Timothy Birdnow

One of the things that annoys me about liberals is their dishonesty, and their unreasoning belief system. Liberals believe what they believe and they expect the rest of us to accept it, even though ours is a belief system based on ancient and venerable traditions (such as Judeo-Christian teaching and Western Civilization values) as well as observation and reason. They demand the world change to accept whatever notion comes into their noggins as uncritically as any devotee of some cult religion.

{link=http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2016/12/in-bizarre-lifesite-piece-labarbera.html]Here is a case in point. I stumbled on this blogpost criticizing my article on Rex Tillerson's opening the Boy Scouts to homosexuals a while back and thought it would make a good object lesson in the horrible emotional spasm that passes for liberal thinking.

Here is the author's complaint:

"Of course normal, sane people know that gay people are just as moral (or immoral in some cases) as everyone else. There is no correlation of integrity or morality to sexual orientation. Furthermore, there are many religious sects that are not judgmental based upon one's sexuality. This includes most liturgical protestants and Jews."

End excerpt.

Of course this writer fails to provide examples, especially historical examples. There ARE certain Protestant sects and Jews who hold a laissez Fairez view on homosexuality, but they are indeed a new phenomenon, having arrived at this conclusion only within the last generation and most within the last 15 years. A fad is hardly evidentiary proof of the validity of ones viewpoint. People used to believe in eugenics, too. Many were decent people deceived by a lie (like Winston Churchill or Charles Lindbergh.) Nobody accepts it anymore, and for good reason.

But what of the first assertion? His claim "gay people are just as moral as everyone else"?

Herein lies typical sloppy liberal thinking, where our left wing friends have purposely muddled the meaning of words and concepts.

One of the things the left has labored to accomplish is to make the words MORAL and ETHICAL interchangeable when they are not. There is a loose correlation between the two, but morality is, unlike ethics, not a human construct but rather is based on deep seated beliefs, generally bequeathed to us from religion and Natural Law. Ethics are situational and established by human mental processes based on certain established conventions, often based on current thinking. It is fundamentally Rousseauian in that it assumes the ultimate primacy of the collective will. Morality, on the other hand, says that morals are transcendent over agency. the nub of it is that morality comes from "Nature and Nature's God" while ethics come from human consent.

The author also confuses personal morality with moral principles. Gluttony is immoral as a principle even though individual overweight people can be personally very moral in most ways. There were individual Germans who supported the Nazi Party who were moral in their personal lives, too, but failed to realize the immorality of their cause. I would make this same case for many a Bernie Sanders voter as well; they think they are doing good and as a matter of ethics may well be, but they served in an immoral campaign because what Sanders advocated - using force of arms to steal from some to give to others - is inherently immoral.

None of these distinctions matter to liberals, who want what they want and instead of simply claiming the mantle of rebels they seek to make it the norm and make those who say it isn't so the rebels.

The reality is there are gay people who live reasonably moral lives, but they are ultimately in the grip of an immoral desire. It happens all the time. We have good people who have affairs on their spouses (sometimes quite apparently justifiable), we have overweight people (and I'm one) who live decent lives but eat too much, we have people with drug or alcohol problems. There are good people who tipple the bottle a wee bit too much. There are people who are promiscuous to the point of damaging their own bodies, or much worse, bearing children they are not suited to raise. The list goes on and on.

And society has traditionally taken steps to discourage such behavior.

Now let's go back to the blogpost. Naturally, the writer can't just argue his case (because he will lose) but instead must hurl insults:

"Things take an even stranger turn when the piece quotes Timothy Birdnow. Birdnow is a Tea Partier and St. Louis property manager who is, well … off — to put it politely. His collection of pieces at the ineptly named American Thinker is slightly nuttier than the spew from WND. Quoting LaBarbera quoting Birdnow (I cannot believe that I am actually doing this):

"How is opening an organization that involves young boys in close proximity to open homosexuals in the former's best interest? Will Tillerson next seek to recruit hookers for them? These are boys in their early teenage years, after all, and as such, one must question their self-identification as homosexual. If they do fall into that category, the purpose of an organization like the Boy Scouts is to lead boys away from such things."

Did this guy just equate gay boys with prostitutes? I think he did. Exactly why one would question a teen's sexual orientation is not explained and sexual orientation is not a "category.” And precisely how the Boy Scouts, or anyone else for that matter, would essentially change a boy's sexual orientation calls into question this five-watt bulb's education (in addition to his mental hygiene)."

End excerpt.

Notice the sneer in the author's voice when he says I am a "property manager" as though that somehow invalidates what I am saying. I am writing about the Boy Scouts and have real life experience; I am not an ivory-tower academic theorizing here. If anything, my real world experience (and I was a Boy Scout myself) is a plus in all of this, but liberals hate commoners, so I am somehow illegitimate in writing about this issue (or any, even though I am probably as well educated as this dope.) Oh, and I have never been a part of the Tea Party in an active sense. It's a pejorative to the left, though, so this guy will use it.

If this writer cannot understand the prostitute analogy he shows he is not a very good thinker; the point is you are opening the door to sexual temptation. He apparently does not understand that IT IS THE GAY KID I AM SAYING IS BEING GIVEN THE PROSITUTE. I could equally have said that it is as though boy and girl scouts were being housed together unsupervised in a tent, but it would have had the same effect with this writer. He doesn't understand because he chooses not to understand and he needs something to attack. Reason alone will not suffice for him.

In point of fact this writer fails utterly to understand the most basic aspects of human life; Why would one question a boy's sexual orientation, he asks? The old BSA policy was precisely that; it did not question sexuality, but rather said OPENLY GAY SCOUTS could not be members because it violated the Scout's Oath by failing to be "morally straight". The BSA (as I explained in my article) maintained a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which when enacted in the military was quite acceptable at first then became a cause for protestation. See, the Left demands not just tolerance, not even just acceptance, but actual celebration of whatever they choose to bless. It wasn't enough for a gay boy to keep it to himself while in the Scouts - he has a right to proclaim it to the rooftops and demand the Scouts change for him.

Nobody is saying the Boy Scouts are going to change the sexuality of a kid. If THIS two watt bulb actually had the power to think he would know what I was saying. But he chooses not to think because he can't afford it. If he starts thinking his illusions will be laid bare.

The reality is preteen children do not have their sexual preferences established solidly and the course that may lead them to homosexuality should be discouraged.

No doubt this fellow believes it is hardwired, and he believes it with absolutely no evidence. None. Logic can clearly dispel this "born that way" idea; if people are born that way they would, thanks to the limited breeding, have bred a "gay gene" out of the gene pool long ago. The argument is that a gay gene offers some survival trait and is probably coded epigenetically, meaning it is in many people but unexpressed. Perhaps, but nobody has found any evidence, and, frankly, given the horrible emotional suffering and physical problems that homosexuality gifts the individual, there is no good reason why this unexpressed gene would ever resurface. The purpose of sex, after all, is procreation - pleasure is just the candy offered by nature to do something that might cost you dearly.

Oh, and if homosexuality is inbred then one must ask why people are bisexual. Genetically determined characteristics are rarely two way; you either have brown eyes or blue, but not one of each.

None of this is intended to belittle gay people or to say their are moral slime. Again, I go back to my analogy of overweight people; liberals are quick to promote all manner of health laws designed to reduce obesity, and consider it a medical problem. Yet homosexuality - which is fraught with medically detrimental issues - is untouchable, a sacred cow.

Does that mean we should forcibly try to cure them? No, any more than we should make people lose weight whether they want to or not. But it means we should subtly discourage homosexual activity, especially among the young (and we should discourage ALL sexual activity among the young, since they are not emotionally and physically mature enough to deal with it.) Modern liberals treat being gay as if it were a badge of honor. It's not; it is a surrender to the lusts and passions of our baser nature. It doesn't mean we punish gay people, but do we have to celebrate their actions? They may be moral in their daily lives, but what they are doing as sexual beings is not.

And a great many of them are not moral in their daily lives, too. Studies on homosexuals show a far, far greater activity level than among straight people, with the subsequent health issues involved. And those issues (std's, incontinence, amoebas and other parasitic infections) are not just limited to their bodies. Homosexuals are far more likely to commit suicide than straights, and alcoholism and depression are much higher. The cause of these psychological issues is debatable; the liberals say it is solely from societal pressure, but those who see this as a moral issue argue it is the result of a guilty conscience, one that comes from a knowledge that one is violating a basic universal law of some sort. Whatever; it doesn't change that it happens. And if the "society causes it" crowd is wrong? How much terrible suffering will there be that was unnecessary.

Look, even if homosexuality is inborn, there are all manner of sexual desires that go unfulfilled - and should. Anyone who is married knows the temptations that may not be indulged. It used to be young people knew those temptations as well, and would forego them to make their marriages special. And then there are the really abnormal fetishes; bestiality, necrophilia, Sadism, etc. There are plenty of moral people who struggle with these issues, and who overcome them because they know they are immoral. In point of fact, the Christian would argue that this is the whole purpose of life, to overcome one's sinful nature. The Progressive and the liberal see the purpose of life as being the mere enjoyment of pleasures, and they see those who tell them something is wrong as evil. So they continue to pick the lock on sanity, ever widening the circle of acceptable behavior. Now there are movements to legitimize pedophilia, for example. Why not? Who are WE to judge!

None of this penetrates the armor that the author of this blogpost - and no doubt a good many progressives - has cloaked himself within. He wants what he wants, and the rest of the world can go to hell! He can hide from Natural Law and from God by simply denying the existence of either. (And most societies on this Earth have called homosexuality immoral; read Plato, for example, who was no Christian and came from the only place the gay lobby can ever point to as accepting of homosexual relations.) But in the end he imposes his own will to determine what is moral in his own sense. That is the very definition of a tyrant.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2168 words, total size 13 kb.