I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[Alexis Jacobi]

I can't condone so-called 'moderate' or 'conservative' homosexual lifestyles either.

Once the values have been transvalued, and once a culture has been reeducated so that a homosexual couple is seen in a way that makes it *socially acceptable* and *good*, then of course the new value-system will be accepted, and has been accepted, even in so-called Conservative culture.

It is less that I desire to make a moral condemnation of a homosexual couple, and more that I think that the process and the means by which such a coupling has been made to seem *fine* came about.

Once the homosexual couple is made to seem normal -- indeed more normal than the repressed and neurotic opponent of such unions -- then what seems to have happened, and to be happening, is that it simply moves on to other even more strange unions. What is going on here?

If you're going to engage in perversion, then as a matter of public decency, keep it in the closet, to yourselves?

This reflects my view. Even homosexuals (in my view) should desire to downplay and be modest about their unions. Even they should agree that their unions are inferior, in all senses, to heterosexual unions. Heterosexual unions should be elevated and given higher importance than the *sterile* union of a homosexual couple. Here is Dave Rubin with his husband just for the sake of understanding social acceptance.

The problem is that this shame, of sexual kinks and perversions, was inverted from shame to virtue beginning in the 60s and 70s.

The transvaluation of defined values.

Now the Wokies want to bring children into their sex acts. Anybody who resists or rebukes them is a "Nazi"

Yes. The perversion-level only increases. There is no 'brake' that can be defined philosophically, so there is no limit or barrier that will not be crossed.

In fact this describes our present. Stonewall and Gay Liberation was perhaps one thing, but in 50-60 years the perverse tendencies have somply moved into all other formerly forbidden and repressed territories. Try to conceive of what the *end* is and you will be stymied.

[Iwannaplato]

I definitely agree with you that *social engineering* -- the definition of values, the teaching of those values, and the spread of those values through a wide range of means (literature, film, art, social discourse, newspapers, articles, books) -- occurs at all times. But when I refer to *the transvaluation of values* in respect to issues of sexuality over the last 100 years I am trying to zero-in on a specific thing and, at least, trying to get clear about what has brought it about.

OK, I appreciate the acknowledgment. My issue comes in with the transvaluation of values being applied here, since, to me, it implies that what we had before was values - not transvaluation of values, but now those real values are getting nullified.

The reason I made reference to Platonic philosophy is to indicate that there has to be some defined perception-system, some interpretive base, some defined philosophical platform where what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, is explained in coherent terms.

At the same time there must be a person who is capable of making that analysis, and someone interested in making the analysis, and also interested in applying the value-designations.

And presumably, if I am following you correctly, there is no one who can do this now. And I agree to some significant degree. That said I can't look back on a period in time - even my childhood where the values counter to gay parades etc, were set in place pretty much across the board. But I don't think people who were the authorities could have given a clear explanation of the values of that time either. In the specific, they could certainly say that X was bad, so it should be prevented and punished. But that they had a coherent set of values, or could justify the way the monotheisms had transvalued earlier values or values in other cultures, I don't think so.

So, how do we apply this to the issue of gay parades?

The view and opinion that I will offer will definitely seem *reactionary*. It may not be very satisfying or resolving that I have no recommendation as to what to do about the myriad of people who feel justified in expressing their sexual values in the public sphere. My view, and I would say this in respect to a variety of different trends on-going in the US (my primary area of interest), is that when there are strong currents of decadence and rebellion, and when these are not directed by *intelligence* (in the deeper sense of the word intellectus), that the trends will not abate, they will instead increase, and people in a general sense lose their moorings.

Decadence is value-laden. And any rebellion - the movement to democracy or a republic, for example - will lead people to have the sense they have lost their moorings.

Again I can only repeat what I believe is the real root of the issue. It is not so much that there are homosexuals in whatever percentage, but rather that in a general cultural sense, and due to a host of reasons, people have become unmoored from a belief in the need for, or the sound reasons for, a philosophy of restraint in respect to sexual expression.

So that would hold for sexual expression in general.

So, in regard to that I must define what I believe is really important and order things in an hierarchy. Certainly at other times and places I have said the same things but I can assert, and I can also defend the view that the primary social valuation should be, must be, and really can only be in establishing the male-female family unit as being of a far higher importance than, say, a homosexual union. They are not equal. They should not and they cannot be seen as being equal.

Once a society has undermined the family unit, and once the primary social value is no longer the family itself but all sorts of alternatives, that society undermines itself. And this is evident in every society that does not create enough children to sustain itself.

I don't think we have a population decrease problem. Our economic system can lead to problems if we don't have sufficient increases because there are ponzai scheme aspect to it. But then the solution of not dealing with the ponzai scheme aspects and rather assuming we have to increase population at current rates creates a whole set of other problems.

Would you have the same problem with, say, confirmed bachelors or people who don't want children?

Isn't it enough that most people are heterosexual so the pairing stills tend to be man woman?

And Rome managed to be primarily pagan until well after they'd taken over much of the world. They had a rather expressive sexuality that includes non man/woman pairing.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Would you have the same problem with, say, confirmed bachelors or people who don't want children?

My view is that it is an issue that revolves around defining social values. It seems to me that the best social values to advocate for must revolve around substantial families and many children. The entire society should be motivated by this value and desire.

The reason I say this is because when those values are lost, or transvalued, a given society faces a crisis: it stops growing. It does not produce enough children for *demographic replacement*. So, it seems obvious to me (though my view is reductive) that the solution is a reinvigoration of the family.

Now, I am aware that there are many, perhaps most, who are simply not interested in such a commitment. A large family is a huge burden today. But it also seems to me that we have designed the systems that we now live in.

I am speaking on a theoretical level, obviously, and therefore I cannot make recommendations to anyone.

And presumably, if I am following you correctly, there is no one who can do this now. And I agree to some significant degree.

It is a question of value-systems having been overturned. Now, there are any number of different choices possible. And so many of them revolve around personal choices but not necessarily what is best for society. For the present, for the future. At the same time, and this is related to *lost moorings* I perceive that as we abandon classical systems of philosophy and the education in these categories, that we lose the ability to think in terms of defensible, and perhaps I might say eternal values.

And Rome managed to be primarily pagan until well after they'd taken over much of the world. They had a rather expressive sexuality that includes non man/woman pairing.

That's an interesting topic. I was relatively recently reading up on it.

[Wizard22]

I can't condone so-called 'moderate' or 'conservative' homosexual lifestyles either.

Once the values have been transvalued, and once a culture has been reeducated so that a homosexual couple is seen in a way that makes it *socially acceptable* and *good*, then of course the new value-system will be accepted, and has been accepted, even in so-called Conservative culture.

It is less that I desire to make a moral condemnation of a homosexual couple, and more that I think that the process and the means by which such a coupling has been made to seem *fine* came about.

Once the homosexual couple is made to seem normal -- indeed more normal than the repressed and neurotic opponent of such unions -- then what seems to have happened, and to be happening, is that it simply moves on to other even more strange unions. What is going on here?

If you're going to engage in perversion, then as a matter of public decency, keep it in the closet, to yourselves?

This reflects my view. Even homosexuals (in my view) should desire to downplay and be modest about their unions. Even they should agree that their unions are inferior, in all senses, to heterosexual unions. Heterosexual unions should be elevated and given higher importance than the *sterile* union of a homosexual couple. Here is Dave Rubin with his husband just for the sake of understanding social acceptance.

The problem is that this shame, of sexual kinks and perversions, was inverted from shame to virtue beginning in the 60s and 70s.

The transvaluation of defined values.

Now the Wokies want to bring children into their sex acts. Anybody who resists or rebukes them is a "Nazi"

Yes. The perversion-level only increases. There is no 'brake' that can be defined philosophically, so there is no limit or barrier that will not be crossed.

In fact this describes our present. Stonewall and Gay Liberation was perhaps one thing, but in 50-60 years the perverse tendencies have somply moved into all other formerly forbidden and repressed territories. Try to conceive of what the *end* is and you will be stymied.

Essentially, Western Civilization needs a hardline Conservative-Right morality overhaul, to 'right' the ship before it capsizes. I don't have much faith in Western religious or spiritual institutions. American Protestant Christians are too busy marrying homosexuals, and transexuals, adopting children into these "families". Because of this destruction of familial biology, things are going to get much, much worse before they get better.

Old World religions, like Catholicism and Orthodoxy, might provide some solutions. But again, I don't have much faith there either.

Maybe a new (very, very strict) Religion needs to spread across the West like wildfire, in order to make the type of moral and ethical changes necessary, to avoid and avert disaster and calamity.

[Wizard22]

Like, for example, there needs to be a Western religion that explicitly penalizes homosexuality and homosexuals in their Church, excluding, expunging, spurning, and shunning them.

I think the Amish still do this, in the US. Some of the Baptist Churches were hardliners. But they're not popular, and certainly not gaining popularity now.

Until a moral faith demonstrates that it can adapt to Postmodernity in the West, can adapt to new technology, new challenges, these new immoralities and Satanic ethos taking over...then people will remain separated and succumbing to these Marxist, Globalist forces.

But, somebody needs to do the hardwork, and actually make the new religion. It won't be easy.

[Flannel Jesus]

Would you have the same problem with, say, confirmed bachelors or people who don't want children?

Isn't it enough that most people are heterosexual so the pairing stills tend to be man woman?

No, we have to force homosexuals into relationships they don't want to be in. For the children.

[Iwannaplato]

Would you have the same problem with, say, confirmed bachelors or people who don't want children?

Isn't it enough that most people are heterosexual so the pairing stills tend to be man woman?

No, we have to force homosexuals into relationships they don't want to be in. For the children.

We could demand that they are sperm donors and use surrogates to have their own children (the male homosexuals). Lesbians can of course get impregnated in a vast array of ways.

That was we can insure that the population doesn't just increase but that it increases at a higher rate.

[Flannel Jesus]

The world isn't having a sperm shortage. We don't need to beg homosexuals to give us their sperm haha.

I mean, if someone's into that sort of thing, they're certain free to beg homosexuals for sperm...

[Wizard22]

No, we have to force homosexuals into relationships they don't want to be in. For the children.

Children should not have to "tolerate" grown men, pretending to be husband "and wife".

Christians should not have to "tolerate" blasphemers naming themselves "Gay Jesus".

There is much today that should not be tolerated. Too bad the West is weak, cowardly, and has no backbone.



There are no more Conservatives left...save a few.

There is almost nothing left to 'Conserve'.

[Flannel Jesus]

Isn't it your nap time?

[Harbal]

Christians should not have to "tolerate" blasphemers naming themselves "Gay Jesus".

Why not? We all have to put up with stuff we don't like; why should Christians be any different? I don't think anybody should have to tolerate you, actually.

Besides, Jesus probably was gay. We know he used to kiss his disciples, and who knows what else.

[Flannel Jesus]

Christians should not have to "tolerate" blasphemers naming themselves "Gay Jesus".

Why not? We all have to put up with stuff we don't like; why should Christians be any different? I don't think anybody should have to tolerate you, actually.

Besides, Jesus probably was gay. We know he used to kiss his disciples, and who knows what else.

What was the old geezer rambling about anyway? Who names themselves Gay Jesus? Is that a thing?

[Harbal]

Christians should not have to "tolerate" blasphemers naming themselves "Gay Jesus".

Why not? We all have to put up with stuff we don't like; why should Christians be any different? I don't think anybody should have to tolerate you, actually.

Besides, Jesus probably was gay. We know he used to kiss his disciples, and who knows what else.

What was the old geezer rambling about anyway? Who names themselves Gay Jesus? Is that a thing?

I've never heard of it, but I don't go looking for that sort of thing, like he does.

[Flannel Jesus]

I've never heard of it, but I don't go looking for that sort of thing, like he does.

Give him a bit of robitussin and send him off to bed. The ol' cutie's clearly very tired.

[Alexiev]

Who doesn't like parades? Marching bands! Floats! Costumes! Fancy cars and motorcycles! And one of my favorites in small town parades: Fire Engines blaring their sirens.

Hasn't the OP ever seen "Hello Dolly" ("Before the Parade Passes By"). How about "Street Parade" (The Clash).

The more parades the better, I say. I like watching parades, and even better is marching in them. After the parade we can all return to our dull lives, plodding instead of marching.

Also, one of the best parades I've ever seen was the Gay Pride parade in Paris. People of all shapes and races dressed in fancy clothes and cavorted down the Champs in a memorable performance. Perhaps some people would rather see commuters walking, with their heads down, from the subway station to their place of work. Fine. We see that every day. But on holidays, parades liven our working-day world.