The Law on Homophobia: a threat to freedom of speech
(By Roberto de Mattei Translation via Rorate’s Italian contributor Francesca Romana:) 10/08/2013 “I’m all for freedom of speech…….as long as they keep their mouths shut!” In the countries where “…More
(By Roberto de Mattei Translation via Rorate’s Italian contributor Francesca Romana:)
10/08/2013
“I’m all for freedom of speech…….as long as they keep their mouths shut!”
In the countries where “pseudo homosexual marriage” has been enforced, it was generally preceded by two laws which accompany it: the recognition of the rights of gay couples and the introduction of the crime of “homophobia.” Even among Catholics there is no lack of those who delude themselves [into thinking], that in granting these laws, it is possible to placate excessive demands and avoid arriving at the “greater evil” the so-called “gay marriage.” In reality, when the lesser evil is granted, everything else is essentially granted, since in the case of the law against homophobia, between it and pseudo-gay-marriage, it is not easy to establish which is the greater evil.
Will the law against homophobia presented for the first time in 1999 by the government of D’Alema, and then presented again without success under the …More
10/08/2013
“I’m all for freedom of speech…….as long as they keep their mouths shut!”
In the countries where “pseudo homosexual marriage” has been enforced, it was generally preceded by two laws which accompany it: the recognition of the rights of gay couples and the introduction of the crime of “homophobia.” Even among Catholics there is no lack of those who delude themselves [into thinking], that in granting these laws, it is possible to placate excessive demands and avoid arriving at the “greater evil” the so-called “gay marriage.” In reality, when the lesser evil is granted, everything else is essentially granted, since in the case of the law against homophobia, between it and pseudo-gay-marriage, it is not easy to establish which is the greater evil.
Will the law against homophobia presented for the first time in 1999 by the government of D’Alema, and then presented again without success under the …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Prof. Leonard Wessell
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
This theme needs discussion. I cannot do it at the moment. I live in Germany and all the above is coming to be, particularly located in a fed. "land" controlled by the Green Party. It is, however, also in California. I will focus here on a few key elements. 1. The goal is pansexualism, i.e., the postive acceptance of any form of sexual activity as normatively acceptable, viz., to be affirmed as …More
This theme needs discussion. I cannot do it at the moment. I live in Germany and all the above is coming to be, particularly located in a fed. "land" controlled by the Green Party. It is, however, also in California. I will focus here on a few key elements. 1. The goal is pansexualism, i.e., the postive acceptance of any form of sexual activity as normatively acceptable, viz., to be affirmed as postive value, indeed, as a "human right". 2. Homosexuality, focued as the "human right" (to be) to marry, is the political wedge currently being used. (This means that the argument about homosexual marriage is the outer shell of a much deeper and profound depth core not disscussed.) 3. In part this depth core is: goal = equality and equality = no difference in value.
IV. I degress a bit. Let us say that young man A, seeking marriage, chooses fascinating female "Wow" over fat and ugly female "Ugh". Both women have the formal right to seek to win the young man A, but they are not equal re, let us say, the physical interests of young men. This means that there is a material INequality. It is precisely this inequality in its materiality that is to be done away with as a societal value. In other words, a young man might well tolerate that fat "Ugh" seeking to win him for marriage, but he will evaluate differently the two women in a material sense. Well, our demand for material equality must lead us to hold that "variety" or "multisexuality" or "fat is beutiful" or whatever jargon necessary is THE thing politically to realize as an imperative. In other words, said material equality, in its highest sense, is an offense against "a woman's equal right to have a husband". So, we (and the "we" here means the few controling the gov. and bureacracy) will RE-educate the male citizenry so as to bring about preferential indifference to physical inequality re the marrying process. >>> Now, substitute "homosexuality" focused on "homo-marriage" and one can begin to understand what is at stake. And what is at stake? End of digression.
5. I repeat, the goal is pansexualism. This goal demands not the mere tolerance of sexual deviation, rather the postive acceptance of it. Otherwise there is no pansexualism, just sexism tolearant of the deviants. And since the "sexist" value that marriage is between a man and a woman, homosexuals are excluded. If homosexual marriage is be normatively included, an evaluative indifference to various and varying sexual activity must be inculcated into the very value structure of all the citizens. Each and every one. Well,post-puberty people are really hard to change. So, the gov. in the name of "human right" of (material) equality, must enter into the educational process and alter the development of young people's fprocess of identity (young = 3 years +) formation. The specific goal is to rupture fully any connection between physically or biologically based sexual identity from psychological sexual identity. A total break is necessary. This is one reason pre-school or kindergarten on children are to be sexualized, encouraged to "play" with each other (young boys have sodomy with young boys, such as it works). I cannot get into the details here. But the fight going on in Germany is today precisely against the education take over by advocates of pansexualism (Note the term "pansexualism" is mine. "Equality" of some equivalent is used politically.)
I hope this overly long comment, though terribly short in content and discussion makes it clear what is at stake.
IV. I degress a bit. Let us say that young man A, seeking marriage, chooses fascinating female "Wow" over fat and ugly female "Ugh". Both women have the formal right to seek to win the young man A, but they are not equal re, let us say, the physical interests of young men. This means that there is a material INequality. It is precisely this inequality in its materiality that is to be done away with as a societal value. In other words, a young man might well tolerate that fat "Ugh" seeking to win him for marriage, but he will evaluate differently the two women in a material sense. Well, our demand for material equality must lead us to hold that "variety" or "multisexuality" or "fat is beutiful" or whatever jargon necessary is THE thing politically to realize as an imperative. In other words, said material equality, in its highest sense, is an offense against "a woman's equal right to have a husband". So, we (and the "we" here means the few controling the gov. and bureacracy) will RE-educate the male citizenry so as to bring about preferential indifference to physical inequality re the marrying process. >>> Now, substitute "homosexuality" focused on "homo-marriage" and one can begin to understand what is at stake. And what is at stake? End of digression.
5. I repeat, the goal is pansexualism. This goal demands not the mere tolerance of sexual deviation, rather the postive acceptance of it. Otherwise there is no pansexualism, just sexism tolearant of the deviants. And since the "sexist" value that marriage is between a man and a woman, homosexuals are excluded. If homosexual marriage is be normatively included, an evaluative indifference to various and varying sexual activity must be inculcated into the very value structure of all the citizens. Each and every one. Well,post-puberty people are really hard to change. So, the gov. in the name of "human right" of (material) equality, must enter into the educational process and alter the development of young people's fprocess of identity (young = 3 years +) formation. The specific goal is to rupture fully any connection between physically or biologically based sexual identity from psychological sexual identity. A total break is necessary. This is one reason pre-school or kindergarten on children are to be sexualized, encouraged to "play" with each other (young boys have sodomy with young boys, such as it works). I cannot get into the details here. But the fight going on in Germany is today precisely against the education take over by advocates of pansexualism (Note the term "pansexualism" is mine. "Equality" of some equivalent is used politically.)
I hope this overly long comment, though terribly short in content and discussion makes it clear what is at stake.