Gays and Taboos

Though the following statement is concerned primarily with escalation of violence, it applies in principle to all taboos: "…taboo lines…normally restrain our most inhuman impulses. It can also lead people to take ever more extreme and unjustifiable positions."

It can also be applied to the general attitude of extremism and violence openly declared by gay activists toward those who reject their views, and to their general demeanour, which, in any decent society, is foul.

"Escalation is the increase in intensity of a conflict. Perhaps the most destructive conflict dynamic, the cycle of provocation and counter-provocation eventually results in the replacement of substantive debate with increasingly hateful and sometimes violent confrontations directed more at hurting opponents than at advancing interests.

This process plays a crucial role in the long slide toward war and the crossing of taboo lines which normally restrain our most inhuman impulses. It can also lead people to take ever more extreme and unjustifiable positions. Escalation alone is sufficiently powerful to transform what should be a tractable dispute into one that is virtually impossible to resolve."

This is what we are now seeing in gays. They have rejected normal argumentation in favour of causing extreme harm to those they regard as opponents. When this occurs, five changes can be observed:

1. A move from 'light' tactics (e.g. persuasion and argumentation) to 'heavy' (threats, power plays, and violence).

2. The original dispute is expanded to include many other sources of supposed conflict (whether or not they are real).

3. The row goes from being specific to being general. "What starts out as a small, concrete concern tends, over the painful history of an escalating exchange, to be supplanted by grandiose and all-encompassing positions and by a general intolerance of the other party."

4. The number of factions grows from one to many, as more and more people and groups are drawn into the conflict.

5. The goal of the antagonist moves from "doing well" to winning and, finally, hurting the other.

This is exactly what we are seeing in the growing homosexual lobby. None of it is helpful. But, as we know from dialecticism, the whole point is to destabilise society so that a new synthesis can take control of behaviour and norms. "The result of escalation is that a conflict can grow out of control very quickly. Escalated conflicts cease to be focused on the parties' original problems or goals, nor do they provide a way for those goals to be realized. Rather, they provide only costs and continued conflict, with little benefit for anybody." Basically, gays simply don't care! They just want their own way.

"Yet, escalated conflicts are very hard to reverse. Once relationships have been broken, once distrust, fear, and hatred grow, and especially, once violence has occurred, it is very difficult to back away from an escalated conflict and resolve it constructively. Rather, people tend to continue the fight, if possible, even escalating it further, as this usually seems less risky than 'showing that you are weak' by trying to initiate de-escalation."

Gay activists are not in the least interested in stopping their maniacal drive to eliminate all and every opposition. Mrs 'X', for example, restricted her opposition to a presentation of literary arguments based on legitimate medical and scientific facts. But, gays are so hyped, they drove her out of employment with lies and fierce hatred. The hope of gays, of course, is that if they are fierce enough, they will eventually (and quickly) gain whatever they want, possibly by public approval (that is, a modified 'Stockholm Syndrome'!).

It simply does not work that way. Push ordinary people into a corner with repression and suppression and there can be only one result, an uprising and an attack on those who impose their will on others.

"Despite the dangers of escalation, advocates frequently escalate a conflict intentionally, thinking that they can harness the power of escalation to mobilize support for their side. While this strategy may appear to work well, it is also likely to build support for the opposition. Thus the common result is the intensification of the conflict, not victory." Gays would do well to look hard at this evidence, because they are building-up an antagonism that will bring their downfall! But will they look at it this way/ or will they remain the 'intelligent stupid'?

Christians and others who reject homosexuality as acceptable, do not impose their will on gays. Rather, they speak against it. Gays, wanting an ever-increasing notoriety and collection of sins, continually push the limit of decency and impose their will by violence and illicit laws.

For a while, as the essayist says, this might appear to work well for a while. But, then, those they victimise are joined by others, who, seeing the wickedness of what is done, turn against the enforcers. (This is not just a 'Christian thing'. It affects all peoples). The net result is a reversal of any gains secured by the enforcers and a continuing of conflict.

In the issue of racial inequality (which has no link with so-called 'sexual equality'), where injustice was not just perceived or imagined, but very real, non-violence was the better approach. Then, when Martin Luther King was killed, extremist groups such as Black Panther moved in with violence.

But, "that shift in power strategies was very costly for them and society generally."

This is what is happening in society right now, because authorities have given gay activists freedom to do harm to the rest of society. In this way gays have crossed the taboo line, with violence (this includes verbal and legal violence), almost without a border-guard check! Without a doubt, the media have all helped to keep the issues at boiling point by offering sympathy for gay intimidation.

Crossing the sexual taboo line is the same. Once the line is crossed, the one who crosses it heads not for satisfaction, but for ever-increasing desires and permissiveness, leading to extremes. (This is a typical pattern in any addiction). It also leads to anger against anyone who questions what is happening, and even violence.

The taboo against homosexuality has existed for thousands of years. As with many taboos, there is a good reason for it. Whether that reason is God's, or society's, it is there for a good reason, to stop excesses and harm to all people. In the Christian sense, a taboo is put there by God.

The Sex Taboo
I regularly receive questions from Christians about their sex lives. Many obviously have 'hang-ups' and so I try to alleviate their anxiety with the truth. This is what I am now doing with homosexuality. Biblically (and observably) it is a sin against God and a wrong against mankind.

In Christian terms, sexual activity must only be within heterosexual marriage, and many sexual activities within those boundaries are permissible. However, an activity such as anal sex should never be given credence. It is harmful and against nature, even amongst heterosexuals. There are one or two other 'no go' areas, too.

For example, what 'good' is in ramming bottles into a woman, or putting small animals into male rectums? There is no way anyone of right mind can justify such actions.

I know there are Christians who indulge in certain sexual activities they should not commit, but that is up to their own consciences. They think that so long as an activity is 'behind closed doors' it is okay. This is an error, biblically speaking. And even gay leaders say the same thing!

A married couple should enjoy their time together, but properly. Homosexual groups are trying to remove all sexual taboos for everyone, so they will not be censured for what they do. The reason they try to 'free' heterosexual sex practices is that they can then do the same things themselves!

Homosexuality is not different. It is just illicit (That it is presently 'legal' does not change this - it only proves how brainless governments can be at times). Every person chooses what aspect of sexual activity he or she indulges in. If the person remains true to nature, he or she will only use heterosexual activities, e.g. male and female. Prostitution between males and females is not acceptable and is immoral, but is at least within the realm of natural use of the body. Other activities are both immoral and unnatural, homosexuality being one of them, and have no place in decent society.

Taboos exist for a very good reason, and most of them are inherent, not learned. Certain actions are obviously unnatural and not good for society. To ignore these 'natural' taboos is to destroy society for the sake of indulging in a personal whim, a bad habit. Homosexuals put up all kinds of foolish arguments against taboos. But they would, wouldn't they? After all, by removing taboos of any kind, they open up society to their own brand of indecency and bad actions, to which they are thoroughly addicted.

As a final note, readers ought to be aware that most of this taboo-breaking is fostered by international Marxist groups, as a continuation of the revolution in the early 1900's. At that time, homosexuality and other indecent activities were encouraged by Marxists, in an effort to destabilise society and bring in communistic rule. It took a long time for that rule to end in ruins. I hope the world sees the truth and does not allow the same tactics to continue for much longer.