The destructive fruits of sexual politics
By Stephen Baskerville
It may be no accident that Dale McAlpine, the Christian arrested for street preaching in England, was nabbed for his views on homosexuality. As Melanie Phillips points out in the Daily Mail, the preponderance of cases in what she calls Britain’s “attempt to stamp out Christianity” involve homosexuality.
This is also true in the U.S. and elsewhere as Christians find their beliefs proscribed once they criticize homosexuality. “This is in contrast to other contentious issues such as abortion, where the law specifically provides exemptions for conscience,” Phillips writes.
Clichés about “inequality,” “discrimination” and other agitprop jargon borrowed largely from the American civil-rights era disguise a much deeper development. The sexualization of politics (and the politicization of sex) is the most important – and least scrutinized – political development since the 1960s. In 40 years, the political Left has transformed itself from a socialistic campaign against property and enterprise into a sexual attack on the family, marriage and masculinity.
The sexual agenda is more than a simple request for “equality” (for feminists) or to be left alone (for homosexuals). It is an ideology with no precise limits demanding an open-ended sexual “liberation” that quickly expands into demands to exercise government power over others. As Burke observed, “Liberty, when men act in bodies, is power.”
What is at the heart of evil in our world, and how do we lessen its power in our own lives? Check out David Kupelian’s newest book, “How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America”
Because this power covers what was once considered private life, the potential for intrusion is also unlimited. The words “power” or “empowerment” are now ubiquitous in feminist and gay literature, describing a control over other people’s private lives as well as public policy. Voices of restraint like gay campaigner Peter Tatchell, who criticized McAlpine’s arrest, do not change the larger reality.
Like other ideologies only more so, the danger may be seen in the absence of dissent. More than any other, sexual politics neuters, literally emasculates, its opposition. Feminist and gay politics contain a hostility toward heterosexual masculinity that is increasingly shared by the mainstream culture.
But no free society can exist without masculinity. Masculine strength is the only counterweight to the power of the state.
Loading ...
First of all, arguments that claim that religious people will be subject to arrest and prosecution in this country for preaching their beliefs are completely specious. Canada, the UK, and Continental Europe don’t have First Amendments–we do. Unfortunately for these countries, their lack of explicit, unshakeable protections for free speech has led to the prosecution not only of peaceful anti-gay speech, but of other forms of speech as well (just look at Geert Wilders in the Netherlands). So of course these violations of free speech are reprehensible, but it’s simply false to claim that the US is in the exact same situation vis-a-vis the right to unpopular beliefs as Europe is.
Secondly, the Ruth Institute should be ashamed of itself for sinking to the level of insinuating that there is a mortal, irreconcilable struggle between “masculine strength” and the supposedly sinister, “emasculating” forces of homosexuality and gay people. To get an idea of how disgusting the idea that gay people are weak, effeminate, and can only fight by proxy (e.g. government power) is, try recalling that this very prejudice was–and sometimes still is–held against Jews. Christian conservatives are fond of saying “Those homosexuals don’t need rights–they’re already rich and powerful, and there are so few of them anyway,” evidently forgetting that this canard was lifted directly from the era of Jewish persecution. Perhaps someday the Catholic Church will offer an apology to gays for centuries of torment, persecution and legal efforts to deny us the things that others take for granted, just as the Church has already apologized (albeit in a rather half-hearted way) for centuries of persecution of another group–Jews–who have been condemned by Christians on the same ground as gays–that they are violating God’s plan for humanity.
Thank you ALEX!!! As a lawyer, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are MAJOR differences between the U.S. and other countries in terms of our protections for free speech under the First Amendment. Although fear-mongering may help fund-raising, it relies on lies and/or misunderstanding about the legal rights of U.S. citizens. Some of the most hateful speech is fully protected by our Constitution, including racist and sexist speech.
Also, I really appreciate you exposing the bizarre assumption of some of those who are against women’s rights and rights for GLBT people that the push for equality is somehow “anti-masculine.” Where does that even come from? Feminists don’t actually hate men, although that is a familiar diatribe from those who hate feminists. And neither feminists nor gay people are anti-men or anti-masculinity. I really don’t get that silliness. How is it anti-masculine to be pro-equality? Unless of course, being pro-masculine means being pro-inequality…maybe that’s it….hmmm….
But, in any event, I’ve met and know plenty of gay, straight, bisexual, feminist men and women who don’t fit traditional gender stereotypes. I know effeminate straight men and strong and powerful straight women. I know feminine lesbians, and gay men that a homophobe would not want to mess with! But I guess it’s easier for those who spread hatred to spread falsities about those who they hate…
Feminists don’t actually hate men, although that is a familiar diatribe from those who hate feminists.
But I guess it’s easier for those who spread hatred to spread falsities about those who they hate…
Pot calling the kettle black, Heidi. You are doing EXACTLY the same thing you accuse others of doing, rightly or wrongly….accusing those who disagree with you of being just motivated by hate while denying that any of those who agree with you just may be in part motivated by it as well.