Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
One Man, One Woman
I am a traditionalist and I seem to find myself in a tiny minority. Sometimes it feels like a minority of one, though I know that there must be a few others who share my views.
There has been a tremendous Leftward shift in many public attitudes over the past 20 years or so, with homosexuality being one of the most notable changes. I have been shocked and mystified by this shift. Within my adult lifetime, we’ve gone from widespread condemnation of homosexuality itself to widespread condemnation of opposition to homosexuality. This seems to have happened even on the political Right, among people who consider themselves conservatives, including many of you, dear readers.
This shift in attitude has coincided with a widespread campaign of propaganda, misrepresentations, vilification, and slander. The campaign has been carried out by the Wokeist methods of “cancel” culture, which so many of you appear to condemn. Yet many of you seem to have accepted the radical Leftist conclusion on this issue. And, strangely, you still seem to consider yourselves conservatives. What, precisely, do you think that you are conserving? Low capital gains tax rates?
My first complaint, frankly, is about the public discussion on this issue. This is supposed to be a “center-right” website. I listen to a great many of the podcasts. Perhaps I am forgetting someone, but I cannot think of one single podcast at this website that advocates the traditional moral view of homosexuality. You know, that it’s a bad thing, and should not be supported in the law in any way, and certainly not elevated to a status equal with the traditional family: one man, one woman. Can you name any single Ricochet podcast host who takes this position?
Even if you can think of one, or a handful, isn’t it strange that the consensus position on this issue is so entirely one-sided?
In my case, I thought homosexuality was a bad thing even back when I was an atheist. Now, as a follower of Jesus, I have His clear teaching on this point, particularly as applied to marriage:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” [Matthew 19:3-6.]
In this statement, by the way, Jesus was quoting Genesis, so this is the Jewish teaching as well. Recognition of homosexuality as a bad thing has been the near-universal teaching of Christianity for 2,000 years, and of Judaism for around 3,500 years and I understand that Muslims agree about this point, as well.
I realize that not everyone shares my Christian faith, but doesn’t it strike you as strange that, at a supposedly conservative website, I can’t think of one single podcaster or one single contributor who holds to this traditional view?
Eric Weinstein has two interesting ideas applicable here. He posits the existence of the DISC (Distributed Information Suppression Complex) and the GIN (Gated Institutional Narrative). He describes the DISC as a loosely coupled emergent structure, not under central control, that suppresses ideas and protects institutions from individuals who have valid and reasonable points. (Further explanation here.) The GIN is a sociological method whereby the media and political classes misrepresents or, perhaps more often, omits stories and viewpoints that do not fit the preferred narrative. (Further explanation here.)
Many of you may not know Eric Weinstein or his brother, Bret Weinstein, they’re certainly no conservatives. If you think that I am some closed-minded troglodyte, you should realize that I listen to them quite regularly, along with other non-traditional and even Left-leaning thinkers (among them Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, and Jonathan Haidt; and if you think that any of them are conservatives, then maybe you’re not actually very conservative).
Back to my main point: I get the impression that traditional Protestant conservatives are almost nowhere to be found, here at a supposedly conservative website. According to the 2016 exit polls (here), Protestants were the largest single religious group — 52% of the electorate — and they voted for Trump over Clinton 56% to 39%. Breaking it down further, the biggest religious sub-group was “white born-again or evangelical Christians,” 26% of the electorate, supporting Trump 80%-16%. Catholics were the next largest group, 23% of the electorate, narrowly supporting Trump (50%-46%).
If you do the math, votes for Trump from white evangelicals, people like me, were 21% of all votes cast. Protestant votes for Trump were about 30% of all votes cast. The President carried about 46% of the popular vote; so about 2/3 of his support was from Protestants, and almost half of his support was from white evangelicals.
This wasn’t a Trump thing, by the way. According to the 2012 exit polls (here), white evangelicals were 26% of the electorate in 2012 as well, and supported Romney 78%-21%.
So why can I not think of one single podcaster or contributor at Ricochet in this demographic? I mean, how can folks like me simultaneously be the largest group in the Republican electorate and an apparently endangered species?
OK, I know, David French…. but give me a break. He was on the pro-SSM side, for crying out loud.
Back to homosexuality. I reject the idea that the debate is over. Peter Hitchens, the public intellectual who is probably most closely aligned with my own views, called the SSM debate a “pointless Stalingrad.” His attitude is that the battle for Christian civilization was lost with no-fault divorce. But he’s a Brit, and I’m an American. I have not yet begun to fight.
While I’m not terribly fond of an analogy that places me in the position of the Red Army, I note that Stalingrad was not pointless. Stalingrad was the turning point. There could be no Kursk, no driving the Nazis out of the Motherland, no fall of Berlin unless the enemy was stopped at Stalingrad. You have to fight on the ground on which you find your enemy.
It is utterly bizarre to me that I seem to be almost alone in this position. This has been the official Republican Party platform since at least 1992. A review is in order.
1992 Republican Party Platform (here):
The culture of our Nation has traditionally supported those pillars on which civilized society is built: personal responsibility, morality, and the family. Today, however, these pillars are under assault. Elements within the media, the entertainment industry, academia, and the Democrat Party are waging a guerrilla war against American values. They deny personal responsibility, disparage traditional morality, denigrate religion, and promote hostility toward the family’s way of life. Children, the members of our society most vulnerable to cultural influences, are barraged with violence and promiscuity, encouraging reckless and irresponsible behavior.
. . .
We also stand united with those private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, who are defending decency in fulfillment of their own moral responsibilities. We reject the irresponsible position of those corporations that have cut off contributions to such organizations because of their courageous stand for family values. Moreover, we oppose efforts by the Democrat Party to include sexual preference as a protected minority receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the federal, State, and local level.
1996 Republican Party Platform (here):
We are the party of the American family, educating children, caring for the sick, learning from the elderly, and helping the less fortunate. We believe that strengthening family life is the best way to improve the quality of life for everyone.
Families foster the virtues that make a free society strong. We rely on the home and its supportive institutions to instill honesty, self-discipline, mutual respect and the other virtues that sustain democracy. . . .
This is the clearest distinction between Republicans and Clinton Democrats: We believe the family is the core institution of our society. Bill Clinton thinks government should hold that place.
. . .
Our agenda for more secure families runs throughout this platform. Here we take special notice of the way congressional Republicans have advanced adoption assistance, promoted foster care reform, and fought the marriage penalty in the tax code. . . . They passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines “marriage” for purposes of federal law as the legal union of one man and one woman and prevents federal judges and bureaucrats from forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as “marriages.”
2000 Republican Party Platform (here):
We support the traditional definition of “marriage” as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.
2004 Republican Party Platform (here):
We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
2008 Republican Party Platform (here):
Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.
Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.
2012 Republican Party Platform (here):
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.
2016 Republican Party Platform (here):
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent.
I understand that the conservative movement and the Republican Party need to be a big tent, but for crying out loud, I’m the guy whose right foot is pinned under that big pole at the center of the tent. How can it be that I am pretty much alone, in the very middle of the crowd?
I’ll tell you why I think this is: I think that our side has been cowed by the slanderous vilification peddled by the radical Left. I think that it has been internalized by a great many people who think that they are conservatives. Some of them may actually believe it and many more may feel afraid to speak.
I don’t think that Ricochet actively tries to silence traditional conservative voices. It may be as simple as the fear of losing advertising revenue, and the advertisers may themselves react with fear to the Wokeist mob. It may be that the podcast lineup is drawn from people who have already gained prominence in the institutional media, and who have therefore already been filtered by the DISC (distributed information suppression complex) to ensure some degree of compliance with the GIN (gated institutional narrative).
So what to do about the mess that we are in?
I go back to the beginning. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That’s Genesis 1.
Next, He created man, in His own image. It was not good for the man to be alone, so God created woman. That’s Genesis 2, affirmed by Jesus as quoted earlier, and affirmed again in our own Declaration of Independence.
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24. That’s marriage. One man, one woman.
So it seems to me that these are the foundations. Faith in God. Marriage and family.
This is where I am going to take my stand. Alone if necessary. Let me know whether or not I am alone in this.
BLM delenda est.
Published in Marriage
I listen to a few R podcasts. Recently, I tried out a new one for me which was discussing transgenderism. The two women were scared of offending the woke crowd. I can understand that. I’m cautious on Twitter. But then they said that they felt sympathy for the people they knew who are genuinely transgender. At that point I gave up and stopped listening to the podcast. Even conservatives are afraid or are ignorant of the fact that you cannot change your chromosomes. XX cannot become XY and vice versa. A society where it is a hate crime to state biological facts is in deep trouble. And I see the podcasts on R as sadly reflecting that. The fiscal conservative social liberal shtick has worn thin as the social liberal part has become more divorced from reality and totalitarian in nature.
I’ve found little willingness anywhere to challenge the trans movement. I’ve been commenting on it for years, since I see it as a critical issue. It’s so preposterous that conceding it is the equivalent of saying that 2+2=5: if we’ll surrender this, what won’t we profess to believe.
It’s ironic that something so patently ridiculous as the transgender movement, something that should be so trivial precisely because it’s so absurd, should seem such an important challenge to our culture and so essential to defeat. But I think it is.
And don’t forget birth control, Plan-B (I think it’s called) and abortion, all undercut or obviate marriage and its concomitant command to go forth and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.
For what its worth, the bible condemns both heterosexual and homosexual immorality; the Bible says that no fornicator or adulterer will enter heaven — but it says that if a believer sins you have an advocate with the Father. The way I look at it is that I no more want to get into an argument with or look down upon someone about homosexuality than I want to with a heterosexual adulterer.
I did get drawn into a conversation with a stranger once in which he said that he was having an affair and had told his wife that he was going to leave her, and I said that that was wrong, and I gave reasons. [He got rather loud and angry during this conversation.] About six months later I bumped into this guy again and didn’t recognize him. He reminded me of our conversation and he said that he had taken it to heart and broken up with his lover, and had patched things up with his wife. What could I say: Oh, good.
My point is that there is a difference between arguing about sexual sin, and talking about it privately. But when the culture of the country is stridently pro-every form of sexual sin, and I can’t engage in common everyday activities like reading the paper without a screed about — now — trans-sexuality and teaching masturbation, gender questioning and homosexuality to four-year-olds, then it gets to be too much and infringes on my life and those I care about and on our culture as a whole.
You see two battles where I see one. This is why we lose. The Right surrenders, imagines the war is over, and stops fighting. But the Left doesn’t break stride. It’s already waging its next battle in a long, relentless campaign to conquer Western civilization. They are better at this than we are.
One man – one woman marriage is the bedrock of a civilized society. It is an institution that exists for the procreation of children and the raising of them as good citizens. The onset of the acceptance of contraception took the procreative aspect out of marriage. We’ve gone from there to the sterile union of so-called SSM.
Un-defining marriage is all a part of the persecution of Christianity. The woke mob won’t quit until they try to force the Church to accept and perform so-called SSM. It is the slippery slope we fight – it has led to the lunatic LGBT movement. I am embarrassed to say that even priests of the Catholic Church promote this stuff with their weaponized ambiguity.
Satan works in a devious manner. Stand strong.
Jerry, you are not alone in this battle.
Okay. I actually do see the connection, but I make a distinction between the radical [political] homosexual agenda and [gay] people just minding their own business and living their lives without being harassed.
Also, you’ve said at least twice, once in this post and once in a recent podcast comment (I’m so sorry I can’t find it right now) that people not actively and vigorously opposed to homosexuality aren’t or can’t be or shouldn’t be conservatives. I maintain that there’s plenty more to conservatism than that.
That is certainly true; however, there seem to be other factors that affect one’s perception of maleness of femaleness, including hormone balances and perhaps brain structure. This seems to be the case for a very small % of people, smaller than the % of people who are currently being encouraged to ‘transition.’
Lynn Conway is an eminent electrical engineer, a pioneer of the VLSI which revolutionized chip design. She was born as a boy and surely is chromosomally male. Read about her story here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119242&page=1
I’d rather she ‘transitioned’ than that she would have committed suicide, or suffered lifelong crippling depression.
But that doesn’t mean there is any excuse for the encouragement of teenagers to ‘transition’ at a very young age, or for the suppression of speech on this matter.
From what I’ve heard, surgical and chemical mutilation does not change the suicide rate of people with gender dysphoria. My main source for this is Douglas Murray, in his recent book The Madness of Crowds.
Also, the number of people with gender dysphoria is tiny, something around 1-2% of those now claiming to be trans. I don’t have time this morning to calculate this again with references (sorry).
Yes, someone commented on a recent podcast on Ricochet – can’t remember which one – that some parts of Europe have wised up and gotten away from treating the problem as “curable” via surgery, and put it back in the category of a form of mental illness that requires other approaches.
Hey! What was I? Chopped liver?
SSM may undermine this tradition in some ways, but I dont think SSM undermines that tradition so much as it undermines the institution of civil marriage (yes, no fault divorce too). The language we use in that context is an extension of the biological realities of procreative sex and unions. If we remove the fundamental of procreative unions then we also remove the justification for imposing obligations and giving protections which don’t make much sense otherwise.
So why dont I argue about it anymore? Because it’s done, and there’s no undoing it now.
I predict that some future society will reintroduce the original concept in reaction to the biological and sociological realities that are inevitable. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Sacramental marriage can and does exist quite nicely whether or not there is any such thing as civil marriage. It goes the other direction too, but what does civil marriage mean now? If it means what Justice Kennedy said about dignity and acceptance then that is a pretty thin institution not long for the world. You don’t need the piece of paper for that, and you won’t automatically get it even if you do have the paper.
Could you provide a link to the data on the prevalence of homosexuality in Caesar’s army?
This is the sort of fact-free argument that we see all of the time. It’s generally a tautology. Without evidence, people believe that homosexuals are “born that way.” Therefore, they think that the prevalence of homosexuality must be unchanging. The facts are the opposite.
Gary, I did analyze the data on the prevalence of homosexuality, back in October 2019 (here). It was a tricky calculation, as the data sources are limited, and the way that the data is reported conceal the large increase in prevalence among the young in America. I called my post “The Hockey Stick,” and that’s what the graph looks like.
There is a caveat. The data that I had was from Gallup and from a pro-homosexuality center at UCLA called the Williams Institute. It only reported total LGBT self-identification, without breaking out the Ls, Gs, Bs and Ts separately.
Based on my calculation, total LGBT identification was less than 3% of people over 50, 3.7% for people 35-49, 6.5% for people 25-34, and 11.1% for people 18-24. It was quite alarming.
The Gallup data was similar, but less detailed. As of 2017, the LGBT prevalence among Generation X (1965-79) was 3.5%, while it was 8.2% for Millenials (1980-1999). It was even lower for older groups. For Millennials, it had increased from 5.8% in 2012 to 8.2% in 2017. The Millennials were aged 18-37 at the time.
My calculation showed that the increase was even higher among the very young.
So, as a factual matter, it appears that you are quite incorrect about this.
Yes, you can “catch it,” as demonstrated both by: (1) my prior posts showing that it is not a genetic (“born that way”) thing, and (2) my “Hockey Stick” post (linked in prior comment) demonstrating a large increase among the young.
It is not hysteria, Gary. We are seeing people “cancelled” for “homophobia” all of the time. We are seeing further breakdown of family, and further increases in illegitimacy, with disastrous social consequences. We are seeing persecution of Christian businesses, and calls from prominent politicians to cancel the tax-exempt status of churches that adhere to traditional Christian teaching (e.g. Beto, here).
Moreover, I think that the breakdown of traditional values is interconnected. I explained this in the OP, with my Stalingrad metaphor.
We engaged in another unwise, grand social experiment, pressed forward with lies, slander, and vilification. This was done previously with feminism and the breakdown of traditional heterosexual morality regarding premarital and extramarital sex. It has been a long and concerted assault on the family.
It is a big deal, in my estimation.
Have you looked at the numbers on the decline of marriage?
Yes, we can live apart in a time of persecution. I’d rather avoid that. Our society is much better off if we promote the best family arrangement. As I quoted in the OP, this has been the consistent position of the Republican Party for decades.
Your comment sounds defeatist (if you are on the traditional side) or dismissive (if you are not).
I’m not dismissive, but we did suffer a defeat with Obergefell. I don’t see it ever disentangling.
Civil marriage was never about religion or morality for me. It was about protecting the interests of society in family formation by imposing obligations on and giving protections to the participants.
Sacramental marriage is all about religion and morality.
I don’t get the sense that many people think there’s much of a distinction and sometimes they mix the two in these kinds of arguments. I was trying to articulate the distinction.
A conservative rule of thumb: the longer the institution has been in place, the fewer historical encroachments on and exceptions to the institution that have been made, the more widespread the institution across western civilization, the more uniform the institution throughout western civilization, the more people who are directly impacted by the institution, and the more priority and reverence our culture gives to the institution, the more cautious we should be about making changes to that institution.
I can’t think of any institution in western culture that is as widespread, as uniform, as significant, as respected, and as ancient as the family — that is, as the husband and wife and children.
There was a way to give all of the legal status and protection to same-sex couples that married couples enjoyed, and that was robust civil unions. But the left opposed that, because what the left really wants is not rights. The left doesn’t want tolerance, nor acceptance. The left wants embrace, celebration, and a confession of belief on the part of everyone that things that are not the same are the same — or, on occasion, vice versa. The left wants the right of conscience to be subjugated to the majority will. Because, as we’ve all seen, the left wants every kind of diversity except a diversity of thought.
I read A Wrinkle in Time when I was a kid, and I barely remember it, but it seems to me that the evil in that story was some kind of force for universal group-think. That’s the left.
There’s also the myth that LGBT??? is a unified group. That’s obviously not the case. The attempt by some Ts for XY to compete with XX in women’s sports has been opposed by lesbians such as Martina Navratilova. Ts will make all bathrooms coed which is dangerous to women. Conservative arguments have been dismissed as conspiracy thinking but have been proven correct about the danger this poses.
One of my numerous well-fed pet peeves is the inclusion of the trans movement with the homosexual movement in the ubiquitous acronym. I’m perfectly comfortable with people having abnormal sexual desires. I’m completely unwilling to profess belief in the nonsensical and wildly unscientific view that one’s sex is a choice, as opposed to a biologically determined reality. So LGB is a fine acronym, though redundant since they all describe homosexuality. But trans is nonsense.
At this point Stalingrad is the wrong analogy. More accurate would be those Japanese soldiers who were still hiding out on Pacific islands in 1947.
Charlotte, there probs is more to Conservatism than that [but] by and large the people harassing gays in the West are Conservatives.
I think the part that you, perhaps, missed (pro tem, anyway) is the effect that having gay and lesbian friends and family members has had on those of us who know them very, very well. And love them.
Some of us are old enough to remember when being gay really was something that was kept secret. Not merely “private,” in the sense that all of us here would probably just as soon most human sexuality was kept private, but actually secret—as in “if someone knew about this, bad things would happen.”
I feel as if I’ve gotten a tiny taste of this experience by having become so much more conservative. In theory, at least, I’ve got a choice about whether to lean right or left; in reality, I don’t. My choices are to pipe up and push back…or keep my mouth shut and thus at least appear to agree with the lefties I’m surrounded by. To be one of them, in fact.
And yes, there are those in my intimate circle who consider me actually, actively and selfishly immoral.
Having said that, I have also come to realize that there is no principle underlying progressivism. The left has proven willing to betray women, betray racial and religious minorities, betray lesbians and gay men. I have no doubt whatever that they’d throw Muslims under the bus if it suited their purpose…though it is entirely possible that they will find themselves under the bus, tossed there by the Islamists who no longer have use for victimology.
LGBT identification is not the same thing as homosexual desires and actions – it’s just a proxy for the healthy expression of these. That’s what’s changed, imho.
I have been in and around the “acceptance” of homosexuality for 50+ years. So, for starters, I would challenge the fact that this has been some ski-jump like slippery slope over the last generation or so.
Granny,
I think you are getting to the heart of the problem. Those that have no use for morality will use any kind of person for their own ends and then throw them to the dogs. It is very instructive to remember that a whole section of Hitler’s brownshirt street fighters were gay. Hitler was fine with this until he was elected and then declared his state of emergency which removed all rights from the German people and stopped all future elections.
He then had all of the nazi gays murdered in what came to be called The Night of the Long Knives. I suspect there is a terrible lesson to be learned from this. Of course, as we are being taught by the woke to ignore all history that isn’t to our liking, I’m not sure we are capable of learning any lessons anymore.
Regards,
Jim
Cato ended every utterance with “Carthage must be defeated (delended)”
This is a sincere question, asked at the risk of sounding hopelessly uninformed. But, regarding the moral objections to homosexuality, are these based in belief that sex should be procreative, and therefore that any sex act (hetero as well as homosexual) that is not procreative is equally immoral?