Dear T-,
A truce has been called between religious folks and gays. Or at least that's what we're being told. The Fairness for All Act, legislation intended to give rights to both Christian conservatives and transgenders, has been put before the House. For the latter, it proposes that "sexual orientation" be added to the Civil Rights Act, making it hard to discriminate against anyone on a basis of their sexual identity. It gives sweeping protections in housing, business, banking, and "pubic accommodations." On the other hand it grants protections to anyone in a business with less than 15 employees, and exemptions to anyone in a so-called "faith-based" organization. Deseret News says it resulted from a dialogue between LGBTQ+ groups and representatives from the Seventh Day Adventists, the Mormons, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and other such suit-and-tie respectables.
But those of us who've escaped the wasteland-in-training known as Seattle know that the LGBTQ+ community is just that -- a community, like Christendom, or your neighborhood. Not a uniform band of orthodox goosesteppers, but a volatile cocktail of competing doctrinaires: a hodge-podge of neatniks and weirdos, Catholics and atheists, kind people and jackasses, bullies and victims. The whole gamut of men, both rotten and trustworthy. I've spent time with lots of these people both as a coke-head and a straight-laced Christian, and I can attest that the majority are decent people. Many of them sexually looser than us, to be sure, but otherwise decent.
But alongside this decent majority stand the activist jackasses. These are the people to whom peaceful coexistence isn't enough. Who need you to agree with everything they do, and to do it smiling -- to even support them while they do it. If there's a dress code at work, they show up wearing drag to annoy you -- and threaten to sue if anyone complains. They march in parades wearing bondage gear in front of children. If you praise a man for being manly you'll end up in HR. If your three-year-old wears a dress one day, they push you to cut off his gonads. They push for Elsa to be a lesbian, and for Bert and Ernie to be gay lovers. They came up with a new pronoun yesterday, and if you don't use it perfectly today they'll sue you. They consider Drag Queen Story Hour the height of civilization, and berate anyone who won't have sex with a transgender (a thing known, to even the radical feminists, as rape culture).
We heard these people wanted equality, but what they really want is to rule us. No other group in American history has ever had such privilege, or carte blanche in general*. Four years after the Supreme Court ruled for gay marriage, we have grown men showering in the little girls' locker rooms; bakers going bankrupt for politely following their convictions; children in Canada being taken away when their parents won't transition them; and the willful transmission of AIDS, a 100% life-wrecker, being lowered to a misdemeanor in California. We were told, when gay marriage became legal, that its opponents were religious fanatics, and slippery-slopers. Yet here we are, and the bottom of the slope is getting closer. We, the people who are taxed at the point of a gun-barrel, are already paying for our own rapists to get sex-changes in prison.
Idaho is a great state for many reasons, but primarily, in my opinion, because we don't have all these problems -- at least not yet. The Fairness for All Act, on the federal level, and the Add the Words Bill on the local, are both attempts to ruin this paradise. They're giving us the same old snake-oil sales-pitch. They say that upstanding people and gay radicals can live in peace together. That this is the final deal, and not just one more step to a worse one. That the First Amendment can protect you -- unless you work for a successful business. That the main people it protects are the decent majority of gays -- and not the toxic, backward Sodomite minority. It will do exactly the opposite. The gays who were living peacefully will continue to live peacefully. The people who blatantly and purposely offend the most basic tenets of good taste, good will, and natural rights, will become feared -- and get rich pillaging the best of us**.
Beside this obvious con-job, the Fairness for All Act is a misnomer. It gives rights to only some, and it gives them in the worst way possible. It claims to protect both gays and the religious. But what does this imply? That only religious people deserve sanctuary from the Gay Mafia; that no good reason, founded in common sense and natural right, exists to oppose Sodom and Gomorrah; and that any wack-job in a cult has more rights than a well-reasoned man with his own personal objection. In short it suggests that there can be no reasonable objection. You say "Xemu commands it" and you're protected. You say "nature says it," or "studies say it," or "statistics say it" or, most importantly, "experience says it," and the successful business you built for yourself is flushed down the drain -- simply because you gave a reason, and not a loophole. But no people who rest their freedoms on "I have a religious exemption" deserve freedom. Either your religion is demonstrably right on practical matters, or you and your God are both frauds.
My last objection to the Fairness for All Act, at least here, is a logical one. This act, as The Washington Post notes, wasn't introduced by the Gay Mafia, but by Rep. Chris Stewart, another Republican invertebrate from Utah. His ostensible aim was that "all of God’s children, regardless of sexual orientation or religion, deserve dignity, respect, and the right to pursue happiness. This legislation allows us to settle the legal questions and get back to the business of loving our neighbors." This is what he says to drag queens who'd take your children away and pump them full of hormone blockers. I wonder what he'd say to the adherents of Moloch, or Ba'al? -- also technically "God's children," to wit, alongside rapists, murderers, child molesters, kidnappers, cartel kingpins, robbers, Nazis, terrorists, and jaywalkers. Don't they deserve dignity and respect? The right to pursue happiness?
I have an alternate theory. Maybe law exists to protect a certain kind of person -- and if you cater to the wrong kind of person, or pretend to cater to all people, you lose your liberty, your family, your property, and very possibly your life. And if you think you can live in peace with everyone, maybe you deserve it.
Your father,
-J
*How did this ugly, vicious, backward minority of a minority come to power? Simply put, by the doctrine that every soul is equal, and that suffering is a reason for uplifting -- an abominable creed, worse than the gay mafia itself. There are people to uplift and others to ground into the dust, and a good man, a vibrant man, a lust-for-life champion worth worshiping, has fun doing both. He's just as good at killing as he is at loving. To him, wiping out an enemy and snuggling a baby are two sides of the same coin -- and they are. The latter is the reason, in most cases, that we do the former.
**Let me be honest here. Isn't it because of these loudmouths, perverts, and suers-of-grannies that the average gay person, the nose-to-the-grindstone, behind-only-closed-doors blend-in survives? That he looks almost normal? Isn't it because some intolerant, irrational, lust-for-lust AIDS-spreader picked up a megaphone, rallied all our stupidest women, and forced innocent people out of business?
My answer is yes -- and if the cost of making 5% (if even that) of the nation comfortable and successful is putting 60% of the nation under the rotten thumb of the worst sixtieth, I would roll it all back in an instant. The question isn't whether any gay people mean anything to me, because many of them do. I have personally benefited from their kindness, their hard work, and their standing up for me, and thus I would personally stand up for them, on a case-by-case basis. But what we're looking at, with "gay rights," is the world's worst overreaction. If I'm picking between a real-life subjection for hundreds of millions of people, in violation of free speech and parenthood and property rights and good taste, or a closet for maybe a few million, I'll simply pick the closet. I would do the same for all "Civil Rights" legislation***.
***Richard White notes in A Republic for Which It Stands that after the Civil War ended, blacks were freed and looking for jobs in the South. The problem was, their old owners were looking for slaves; and so the whites crafted a series of contracts which effectively put the new hires back into slavery. The blacks didn't have much choice. They were hungry and didn't own the means of production. They were promised "40 acres and a mule," but the North backed out because the South was on the edge of a riot.
The Northerners believed, like our modern libertarians, that if a man had contract rights it was enough to be free. But the truth was that if you can sign a contract for anything, you can't be -- something John Locke had said a long time before, but apparently American radicals had ignored. This goes to show that even property rights have limits. I take them nearly religiously, but a little sacrilege in anything is necessary if you don't want to end up a slave to it.
Besides these so-called "contract rights" our Southern blacks were subject to vagrancy laws. These statutes made it dangerous, in effect, to be poor; and if you didn't have a job, most of which you were barred from anyway; or your wages were too little to survive on and you ended up begging; or your boss decided you weren't working hard enough; or you quit for any "insufficient" reason, some honky would call the cops and you'd end up in jail -- a sentence which would inevitably include forced labor.
This is why we got our civil rights laws. A long history of serious racial oppression. A series of overreaching and ambiguous rights to counteract it. A history that makes living in the closet, or even being called a faggot, seem like a walk in the park. Gays don't deserve the same rights as blacks because being gay isn't anything close to being black. We ought to have drawn the line between blacks and every other "minority" earlier, but we didn't, and we're now witnessing the fruit of it -- the world's most shameless piggy-backing, by the world's most shameless piggy-backers.
Like these essays? Email me at letterssubscription@gmail.com and start your subscription today.
Support the Letters by sending a gift to paypal.me/supporttheletters or www.venmo.com/TheLetters
A truce has been called between religious folks and gays. Or at least that's what we're being told. The Fairness for All Act, legislation intended to give rights to both Christian conservatives and transgenders, has been put before the House. For the latter, it proposes that "sexual orientation" be added to the Civil Rights Act, making it hard to discriminate against anyone on a basis of their sexual identity. It gives sweeping protections in housing, business, banking, and "pubic accommodations." On the other hand it grants protections to anyone in a business with less than 15 employees, and exemptions to anyone in a so-called "faith-based" organization. Deseret News says it resulted from a dialogue between LGBTQ+ groups and representatives from the Seventh Day Adventists, the Mormons, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and other such suit-and-tie respectables.
But those of us who've escaped the wasteland-in-training known as Seattle know that the LGBTQ+ community is just that -- a community, like Christendom, or your neighborhood. Not a uniform band of orthodox goosesteppers, but a volatile cocktail of competing doctrinaires: a hodge-podge of neatniks and weirdos, Catholics and atheists, kind people and jackasses, bullies and victims. The whole gamut of men, both rotten and trustworthy. I've spent time with lots of these people both as a coke-head and a straight-laced Christian, and I can attest that the majority are decent people. Many of them sexually looser than us, to be sure, but otherwise decent.
 |
| A nice picture from Tel Aviv |
We heard these people wanted equality, but what they really want is to rule us. No other group in American history has ever had such privilege, or carte blanche in general*. Four years after the Supreme Court ruled for gay marriage, we have grown men showering in the little girls' locker rooms; bakers going bankrupt for politely following their convictions; children in Canada being taken away when their parents won't transition them; and the willful transmission of AIDS, a 100% life-wrecker, being lowered to a misdemeanor in California. We were told, when gay marriage became legal, that its opponents were religious fanatics, and slippery-slopers. Yet here we are, and the bottom of the slope is getting closer. We, the people who are taxed at the point of a gun-barrel, are already paying for our own rapists to get sex-changes in prison.
Idaho is a great state for many reasons, but primarily, in my opinion, because we don't have all these problems -- at least not yet. The Fairness for All Act, on the federal level, and the Add the Words Bill on the local, are both attempts to ruin this paradise. They're giving us the same old snake-oil sales-pitch. They say that upstanding people and gay radicals can live in peace together. That this is the final deal, and not just one more step to a worse one. That the First Amendment can protect you -- unless you work for a successful business. That the main people it protects are the decent majority of gays -- and not the toxic, backward Sodomite minority. It will do exactly the opposite. The gays who were living peacefully will continue to live peacefully. The people who blatantly and purposely offend the most basic tenets of good taste, good will, and natural rights, will become feared -- and get rich pillaging the best of us**.
Beside this obvious con-job, the Fairness for All Act is a misnomer. It gives rights to only some, and it gives them in the worst way possible. It claims to protect both gays and the religious. But what does this imply? That only religious people deserve sanctuary from the Gay Mafia; that no good reason, founded in common sense and natural right, exists to oppose Sodom and Gomorrah; and that any wack-job in a cult has more rights than a well-reasoned man with his own personal objection. In short it suggests that there can be no reasonable objection. You say "Xemu commands it" and you're protected. You say "nature says it," or "studies say it," or "statistics say it" or, most importantly, "experience says it," and the successful business you built for yourself is flushed down the drain -- simply because you gave a reason, and not a loophole. But no people who rest their freedoms on "I have a religious exemption" deserve freedom. Either your religion is demonstrably right on practical matters, or you and your God are both frauds.
My last objection to the Fairness for All Act, at least here, is a logical one. This act, as The Washington Post notes, wasn't introduced by the Gay Mafia, but by Rep. Chris Stewart, another Republican invertebrate from Utah. His ostensible aim was that "all of God’s children, regardless of sexual orientation or religion, deserve dignity, respect, and the right to pursue happiness. This legislation allows us to settle the legal questions and get back to the business of loving our neighbors." This is what he says to drag queens who'd take your children away and pump them full of hormone blockers. I wonder what he'd say to the adherents of Moloch, or Ba'al? -- also technically "God's children," to wit, alongside rapists, murderers, child molesters, kidnappers, cartel kingpins, robbers, Nazis, terrorists, and jaywalkers. Don't they deserve dignity and respect? The right to pursue happiness?
I have an alternate theory. Maybe law exists to protect a certain kind of person -- and if you cater to the wrong kind of person, or pretend to cater to all people, you lose your liberty, your family, your property, and very possibly your life. And if you think you can live in peace with everyone, maybe you deserve it.
Your father,
-J
*How did this ugly, vicious, backward minority of a minority come to power? Simply put, by the doctrine that every soul is equal, and that suffering is a reason for uplifting -- an abominable creed, worse than the gay mafia itself. There are people to uplift and others to ground into the dust, and a good man, a vibrant man, a lust-for-life champion worth worshiping, has fun doing both. He's just as good at killing as he is at loving. To him, wiping out an enemy and snuggling a baby are two sides of the same coin -- and they are. The latter is the reason, in most cases, that we do the former. **Let me be honest here. Isn't it because of these loudmouths, perverts, and suers-of-grannies that the average gay person, the nose-to-the-grindstone, behind-only-closed-doors blend-in survives? That he looks almost normal? Isn't it because some intolerant, irrational, lust-for-lust AIDS-spreader picked up a megaphone, rallied all our stupidest women, and forced innocent people out of business?
My answer is yes -- and if the cost of making 5% (if even that) of the nation comfortable and successful is putting 60% of the nation under the rotten thumb of the worst sixtieth, I would roll it all back in an instant. The question isn't whether any gay people mean anything to me, because many of them do. I have personally benefited from their kindness, their hard work, and their standing up for me, and thus I would personally stand up for them, on a case-by-case basis. But what we're looking at, with "gay rights," is the world's worst overreaction. If I'm picking between a real-life subjection for hundreds of millions of people, in violation of free speech and parenthood and property rights and good taste, or a closet for maybe a few million, I'll simply pick the closet. I would do the same for all "Civil Rights" legislation***.
***Richard White notes in A Republic for Which It Stands that after the Civil War ended, blacks were freed and looking for jobs in the South. The problem was, their old owners were looking for slaves; and so the whites crafted a series of contracts which effectively put the new hires back into slavery. The blacks didn't have much choice. They were hungry and didn't own the means of production. They were promised "40 acres and a mule," but the North backed out because the South was on the edge of a riot.
The Northerners believed, like our modern libertarians, that if a man had contract rights it was enough to be free. But the truth was that if you can sign a contract for anything, you can't be -- something John Locke had said a long time before, but apparently American radicals had ignored. This goes to show that even property rights have limits. I take them nearly religiously, but a little sacrilege in anything is necessary if you don't want to end up a slave to it.
Besides these so-called "contract rights" our Southern blacks were subject to vagrancy laws. These statutes made it dangerous, in effect, to be poor; and if you didn't have a job, most of which you were barred from anyway; or your wages were too little to survive on and you ended up begging; or your boss decided you weren't working hard enough; or you quit for any "insufficient" reason, some honky would call the cops and you'd end up in jail -- a sentence which would inevitably include forced labor.
This is why we got our civil rights laws. A long history of serious racial oppression. A series of overreaching and ambiguous rights to counteract it. A history that makes living in the closet, or even being called a faggot, seem like a walk in the park. Gays don't deserve the same rights as blacks because being gay isn't anything close to being black. We ought to have drawn the line between blacks and every other "minority" earlier, but we didn't, and we're now witnessing the fruit of it -- the world's most shameless piggy-backing, by the world's most shameless piggy-backers.
Like these essays? Email me at letterssubscription@gmail.com and start your subscription today.
Support the Letters by sending a gift to paypal.me/supporttheletters or www.venmo.com/TheLetters
Comments
Post a Comment