More Diversity and More Perversity in the Future!
The Sci-Fi Channel (I cannot bring myself to type the
phonetic/stupitastic new version of their name) has recoiled in craven
fear and trembling when lectured by homosex activists, who gave the SF
channel an "F" rating on their political correctness. Alas, the
thoughtcrime! Not enough perverts on TV! The children have to be
I kid you not. Here is the article: http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/408807_tvgif28.html
head of Sci-Fi channel has contritely promised to include more homosex
in future shows, and to do it nonchalantly, just as if this abomination
is normal and natural and worthy of no comment. The shows will not
actually come out and say sexual perversion has no bad side effects.
They won't actually lie and tell you homosex won't destroy your life.
But they will imply the lie. They will play along. It's only polite!
It's so tolerant!
I am hoping, of course, that future shows
will also portray sadomasochism and bondage in a positive light -- we
are all looking forward to FLASH GORDON'S TRIP TO GOR, I hope. Love
affairs with corpses, small children, and farm animals will also be on
display in a natural nonchalant fashion in the new raft of progressive
shows, titles such as I DREAM OF STINKY, PEDERASTY JUNCTION, and OLD
MACDONALD HAD A SHEEP -- but no Mormons, whose moral standing we all
abhor. The only good thing about Mormons, as we all know, is their
polygamy. That we can approve of. Anything that offends the Patriarchy,
we like. Evil is our good.
On a less
sarcastic but still supercilious note: I'd like someone, anyone, to
explain to me how my culture reached a position where a public
entertainment company can be criticized for failing to contribute to
the moral decay of the land, and that the criticism would be taken
seriously, and the company would cringe and promise to do better.
explain to me by what series of events persons with serious
sexual-psychological malfunctions would somehow be awarded the status
of moral arbiters, something like priests and confessors and sages --
except that the passkey to being a guardian of public conscience in our
age is the absence of moral value, not the presence.
liberal leftist comrades! You openly boast of your superior
intellectual power and more profound moral sobriety than we mere
working Joes of flyover country (including working Joes like me with a
doctorate in law who works in DC). You have anointed yourselves our
superiors: that means you are smart enough to explain it. By what logic
is the sole and single standard of virtue in your world view an
absolute devotion to vice? By what logic is the sole and single sin the
sin of having standards of virtue, what you call being intolerant?
are you willing to tolerate sexual perversion but not racism? In a
world with no standards, what makes a malfunction of love higher on
your standard than a malfunction of hate? Is an irrational lust and
longing to mimic the mating act with a sex with which one cannot mate,
at its root, any more or less disconnected to reality than an
irrational fear and hatred of a Negro? How do we know race-hate is not
genetic? Look at how scorned and put-upon racists are! Can we spare
them no cheap Leftist pity? Why don't we simply call racism an
alternate anti-ethnic orientation, similar to hetero-toleration, but
I know I will hear no rational argument to
defend the Leftist position. They do not deal with rational answers.
They have one and only one weapon in their arsenal: ad hominem.
They will not answer, but they will sneer. I suppose a person who
gave a tinker's damn about peer pressure or public opinion would fear
to be sneered upon by these professional sneerers. For those
professional sneerers ready to ignore my words and to condemn me as a
"homophobe" let me just ask, why Oh why is it that no one has ever
condemned me (or anyone of mine) as a "sunderophobe" -- even
though I condemn divorce more severly than I condemn sodomy, or as an
"adulterophobe" -- since I don't approve of cheating on your wife
either; or as a "pseudophobe" -- since I don't approve of President
Why is this one vice singled out for awe and
reverence and glorification? Why is it that the lack of self control in
sexual matters, where self control is paramount, is held to be
immaculate and beyond reproach, whereas the lack of self-control when
it comes to something trivial smoking tobacco is scorned?
No answer? Well, then. Back to sarcasm:
other news, Timothy Leary will be giving Sci-Fi an "F" grade for
failing to portray drug abuse positively. Castro and Pol Pot will be
giving Sci-Fi an "F" grade for their show BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, which
portrays the mass slaughter of innocent human beings in a negative
light. Dean Martin will be giving Sci-Fi an "F" for failing to portray
drunkenness as life-affirming. Don Juan will be giving Sci-Fi an "F"
grade for failing to have a show that portrays serial adultery in a
positive light -- but Don gives BATTLESTAR GALACTICA an "A" for
sleeping with robots. Uncle Screwtape reminds me the any form of sex
that is sterile and selfish wins the approval of the Lowerarchy.
A reader reminds me that on BATTLESTAR GALACTICA sex with robots
is fertile after all: indeed, the whole point of the latter story
arc was to produce a human-cylon hybrid. I do not know if this
portrayal of the sex act was sufficiently selfish and sterile to please
Don Juan -- we will see what grade he gives the Sci-Fi channel in the
future. What the Lowerarchy wants is to make fornication seem normal
and marriage seem abnormal.
COMMENT ADDED LATER: Flash Crowd! Troll Avalanche!
The responses to this post are 800 and climbing at the time of this
writing, and because I cannot answer each letter personally, I would
like to give a general response. This falls into four categories:
(1) Irrelevant. To those of you who made irrelevant comments,
allow me to note that a true but irrelevant comment has nothing to do
with the topic, and therefore has no probative value.
Those whose arguments were irrelevant only because you are addressing a
point you thought I made but did not (such as those of you who thought
I was making a religious argument, or that I argued only sex in service
of procreation was licit) it is possible that I was insufficiently
clear. In such cases, the fault is mine, and I can make amends by
setting out my position in order when time permits.
To those who made both irrelevant and emotional comments, I point out
that this is counterproductive. A display of emotion on your part will
not persuade me, or any honest man, to revisit his conclusions. Myself,
I do not know anyone older than a small child who changes his mind
merely because some loudmouth shouts loudly at him. In this case, you
are not even in a position to shout at me, merely to type in all caps.
I assume you did not reach your current conclusions because you were
startled into them by a loud noise. Why do you assume any different for
(2) Relevant, but unanswered. To the one or two who actually addressed
the topic, you have my thanks and my congratulations. You rose above
your shabby intellectual surroundings. Unfortunately the sheer number
of other responses has drowned out your measured responses, so if I
have not answered, please assume I would like to and have not the time.
You may return here at some later date, after the flash crowd has lost
interest, and we can have a robust exchange of views.
Now, if I were Nancy Pelosi, I would accuse you all of being
'astroturf' and say that the insurance company hired you to come
interrupt my town meeting here. I make no such accusation (though
perhaps I could: I do note that a similar flash crowd showed up on my
wife's low-traffic live journal to browbeat her for her political
incorrectness. She was accused of being a racist on the grounds that
she was opposed to racism: the logic of that escaped me as well). The
general tone of the argument was the same. Nonetheless, I assume most
of you followed a link from SFSignal, where a busy little busybody has
engaged in a holy crusade against me, because, egad, I do not bow to
the idol he worships: the child-eating Moloch of political correctness.
This craven has not seen fit to address me personally, for reasons not
hard to guess.
(3) Notifications of Boycott. To the one or two readers who promised
never to buy my books because I came to certain conclusions in logic
you do not share, allow me to point out that most of my books were
written before my conversion to Christianity, and at least one was
written before my disillusionment with the Sexual Liberation Movement.
So, for those of you who buy books for the sake of ideological purity
rather than for entertainment value, I suggest you discover which is
which, and plan your purchases accordingly.
Naturally, I regret the loss of business, but keep in mind that you
came here to read my opinions, I did not smuggle those opinions out to
you disguised as books, like, say, Philip Pullman does, nor did I
intrude them in a forum where they were not asked-for. Someone in that
forum tried to stir up a mob against me, put, unlike a real mob, I can
simply lock out an electronic mob, so anyone coming here for anything
other than a rational conversation is wasting his time, but not mine.
(4) Yammerheads using this opportunity to express hatred and contempt
for the Christ and His Church. You I must thank. If I do not reply,
assume it is because I am turning the other cheek. The curses of
idolaters are a blessing to the faithful. I will pray for you.