone and with no grown children to care for them.
You are right. Their definition of nice is taken from propaganda artists. Their niceness comes from the organized forces of hatred. Their submission to these forces ultimately stems from their own refusal to be nice to God.
They’re not nice. But they sure think they are.
