I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

I believe that I understand your view and your orientation. After having been raised in extremely progressive circumstances (California), and having gone through a sort of inner revolution, and then reading a great deal of material of so-called Right-wing and Traditionalist theorists and philosophers, I concluded that such a turn as you propose is necessary. Since I do not have power to influence the outside world I resolved to restructure my own life, for what it is worth.

The problem is just as you encounter on this forum: the ideas you express seem to those who read them to be not only *wrong* but inflected with the bad, the retrograde, the backward. They can listen to no part of what you say and can only ridicule what they themselves hear. Though those here won't use the term *evil* for obvious reasons, many others will. And they will genuinely believe it. That is of course why, as you know, you get the label of Nazi. It simply means really really bad, and it connotes what *we* fought against in WW2.

One major problem is that Christianity generally cannot, and is not, of much help if one were really interested in bedrock Conservative and Traditionalist values. Christianity is, at base, a form of social radicalism. Though there are very rigid and doctrinaire Christians, it is hard for them except perhaps as it pertains to same-sex marriage and homosexuality, to take a social stand in pro of *preservation of cultural forms*. They are far too susceptible to *compassionate feelings* and cannot gain a posture that is hard enough to militantly hold to genuine conservative values, policies, and traditional outlook.

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

My impression is that you are right. The function of Christianity is *salvation of the soul*. It cannot act as a social reform movement. And it suffers under a whole array of problems which render it ineffective.

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.

There are some indications, in some sectors of Europe (and to a lesser degree in America), of grassroots social movements that are more conservatively-geared and with some interest in traditional values. But the opposition has the far greater power and control in these areas.

The religion that you propose -- this is my opinion -- would in the West have to be based in Platonic or Aristotelean ideas. These are quite sufficient to gain what I believe we visualize and idealize as important.

Unfortunately, it is The Drunken Multitude that would have a very hard time submitting to the rigor required. And the present power-structures are, I believe, confident in their ability to coerce and seduce that multitude. In some senses that is the story of Modern Liberalism in the post-war period.

This might interest you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

I've read and also heard from friends a similar sort of expression. "It's so much fun! So colorful! So *gender-bending*. What cold possibly be wrong about it?! And what sort of backward person would think it so?"

These are value-assertions put into an operative mode. It is as if the observer says "The most important thing is the pursuit of pleasure in the moment". It is a sort of celebration of the mutable (in the sense of sensual, delightful and also perverse) at the cost of entire sets of other values that must be put to the side.

So many modern cultural expressions have that irreverent, Dionysian energy to them. Turning immediate life into a party. Dropping concerns and agendas that are more long-range, more difficult of attainment. As a way to illustrate the Dionysian attraction -- and it really can be tremendous fun for the moment -- I submit this clip from an interesting film called Seconds. (Same guy who did The Manchurian Candidate).

Here is another *cultural artifact* that expresses (in my view) reengineered values in the form of political-social activism.

In order to define a contrary set of values, and something that could countermand what is clearly presented here, requires a rather involved and agonizing inner work. An inner restructuring.

[Alexiev]

My impression is that you are right. The function of Christianity is *salvation of the soul*. It cannot act as a social reform movement. And it suffers under a whole array of problems which render it ineffective.

It does not follow from the fact that Christianity is designed for the "salvation of the soul". that it cannot act as a social reform movement. The point of Christianity is (among other things) that by saving one's soul, one also reforms society. "Love your neighbor as yourself" appears to do both.

Christianity has been co-opted by anti-Marxism. Given Marxist antipathy toward religion (and the oppression of the religious in Marxist states) this was reasonable. However, you are correct that Christianity was in essence a liberal movement, dissolving social classes, and even separating parents from children. It preached against the tribalism of the past, and created a new community of the faithful. Unfortunately, there has been much backsliding.

As far as I can tell, conservative values are (or should be) the values of classic liberalism. These include an emphasis on individual liberties and individual rights. One such liberty and right seems to be the right (within reasonable limits) to conduct one's private sex life with consenting adults as one wishes. Why conservatives object can be explained only by their seemingly contradictory objection to human liberty and individual rights.

[Alexiev]

I've read and also heard from friends a similar sort of expression. "It's so much fun! So colorful! So *gender-bending*. What cold possibly be wrong about it?! And what sort of backward person would think it so?"

These are value-assertions put into an operative mode. It is as if the observer says "The most important thing is the pursuit of pleasure in the moment". It is a sort of celebration of the mutable (in the sense of sensual, delightful and also perverse) at the cost of entire sets of other values that must be put to the side.

So many modern cultural expressions have that irreverent, Dionysian energy to them. Turning immediate life into a party. Dropping concerns and agendas that are more long-range, more difficult of attainment. As a way to illustrate the Dionysian attraction -- and it really can be tremendous fun for the moment -- I submit this clip from an interesting film called Seconds. (Same guy who did The Manchurian Candidate).

Here is another *cultural artifact* that expresses (in my view) reengineered values in the form of political-social activism.

In order to define a contrary set of values, and something that could countermand what is clearly presented here, requires a rather involved and agonizing inner work. An inner restructuring.

The OP objected to parades in general -- not just Gay Pride parades. Dionysian Bacchanalia add some spice to life. What do you have against parties? That seems like a Puritanical position. Would you prefer that we plod along into the past, never trying to enjoy life? I glanced at (but didn't fully watch) the two linked videos. Taylor Swift seems to be supporting your position. But I don't want to "calm down". As Andrew Marvell one wrote, "The grave's a fine and private place, / But none, I think, do there embrace."

[Alexis Jacobi]

It does not follow from the fact that Christianity is designed for the "salvation of the soul". that it cannot act as a social reform movement. The point of Christianity is (among other things) that by saving one's soul, one also reforms society. "Love your neighbor as yourself" appears to do both.

It can certainly work toward certain forms of social reform, I agree, but it cannot function as the nucleus around which a more radical reorganization of society and social values might take place. Note that I was responding to Wizard who, to all appearances, would desire this sort of reorganization. Traditional Christianity (and Christians) might operate against the rigor or decisiveness required. Because Christianity is essentially *soft* or one might also say *feminine*.

Depending on who one defines as *one's neighbor* the admonition "love your neighbor as yourself" could certainly be a motivator for social activism of a Right-tending sort. By that I mean more restrictive and non-inclusive. See as an example The Sword of Christ by Giles Corey.

Christianity has been co-opted by anti-Marxism. Given Marxist antipathy toward religion (and the oppression of the religious in Marxist states) this was reasonable. However, you are correct that Christianity was in essence a liberal movement, dissolving social classes, and even separating parents from children. It preached against the tribalism of the past, and created a new community of the faithful. Unfortunately, there has been much backsliding.

Interesting perspective -- that it has been coopted by anti-Marxism. I went to Latin America specifically to study (more like experience) Liberation Theology, so in my view it is prone to infiltration by both Marxian praxis and social progressivism.

Those things you present as *positive* could be, and I think within some limits I would, critique as negative. Note that at this point I reject Christianity (and Judaism) as such. Because they are too contaminated. In my view they require a purification processes which is exceedingly difficult to carry out given religious conventionalism. I do not however reject the strong currents of both Platonism and Aristotelianism in Christianity.

As far as I can tell, conservative values are (or should be) the values of classic liberalism. These include an emphasis on individual liberties and individual rights. One such liberty and right seems to be the right (within reasonable limits) to conduct one's private sex life with consenting adults as one wishes. Why conservatives object can be explained only by their seemingly contradictory objection to human liberty and individual rights.

I understand what you are getting at. But those on the so-called Dissident Right have written extensively on alternatives that present themselves as fairly radical to such classical Liberalism. In my view Liberalism functioned nicely in naturally socially conservative social situations. But it easily becomes contaminated into Hyper-Liberalism which has no relationship to the matrix of (necessary) social conservatism. Hyper-Liberalism is a very different animal.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The OP objected to parades in general -- not just Gay Pride parades. Dionysian Bacchanalia add some spice to life. What do you have against parties? That seems like a Puritanical position. Would you prefer that we plod along into the past, never trying to enjoy life? I glanced at (but didn't fully watch) the two linked videos. Taylor Swift seems to be supporting your position. But I don't want to "calm down". As Andrew Marvell one wrote, "The grave's a fine and private place, / But none, I think, do there embrace."

My position is, I admit, fairly radical and somewhat harsh: I believe that it would be best if all people were to take a far harder stance about homosexuality, all forms of sexual deviancy that are in common expression, and indeed (essentially) take a far more serious attitude toward sexuality, sexual expression, and also sexual ethics. Probably, if you were looking for a categorization to slot me in, it would be Catholic social ethics in respect of the family. But my definitions would be expressed (now) in Platonic and Aristotelian terms, if that makes sense.

Homosexuality *should be* repressed, shunned, kept out of sight, not presented to children as a *positive identification*, and the traditional family should be given by all, a far higher value than any other sort of union. Notice that I am speaking in terms of *shoulds* and idealism. I know that this is not by any means the current trend.

Gay parades should be banned. Absolutely.

But I am definitely not opposed to public celebrations which could include parades and such.

Note: Constantine is a bit of an ironic shape-shifter so you kind of have to read him sideways. (I actually sent him a ticket to a course on wheelchair repair with the hope that he could then open a small home garage and *find the (crippled) woman of his dreams*. I am far more on his side than it would appear).

[Alexis Jacobi]

As far as I can tell, conservative values are (or should be) the values of classic liberalism. These include an emphasis on individual liberties and individual rights. One such liberty and right seems to be the right (within reasonable limits) to conduct one's private sex life with consenting adults as one wishes. Why conservatives object can be explained only by their seemingly contradictory objection to human liberty and individual rights

When presented as you present it, yes. However, to understand how the (articulate) Dissident Right sees things, and what it desires to propose, one would have to be aware of their discourse and stance against certain aspect of both individualism and individual rights. It is quite possible to define, coherently, quite the opposite as a decent and proper social and political attitude.

What one does in *private* actually becomes a public matter. I suggest this is evidenced today by what is going on today, publicly. Whatever has been established privately definitely bleeds out into conventional social attitudes. It's inevitable and even predictable.

[Harbal]

Gay parades should be banned. Absolutely.

Signed, Disgusted, of Tunbridge Wells.

[Flannel Jesus]

As far as I can tell, conservative values are (or should be) the values of classic liberalism. These include an emphasis on individual liberties and individual rights. One such liberty and right seems to be the right (within reasonable limits) to conduct one's private sex life with consenting adults as one wishes. Why conservatives object can be explained only by their seemingly contradictory objection to human liberty and individual rights

When presented as you present it, yes. However, to understand how the (articulate) Dissident Right sees things, and what it desires to propose, one would have to be aware of their discourse and stance against certain aspect of both individualism and individual rights. It is quite possible to define, coherently, quite the opposite as a decent and proper social and political attitude.

What one does in *private* actually becomes a public matter. I suggest this is evidenced today by what is going on today, publicly. Whatever has been established privately definitely bleeds out into conventional social attitudes. It's inevitable and even predictable.

It's certainly possible to define it coherently as opposite to decent. It's NOT possible to say it's coherent with individual liberty and individual rights.

[Alexiev]

The OP objected to parades in general -- not just Gay Pride parades. Dionysian Bacchanalia add some spice to life. What do you have against parties? That seems like a Puritanical position. Would you prefer that we plod along into the past, never trying to enjoy life? I glanced at (but didn't fully watch) the two linked videos. Taylor Swift seems to be supporting your position. But I don't want to "calm down". As Andrew Marvell one wrote, "The grave's a fine and private place, / But none, I think, do there embrace."

My position is, I admit, fairly radical and somewhat harsh: I believe that it would be best if all people were to take a far harder stance about homosexuality, all forms of sexual deviancy that are in common expression, and indeed (essentially) take a far more serious attitude toward sexuality, sexual expression, and also sexual ethics. Probably, if you were looking for a categorization to slot me in, it would be Catholic social ethics in respect of the family. But my definitions would be expressed (now) in Platonic and Aristotelian terms, if that makes sense.

Homosexuality *should be* repressed, shunned, kept out of sight, not presented to children as a *positive identification*, and the traditional family should be given by all, a far higher value than any other sort of union. Notice that I am speaking in terms of *shoulds* and idealism. I know that this is not by any means the current trend.

Gay parades should be banned. Absolutely.

But I am definitely not opposed to public celebrations which could include parades and such.

Note: Constantine is a bit of an ironic shape-shifter so you kind of have to read him sideways. (I actually sent him a ticket to a course on wheelchair repair with the hope that he could then open a small home garage and *find the (crippled) woman of his dreams*. I am far more on his side than it would appear).

Your conservative values do not seem to favor the right to Freedom of Expression (a freedom that can be expressed in Gay Pride Parades). Anyone who believes in freedom of speech could not hold your position, even if he or she objected to homosexuality.

Cultural rules about sex are a human universal -- perhaps the only legalistic universal. That's because sex is so important to human society -- important for reproduction and child-rearing. The rules vary from society to society. Our modern approach to love and sex eschews arranged marriages (the norm in many societies),and promotes the idea of choice and love. Of course this approach -- when carried to its logical conclusion -- brings with it an acceptance of homosexuality. For Christians, any fornication (gay or straight) is sinful. Most moderns have abandoned this notion, encouraged by better birth control methods.

On my trip to India, I asked our driver, Mahendra if his children would have arranged marriages. "Oh, yes," he said.

"Will they marry members of their caste?" I asked (castes are illegal in modern India).

"Yes, indeed. IN America, love marriages. Much divorce. In India, arranged marriages. Little divorce."

I'm sure Mahendra is right. Our romantic ideals create longings that are not (and cannot be) fulfilled. When expectations are lowered, acceptance is the norm. But is that what we want? Do we want to eliminate romance? Romance is an adventure. The essence of adventure is uncertainty. That's why romance novels end with a marriage or a proposal. Arranged marriages are less adventurous. Parades are not really an adventure -- but they are romantic, evoking feelings of patriotism, or thanksgiving, or (you guessed it) pride. Good for them, I say.

[LuckyR]

Your conservative values do not seem to favor the right to Freedom of Expression (a freedom that can be expressed in Gay Pride Parades). Anyone who believes in freedom of speech could not hold your position, even if he or she objected to homosexuality.

Cultural rules about sex are a human universal -- perhaps the only legalistic universal. That's because sex is so important to human society -- important for reproduction and child-rearing. The rules vary from society to society. Our modern approach to love and sex eschews arranged marriages (the norm in many societies),and promotes the idea of choice and love. Of course this approach -- when carried to its logical conclusion -- brings with it an acceptance of homosexuality. For Christians, any fornication (gay or straight) is sinful. Most moderns have abandoned this notion, encouraged by better birth control methods.

On my trip to India, I asked our driver, Mahendra if his children would have arranged marriages. "Oh, yes," he said.

"Will they marry members of their caste?" I asked (castes are illegal in modern India).

"Yes, indeed. IN America, love marriages. Much divorce. In India, arranged marriages. Little divorce."

I'm sure Mahendra is right. Our romantic ideals create longings that are not (and cannot be) fulfilled. When expectations are lowered, acceptance is the norm. But is that what we want? Do we want to eliminate romance? Romance is an adventure. The essence of adventure is uncertainty. That's why romance novels end with a marriage or a proposal. Arranged marriages are less adventurous. Parades are not really an adventure -- but they are romantic, evoking feelings of patriotism, or thanksgiving, or (you guessed it) pride. Good for them, I say.

To my way of thinking the solution to too many divorces with love marriages isn't arranged marriages, it is realising you're not marriage (monogamy) material and either avoiding marriage or at minimum delaying it until you are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your conservative values do not seem to favor the right to Freedom of Expression (a freedom that can be expressed in Gay Pride Parades). Anyone who believes in freedom of speech could not hold your position, even if he or she objected to homosexuality.

This is not quite right because I recognize that the values that I am talking about, and recommend, are not desired, not practiced, not taught, and are not part of social and cultural ethics and mores. So, I am speaking in terms of idealism. What I say is simple, and not very controversial: all people should frown upon homosexual unions and certain disfavor public expression of outrageous sexuality. If there are gays and if they do have unions, the social ethics should be that they keep it to themselves.

In some sense you are right: I do not see *freedom of expression* as being a value-in-itself. One has to have some basis and stance to have an idea, and then *freedom of expression* comes in as a value to support being able to express the idea you have. Does this make sense? I do not think that all *expressions*, simply because someone might wish to express them, should be validated by (sound) social mores. So the emphasis is on reinvigoration of the values that I privilege. But I well understand that most, today, have no interest at all in the values I have determined are important and require emphasis.

Cultural rules about sex are a human universal -- perhaps the only legalistic universal. That's because sex is so important to human society -- important for reproduction and child-rearing. The rules vary from society to society. Our modern approach to love and sex eschews arranged marriages (the norm in many societies),and promotes the idea of choice and love. Of course this approach -- when carried to its logical conclusion -- brings with it an acceptance of homosexuality. For Christians, any fornication (gay or straight) is sinful. Most moderns have abandoned this notion, encouraged by better birth control methods.

My orientation as I say is Platonis and Aristotelian. And I believe that within that philosophical paradigm a sound philosophy concerning sexual expression and sexual ethics did indeed take shape. As I said: the closest religious system to what I propose is expressed in Catholicism. Sane rules for the family. But with the family at the social and cultural center.

I well recognize that most do not share my views. However, I think they are coherent.

In my view it all hinges on education, and the articulation of values which are received and absorbed by youth. In our culture there has taken place a concerted *transvaluation of values* and now a great deal is extremely topsy-turvy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To my way of thinking the solution to too many divorces with love marriages isn't arranged marriages, it is realising you're not marriage (monogamy) material and either avoiding marriage or at minimum delaying it until you are.

The ethical and moral position that I would favor is that all young people should desire to get married, and have substantial families, and increase their populations naturally and normally without having to resort of immigration. Naturally States exist, and as such they should be arranged to support and encourage large families.

The social value, the ethical value, the moral imperativem should be geared to what I describe.

I realize it is somewhat unreal today. However, in some places these values still hold.

[Flannel Jesus]

The ethical and moral position that I would favor is that all young people should desire to...

Is that really an ethical and moral position? Should desire? Ethical and moral positions are normally about what people should DO, not what they desire. Who cares what someone desires?

It's immoral to murder for example. It's not my moral position that people shouldn't DESIRE to murder, it's that people shouldn't murder. I don't give a fuck what they desire. If they desire to murder, but don't, they're moral. If they don't desire to murder, but do, that's immoral. Desires are really beside the point.

What kinda ethics is this? Some kind of thought police shit? Telling people not only what to do, but also what to want?

[Alexis Jacobi]

As far as I can tell, conservative values are (or should be) the values of classic liberalism. These include an emphasis on individual liberties and individual rights. One such liberty and right seems to be the right (within reasonable limits) to conduct one's private sex life with consenting adults as one wishes. Why conservatives object can be explained only by their seemingly contradictory objection to human liberty and individual rights

When presented as you present it, yes. However, to understand how the (articulate) Dissident Right sees things, and what it desires to propose, one would have to be aware of their discourse and stance against certain aspect of both individualism and individual rights. It is quite possible to define, coherently, quite the opposite as a decent and proper social and political attitude.

What one does in *private* actually becomes a public matter. I suggest this is evidenced today by what is going on today, publicly. Whatever has been established privately definitely bleeds out into conventional social attitudes. It's inevitable and even predictable.

It's certainly possible to define it coherently as opposite to decent. It's NOT possible to say it's coherent with individual liberty and individual rights.

My point was that they define *individual liberty* and *individual rights* through a different lens.

What I said was: "It is quite possible to define, coherently, quite the opposite as a decent and proper social and political attitude."

And I believe it true.