Homofascists March On

Steven Mosher
by Joseph A. D'Agostino
PRI Weekly Briefing
10 May 2006
Vol. 8 / No. 19
Reproduced with Permission

When Nazis are talked about today, there is usually no mention of certain of their prominent aspects. Of course, those aspects which don't fit into the politically correct view of history are those which get no mention. So you rarely hear of the Nazis' push for eugenic abortion, for euthanasia of the unfit (i.e., the disabled, sick, or dying), or their persecution of the Catholic Church. You are even less likely to hear of the prominent role that homosexuality and a hyper-masculine homosexualist ideology played in the early days of the Nazi Party until Hitler purged the most flamboyant of those elements, perhaps to prevent average Germans from turning away from the newly successful fascists.

Some of that spirit lives on and is growing. Today's homosexual "rights" activists are determined to impose upon Western society a neo-paganism that is anti-life, anti-family, and anti-religious, and they actively seek to punish those who disagree. Obviously, homosexuality is opposed to the propagation of new human life, and the huge campaign in favor of it we now experience comes at a time when birthrates have already fallen below replacement in almost every Western country. In fact, as early as the 1960s, Planned Parenthood listed the encouragement of homosexuality as one of the methods for reducing human populations. And male homosexual behavior spreads AIDS, which increases the death rate.

It may be illegal to say such things in the near future. Items:

One might think that publications for homosexuals, staffed by journalists who supposedly value free speech, would deplore these incidents as excesses committed by the fringes of their movement. Yet increasingly, they view any negative comments about homosexuality as "sexual harassment" and advocate banning such comments. On April 21, The Advocate blasted a Georgia Tech student suing for what it called "the right to be antigay." No one has such a right, according to The Advocate. "[Ruth] Malhotra, chair of the Atlanta university's College Republicans, believes she should be able to express freely her religious views opposing homosexuality, although what she considers freedom of expression is seen as harassment by others. In 2004 she sent a letter to a gay student activist that described the campus's gay rights group Pride Alliance as a 'sex club...that can't even manage to be tasteful,' adding that it was 'ludicrous' for the university to fund the group. Malhotra was later reprimanded by the dean." The Advocate did not claim the letter contained anything threatening.

The Advocate is angry that some are trying to preserve free speech in America on this question. "Her suit against Georgia Tech, filed by the conservative legal group the Alliance Defense Fund, is part of a growing campaign by the Christian right to invalidate all kinds of common tolerance initiatives at schools and businesses across the country, including diversity training promoting the acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes, and anti-discrimination protections," it said. "The goal is to eliminate all policies protecting LGBT people from harassment." Just label any speech with which you disagree "harassment," and presto, you have an exception to the 1st Amendment.

I find advocacy of same-sex marriage gravely offensive to my religious beliefs and personal sensibility. May I call such advocacy "religious harassment" and forbid anyone to speak thus in my presence, on pain of loss of education or employment?

In foreign countries such as Canada, Sweden, and Britain, it is now against the law to criticize homosexuality in public, and people are being prosecuted for doing so. The European Union has issued a directive requiring countries that do not officially bless same-sex unions such as Poland and Malta to grant benefits to those homosexual couples who, having "married" in another country, move there.

We all know that same-sex "marriage" was imposed on Massachusetts by that state's supreme court, not by any process that resembled the rule of law or republican government.

We also all know how incredibly destructive active homosexuality is, spiritually, psychologically, socially, to families, and to health.

"Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty," by Maggie Gallagher in the May 15 Weekly Standard, gets into the decline of religious freedom on this issue in alarming detail. It's clear that the gradual adoption of same-sex marriage will gradually abrogate Americans' religious freedom. Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told Gallagher, "[B]ecause marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter" between church and state.

Camille Paglia, herself bisexual "tending toward lesbianism" as she put it, once wrote on Salon.com, June 23, 1998:

"I have been struck, in my brief encounters over the years with a half-dozen prominent gay male activists, by the frightening coldness and deadness of their eyes. Behind their smooth, bland faces I saw the seething hatreds of Dostoevskian anarchists. Gay crusading, I concluded, was their way of handling their own bitter misanthropy, which came from other sources. I found these men more spiritually twisted than anyone I have encountered in my life."