First, when I saw the RT news item announcing that “Moscow bans gay pride for century ahead
” I went “no way!” and had the giggles thinking of how the doubleplusgoodthinking
Lefties in the West would cry in outrage if such a decision had really been taken. Then I saw an outraged statement by Human Rights First
confirming that the folks on Moscow had really taken such a decision. Now some of you might wonder what a self-proclaimed “Left Libertarian” like myself might think of all that. Let me tell you:
I am totally DELIGHTED by this decision!
Now before the inevitable verbal stoning beings, let me explains my reasons, okay? Then you can hate me for being the bigot that I am…
Before I begin making my case, I would like address two issues: one semantic and one dialectical one. First, I refuse to use the word “gay” on principle as it should not be applied to homosexuals because it is a “value-loaded” use of an otherwise perfectly legitimate word designed to shape any discussion of the topic. Furthermore, there is nothing gay about gays, any psychologist or addiction specialists will confirm that to you (if only in a private conversation). Frankly, I always thought that “gays” should really be called “sads”, but that would be loaded too. So I will thus use “homosexual” – an accurate and value-neutral descriptor. Second, I will not use any religious arguments in discussing this topic for a very simple reason: most religions already have a clear stance on homosexuality which should be normative for the followers of these religions but which are also irrelevant for everybody else. Simply put – to discuss the topic of homosexuality to religious folks is preaching to the choir. So there shall be no mention of “sin” or “fallen human nature” in my argument below. Now let us turn to the issue itself.
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975. Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and it was finally declassified by the World Health Organization in 1990.
It is interesting to get some background on how this decision was taken. I have found the following details in the article of Philip Hickey Behaviorism and Mental Health
. Here is what the author writes (stress added):
Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974. What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard.
Got that? Yup, this was a 100% political decision which had no scientific basis whatsoever. From a scientific point of view, it was as nonsensical as declaring – simply by vote – that cancer or schizophrenia are not more diseases but are “normal”. Wikipedia deals with this problem in a single, and yet very telling, sentence:
|“A normal and positive variation”
While some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
Right. Brilliant. So “same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behavior are normal and positive variations of human sexuality”. And yet pedophilia is still considered a psychiatric disorder (source
). What about incest? Well, guess what? Psychiatry puts incest next to paraphilia, i.e. pathologic sexual activities which is a group name for every sexual activity that is considered unnatural in psychology and sexology. Apart from incest, paraphilia also includes paedophilia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, necrophilia, nymphomania… (source
And how does one distinguish between “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” and paraphilia
? Since up until 1974 homosexuality was considered a paraphilia, why were no arguments presented to remove it from this category?
This is all utter nonsense, of course. There are only three possible solutions to this conundrum:
a) declare that only one specific form of sexuality is “normal”
b) declare that any form of sexuality is “normal”
c) arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for it.
Most developed countries have opted for the third option, making a completely arbitrary, illogical and absurd list of “normal” and “not pathological” sexual behaviors. By the way, the same dumb approach was used in dealing with sexual practices between consenting adults (the so-called “sodomy laws
“) or the codification of a legal age of sexual consent
. Even a cursory look at these laws clearly shows that they are based on nothing except political expediency.
And what does “normal” really mean? It can mean one of two things: a) consistent with some average or minimum or b) within expected norms, for example, of society.
In the first case, I would gladly admit that homosexuality is “normal” simply because of its prevalence. But I would immediately add that so are many, if not all, of the forms of paraphilia. And I would also agree that homosexuality has become “normal” in the 2nd meaning of the word simply because it is socially acceptable to most developed societies, in particular in the post-Christian ‘West’. So to speak of the normalcy of homosexuality is absolutely nonsensical.
Furthermore, is there anything in the above which suggest that the decision of the City of Moscow to ban so-called “gay pride” parades is morally, ethically or even logically wrong?! Is it not the right of any society to establish its own social norms?
|“Gay Pride” in Paris
Furthermore, compare the situation of Russian homosexuals with the situation of Western pedophiles who are the victims of a systematic campaign of vicious persecutions. Oh, I am not
saying that it is wrong to persecute pedophiles, I am only saying that I don’t see any logical reason to viciously prosecute the adepts of one form of paraphilia while allowing the adepts of another form of paraphilia to engage in “pride parades”. And if Moscow has no right to ban “gay pride parades” then the West has an obligation to allow “pedophile pride parades” in its Berlin, New York or Rome. But no, the West gets away with its massive anti-pedophilia campaign while, in July of 2011, the European Court of Humans Rights condemned Russia
to pay 30,000 euros in compensation to gay activists over its decision to ban so-called pride marches. Talk about absolute hypocrisy!
I would like to add one more thing here. I find militant homosexuals particularly offensive and irritating. Frankly, to each his own. There are plenty of sexual psycho-pathologies out there and plenty of people engaging in them. I don’t force everybody to give a standing ovation to my own sexual preferences, and I don’t see any reason why somebody would demand from me that I approve and cheer on his/her sexual preferences. Keep your bedroom in your bedroom and leave the rest of us alone. But no, that is not good enough for what I call the “Homo Lobby”.
|“Gay Pride” in Paris
Homosexuals are the only ones who, not content to be left alone, are demanding not only equal rights, but special protections. They have the nerve to demand that society treat them as some kind of oppressed minority, they want their “marriages” to be considered as equivalent to heterosexual ones, and they even want the right to form “single sex couples” and adopt children. Amazingly, the very same society which considers it to be a felony to possess photos of naked children on your computer finds its perfectly acceptable to give away its children to homosexual “couples”!
I am delighted that Moscow is pushing back against the “Homo Lobby” and its cultural fascism which considers that “live and let live” only applies to individuals and not to nations. I say let the Western homosexuals do whatever the hell they want in their own countries – that is the West’s problem – but don’t let them engage in cultural imperialism and demand that the rest of the planet submit to their completely subjective and illogical system of double-standards.
I have said above that I will not make use of any religious arguments to make my case in defense of the Moscow City Council. Since I have made my case on this topic, I will now add a few general comment about homosexuality, religion and society.
First, this entire topic is yet another illustration of Dostoevsky’s truism that “if there is no God everything is permitted”. The very concepts of “right” and “wrong” must, by logical necessity, either be anchored on some absolute (such as God) or become absolutely arbitrary and subjective. Secularists can bawl in impotent rage and frustration but there is no logical argument which can be made against this fundamental truth. In other words, no secular society will ever be able to logically distinguish between right or wrong (other than by convention), much less so in the case of sexuality.
Second, traditional Christianity affirms that since the Fall man has lost his original, true, nature and that his current fallen nature is the cause of his suffering. The fact that some percentage of any given population is affected by any one type of psychopathology is therefore something Christians fully expect from all humans. To the homosexual argument “I was born that way” a Christian simply replies “brother, we were all born dysfunctional in some way” and “what we now must do is reclaim our real nature and our full potential” (conversely, the word “sin” really means “missing the target” or “failing to act according to one’s true potential).
Thus while Christianity never condemns a condition as such, neither does it consider any putatively “natural” condition as good or in any way “legitimate”. In fact, the very purpose of life is, according to traditional Christianity, to re-claim our *true* human nature by a process of theosis
(which I shall not describe here; those interested can read this
Third, the one and only reason why homosexuality is the only paraphialia which gets an official stamp of approval is that there is a strident, wealthy and well-organized “Homo Lobby” (well, a LGBT
lobby, really). This lobby was very effective in presenting the issue as one of “homophobia” and “hate” against one of tolerance and diversity. Of course, there will always be some insecure idiots out there who think that their manhood will be somehow enhanced if they beat up a homosexual, preferably in a group. But to present any rejection of the Homo Lobby’s dogmas
(because that is what they are!) as an expression of homophobia is, of course, a total misrepresentation of what is really happening. As far as I can tell, most people do not care at all about what adult and consenting homosexuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms. What bothers people is the extremely rude and strident “in your face” attitude adopted by what I call the “militant homosexuals”. Frankly, if they did not dress like clowns (or birds! see photos) and if they refrained from organizing “gay pride” parades they would gain far more acceptance from most heterosexuals. My 2cts.
Now let the stoning begin :-)
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire