The origin of normalization of any and all sexual activity was with the Kinsey report, which conceptually normalized sexual behaviors by claiming that they exist along a spectrum of "normal behaviors". The concept of culturally normalizing homosexuality was publicized in the book, "After The Ball", by Kirk and Madsen. Using Alinsky style techniques, homosexuals would ultimately place themselves into the position of being, rather than a disorder, a normal sexual and social state of human existence. Further, they are Victims. In other words, they would force society to normalize homosexuality.
This requires the de-normalization of all criticism of homosexuality, of course; there is to be no tolerance of dissent. Dissent is Oppression of the perpetual Victims. And that means the demonization of critics in the pursuit of destroying them as a message to other, lurking, critics. Criticism is to be jackbooted into non-existence.
The homosexual jackbooting was especially visible during the Prop 8 debacle in California, where actual violence and threats of ever more violence against dissenters resulted from a democratic vote in which the homosexuals did not get the normalization which they demanded. It was demonstrated again during the vandalism of Chik Fil A and the shooting at FRC.
So now they have have been normalized, and it is literally hazardous to express a dissenting opinion. It is no accident that thought crime laws started up as repression tactics for the normalization of homosexuality and the denormalization of dissent.
When thought crimes are normalized as acceptable tactics, then the totalitarians have also normalized jackbooting. It is now the common homosexual reaction to dissent.
4 comments:
If any and all behaviors are first defined and then declared by fiat to be "normal", then what behavior (if any) would remain outside of that (re-)defined "normal" and thus be considered "abnormal"?
Would there be any meaningful definition or categorization of "normal" behavior remaining, if "abnormal" behavior is defined to not exist?
For those who do not strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, I think the answers are obvious.
In my conversations with pro-homosexuals the position is this: just this ONE thing, this ONE time! There is NO Sloppery slope, the slippery slope is just a myth! Just homosexual legitimacy, and then we'll quit. All other minorities are not legitmate like we are. Just us, then its over.
Unfortunately, one deviancy just leads to the others. The rejection of morality is a bucket deal: reject one and you reject them all.
Which is why Atheo/Leftist/homosexual/feminist/fascisti make up their own morals immediately and then try ot force everyone else into abeyance. That is the meaning of "secularism" in today's Atheo/Leftist parlance.
I should have said "holy secularism and holy tolerance of all behaviors", which involves intolerance of dissent to those holy principles. So dissent is now an unholy sin under the Brave New Morality of Atheo/Leftist/homosexual/etc self-declared moral authority.
@Raging Storm: what has the normalizing of deviant behavior and the criminalization of even thoughts about criticism of same got to do with what you just spouted?
Post a Comment