LGBT Ideology Über Alles

Uncategorized

LGBT Ideology Über Alles

A civilization that destroys the family and the gender binary destroys itself.

Rod Dreher

Jul 11, 2022 10:36 AM

Well, here goes another try to post under the new system. I hope it works. This is going to take some getting used to. I'm hearing from some of you concerned about the commenting system -- not sure how it works, whether or not you have to subscribe to the magazine to be able to comment, and so forth. I'm trying to get answers for you, but it was my understanding that you won't have to subscribe, but you will have to register. If that turns out to be the case, then I think that will be a good system, because it will probably mean that I don't have to moderate the comments -- that is, they can go up as soon as you post them. I've been passing along your questions to the Mothership in Washington. They're overwhelmed, trying to get the new system implemented, working out bugs, and so forth, so we appreciate your patience.

Earlier today, I posted this to Twitter:

From a NYT story about the spread of monkeypox. The lesson here is that if you want to avoid monkeypox, stop acting like an animal, screwing your brains out with multiple strangers. pic.twitter.com/lmHa8ysDwo

— Rod Dreher (@roddreher) July 10, 2022

Here is the text from the Times:

I stand by what I said: stop living like a rutting animal, and maybe you won't get monkeypox, you weirdo. Well, someone in Germany complained to Twitter about this tweet of mine, and under German law, Twitter has to let me know. Twitter reviewed my tweet and said it didn't break any rules, so it stands.

I suppose to some people, it's bigotry to say you should avoid having multiple sexual encounters with random strangers if you want to avoid catching a communicable disease. If we had a sane public health system, they would close the bathhouses. But we don't, so they won't. And we will all be expected to pretend that we don't see what is right in front of our noses, because promiscuity is a sacred ritual among Americans, especially gay male Americans.

Meanwhile, some states and hospital systems are working to allow minor children to direct their own gender transition without parental consent or knowledge. This is not paranoia; it's really happening:

In Washington, children as young as 13 are now allowed to undergo gender reassignment surgery and other questionable medical treatments without parental consent.

New York has hopped on the bandwagon of removing parents from the treatment room as well. New York-Presbyterian recently sent out emails to their patients explaining that accounts for 12-17-year-olds must be updated to reflect the adolescent’s personal email address as the primary contact as New York State law allows children “to keep their sensitive medical information private and to consent to some of their own medical treatment.”

There are more examples -- read the whole report.

Jeremy Carl is 1000 percent right here: if the GOP doesn't stand up loud and effectively against this insanity, telling parents to vote Republican if they don't want their children to be transitioned without their consent, it might as well surrender now. At the risk of sounding like a Live Not By Lies broken record, the people who lived under Soviet communism understand what's happening here: the State inserted itself between them and their children all the time. (By the way, if you haven't seen the podcast interview Jordan Peterson did with me, take a look.)

Just as consumer culture treats babies like accessories and incentivizes mothers to hire themselves out as brood mares, the ruling class globally is doing its best to de-sex humanity. "Medical Lysenkoism" is the correct term:

People are upset about this, but it is, in fact, them committing suicide as the organization they claim to be. Medical Lysenkoism will kill many, many millions, no doubt, but this is a decisive moment in them admitting that they're not a serious organization, which will matter. pic.twitter.com/A3oebsJHES

— James Lindsay, blademaster (@ConceptualJames) July 9, 2022

There must be a pushback -- a pushback so hard it rings these corrupt idiots' heads like a struck bell, so hard that they are never a threat to us again. The GOP presidential candidate who promises to put a stop to this once and for all, and means it, will be elected in a landslide. What choice do we have, if we want to survive as a civilization?

You see the viral video of the female US soldier who publicly questioned her ability to fight for the United States in the wake of Roe being overturned?

This week the DOD took punitive action against a retired Army officer for replying to a Jill Biden tweet but is silent as an active duty service member uses her uniform to make a political statement because she is regurgitating approved regime talking points. https://t.co/9J0YLfWDHU

— Joe Kent for WA-3 (@joekent16jan19) July 10, 2022

I think it's appalling that a serving US soldier makes that kind of comment, and I would feel the same way if she said something I agreed with. But you readers know that I struggle to understand why anyone would serve in a military that has gone as aggressively woke as ours, and more deeply, what kind of Empire our soldiers are defending. I had lunch today with a young Hungarian man who really admires America, but who is profoundly worried about us. He said, "Our future" -- meaning the future of the West -- "depends on America. You are the cultural engine that drives everything." I know he's right -- and that's what scares me. We have got to pull out of this descent into decadence, if we can.

I mean, look at this below. Do you think a civilization whose major institutions are so morally confused has much of a chance?

And by the way, they're finally starting to get somewhere with queering the Orthodox Church. The Greek Archbishop in the US, Elpidophoros, beloved of the Fordham Orthodox, has just done something scandalous: baptizing into Orthodoxy the children of a gay male couple -- one of them is the son of rich Chicago Greeks -- obtained via a surrogate.

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Subscribe for as little as $5/mo to start commenting on Rod’s blog.

Join Now

Chris Karr

The baptism story reminds me of the arguments against incest and rape exceptions in abortion policy. The children don't choose their parents, so why should they be punished for something outside their control?

I can see an argument for the Greek Orthodox Church insisting an a small and private baptism for the children, but is there an argument for denying the sacrament to the children (of gay parents) altogether?

2 years ago

JON FRAZIER

Good morning from Delaware. My jaw just hit the table at the notion there anything more scandalous about baptizing the child of a gay person than in baptizing the child of any other sinful person (that's all of us). The child is not , one presumes, gay. It's inconceivable where the scandal lies on the matter. Gay people routinely complain that they are treated as a special class of sinners, and alas the notion that baptizing someone with gay parents is wrong does tend to support that complaint.
"Let the little children come unto me" quoth Jesus.

Peter Pratt

A baptism celebrates the parents, as well as celebrating the admission into the kingdom of God.

I read the Mormon church recently had a similar issue. They had long prohibited the children of polygamous Mormons (who are not in the church because they support polygamy) are banned from being baptized until they are adults.

A few years ago they extended this to members who were in a gay marriage, so that children of gay marriages could only be baptized as adults. This made some sense, as it merely equated Mormons in one unaccepted marriage form to another unaccepted marriage form.

There was substantial outrage from progressive Mormons and the Mormon church rolled this back a few years later.

In this case with the Orthodox baptism, the gay couple clearly were celebrating themselves as gay as much as the baptism.

Rob G

Correct. It's for these same reasons that Orthodox priests are generally very careful about baptizing the children of unmarried couples. Part of the baptismal vows involves the pledge of the parents that the children will be brought up in the faith. How is that really possible when the parents are living in open sin?

As I said elsewhere I get that there are practical issues involved here. But there are no deep rooted moral or theological reasons not to baptize the children of sinners-- which, I must remind everyone, we all are and indeed no one could be baptized if that were an impediment.

None of us as far as I know were actually present at this rite so we should refrain from asserting what the parents were "really" doing.

It isn't the baptism that is the problem. It us, as Robert pointed out, the pledge by the parents. The parents are participating in the ritual while standing directly opposed to the teachings of the Orthodox faith. As such, this baptism is an act of rebellion against God.
If grandparents stood in place and made the pledge, it would have been different. It would have been about the children.
This was all about the gay couple getting the church to honor their union and trophy babies.

Peter Pratt I categorically reject that "rebellion against God". That's hyperbolic at drama queen levels. Who among us, baptized as infants, can assert with utter parents their were sinless that day?

While we can't say that the baptism per se was an act of rebellion against God, everything that went along with it certainly seems to be.

I get a certain practical concern over the gay couple bringing their child to church (which I hope they do!) But that's a practical issue not a "scandal.". Of course the couple must be told they themselves nay not commutne, just as an unmarried couple would need to refrain, or the non-Orthodox spouse in a mixed marriage. And that's the extent of what is needful. The Church must never shirk its primary mission of bringing God's grace to a sinful world over worldly fusses and headaches.

Nikhil Jaikumar

"Rutting like animal" is a weird term in this contxt, because humans are among the few animals that actually do have sex purely for recreation (most other species aren't sexually responsive for most of the year). There's good reason to think that early humans were not monogamous, that it isn't "natural" for us and we aren't particularly well adapted to it, and that most people don't find it fulfilling. Which of course is not necessarily an argument for the bath-houses either. I'd also point out, Rod, that you yourself don't live a puritanical lifestyle based around minimizing health risks either, as any of your Views from the Table would indicate. Lots of us enjoy things that carry with them some health risk and that others would consider to be "vices". (Some of these legitimately are "vices": I think at least some of the sexual acts that go on at the bathhouses are morally problematic, although others maybe less so).

On a different note, I'm extremely displeased with this new comment system mostly because it won't allow me to comment pseudonymously. I have good reasons to want to preserve pseudonymity in the era of cancel-culture (not just for my own sake, but for that of some other people too), and most of what I said under my past pseudonym, I'm not going to say under my real name (which means, more or less, I won't comment here much, unless I can do so under a pen name).

Sexual jealousy is deep rooted as a human behavior, and the lengthy period of helplessness for human infants would suggest that something like monogamy must have developed very early in the hominid lineage. Jealousy in a small band could have catastrophically destructive consequences, and human mothers would need a helpmete in caring for and rearing children. Though given the mischances of the world right down to very recent times it would have been serial not permanent monogamy.

The inability to control one's sexual activity, even in the face of known dangers, demonstrates major psychological weaknesses. Self mastery is been a key virtue for thousands of years.

Now we celebrate all the seven deadly sins as virtues. We can evil good and good evil.

We are so ripe for destruction.

Quite appropriate that you linked the Anglicans' inability to say what a woman is to that travesty of a "gay baptism." This is how the Episcopalianization of the GOARCH begins, and that's exactly what the Fordhamite clowns want. Give the Greeks ten, maybe twenty years, and if this continues they won't be able to tell you what a woman is either.

Good grief, there was no "gay baptism" unless you know something about the child the rest of us do not. You (and alas Rod too, in his tone) are simply proving the complaint that SoCons see gays as a special class of super sinners, beyond the pale of our own sins so we may licitly feel superior to them.

That's incorrect -- the participants themselves called it such, which is why I put it in quotes.
THEY, including the attending clerics, knew exactly what they were doing, even if you don't.