A discourse on homosexuality

This country is obsessed by homosexuality. Whichever side of the debate on which you may fall, it cannot be denied that being fabulous dominates much of our discourse. Are homosexuals born that way or is it a choice? Is homosexuality a sin or not? Should homosexuals be allowed in the military? Can they marry each other?

Many a comment section of an Amerika.org article has turned into a debate of homosexuality and gay marriage even though the article did not mention homosexuality or gay marriage. I wrote an article that got ninety-five comments. Half of them were about gay marriage; the article had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. Ironically enough, a few weeks ago there was an article that was actually about gay marriage and the comments section turned into a discussion of conservative strategy.

Stop and think for a second about what the “hot button issues” of the day are: abortion, free birth control, rape, incest, gay marriage, pedophilia, sexual harassment, Octo-Moms and My Two Dads. Much of the discourse in this country seems to revolve around bodily functions.

AIDS is another interesting case study. I believe it’s fair to say that AIDS is not the scare that it used to be. AIDS used to be really popular. When I was a kid, AIDS was everywhere. The trend peaked on the MTV show The Real World. As you may know, Pedro from The Real World was the first man with AIDS on TV. It became a national talking point; it was a serious moment and people needed to be made more “aware” of AIDS.

What does it mean to be “aware” of AIDS anyway? There’s this disease called AIDS – if you get it, you will die. Am I aware of AIDS now? No, you must talk about AIDS, you must watch TV programs about AIDS, and you must read books about AIDS. Now you are even more aware of AIDS. We all know that being more aware is better than being less aware. So if merely knowing that AIDS is a disease that you don’t want to catch is being only slightly aware of AIDS, and reading a book about AIDS will make you moderately more aware of AIDS, then reading two books about AIDS will make you even more aware of AIDS and so on.

Do you see where this is headed? The only way to become completely and intimately aware of AIDS is to actually catch AIDS yourself. Then you will have perfect enlightenment of AIDS. And don’t forget about the “myths” of AIDS – we must not only learn what AIDS is, we must also learn what AIDS is not. The entire country spends an inordinate amount of time thinking and talking about such things as AIDS, sexuality, and rape. There must be some underlying issue to all of this, since we’re converging on topics of sexual morality, health and sexual orientation at the same time, again and again.

Plato suggested that the soul was composed of three parts: the appetitive, the rational and the spirited. In his view, those three types corresponded to the classes of people in a healthy society, with reason (aided by spirit) ruling over the appetitive impulses. Appetitive in this case refers to what Immanuel Kant might have called incontinence, or the inability to defer feelings, sensations, judgments and bodily desires in order to make the right decision.

All of these intertwined topics push the buttons of the appetitive part of the soul. It’s no wonder it is nearly impossible to avoid leaping into the discussion. This partially explains a recent favorite pastime of vaguely psychoanalyzing people from afar. Supposedly every philosopher, writer, thinker, leader, musician, and artist was likely a homosexual. Several of them probably even had AIDS. All poetry is merely homosexual innuendo, as is painting.

Discourse of this nature gains its strength through sheer, simple repetition. It has little to do with what side will “win” or the energy created between the two opposing sides. It is akin to brainwashing or incantation. It feeds off itself and obscures other, more important topics. In Plato’s Republic discourse revolves around the quest for and definition of Justice. Today our discourse revolves around what does or does not constitute rape. Let’s raise the level of discourse in this country by ignoring these fake debates. Maybe the pacifists had a point with regard to non-engagement. Stop talking so much about our bodies and start talking more about our minds and our Souls.

Our discourse reflects where our minds are. You have heard people say “healthy body, healthy mind.” Let me reverse that and take it a step further: healthy soul, healthy mind, healthy body. If you take care of your soul first and foremost, your mind and body will follow suit. If you want a healthy mind, worry less about your body and more about the discourse that is filling your mind. If you want to be high-minded, talk about high-minded things. Otherwise we begin to resemble the topics that overwhelm our debate.

18 Comments

  1. Mihai says:

    Very good and insightful article.

    You are very right in that the strategy of postmodernists is to fragment the discussion (because postmodernism means fragmentation and dissolution) in order to make everyone lose sight of the big picture.

    They do not ever allow one to talk about Truth (indeed they refuse to even conceive Truth as such, with a capital “T”) and instead initiate tedious and purposeless talk about an indefinite number of lesser or particular “truths”. Such discussions are actually insoluble in the absence of real Truth, plus they contain so many ramifications and possibilities of argument, that the opponent is soon lost in a jungle of arguments, counter-arguments, deconstructions and so on, with no idea with what he is aiming for.

    It is a crude strategy, but strategy which is often successful, having fallen myself a few times for it.

    Your solution seems to be that we shouldn’t look just AT these particular issues, but ALONG them, to trace them back at the root ideology that projected them. If this is it I completely agree.

    To realize that issues such as homosexuality, abortion etc are merely symptoms, even tools and means in the process of promoting a much wider agenda of a single ideology- the disease of relativism, the religion of postmodernism.

  2. AIDSonthebrain says:

    “it cannot be denied that being fabulous dominates much of our discourse”

    Haha! That’s a good one!

    Pedro Zamora was the real world guy.

    Anyway, you must be GenerationX I assume. It was an experience in ‘discourse’ alright.

    You cannot rationally argue this particular issue without emotionality dominating the discussion. But they can’t leave you alone either. You can,t even ignore them, that is what they hate more than anybody.

  3. crow says:

    Nice one, Ted. It’s so serious, it made me laugh.
    I recognize this phenomenon, now you shine some light on it.
    It besets our society. Contaminates it.
    Instead of living life, people prefer to sink their energies into arguing about their stances towards it. How they feel about it; their opinions of it.
    There’s nothing like people.

  4. Aha. This is a great topic. Isn’t it about time to turn the corner and stop losing at someone else’s favorite game.

  5. This had nothing to do with homosexuality! I want my five minutes back, this article didn’t help me at all!

  6. We attempted to watch a Nordic movie (Headhunter) here tonight.

    The vision of society it projected was bleak: people are isolated, manipulate each other, and have basically nothing to live for except wealth and power.

    If anything, this is a good summary of the disease that has afflicted Europeans. Smarter than average, we wallow in misery instead of finding some purpose outside of our individual smart selves.

    This is one of many reasons I date our downfall to 1789, when we replaced the kings with ourselves and so created societies of 100 million discordant and isolated voices, with no shared values and thus a need for strong centralized control.

    1. Mihai says:

      I have read the plot of this film (Headhunter) on Wikipedia- it is very detailed there. The thing which strikes me each time I read about or actually watch the films nowadays is that they no longer show the old fight between the good and the bad, there is no more “protagonist” and “antagonist”. The image they project is one of a complete jungle, as you said, with nothing at stake except wealth and power. There are no goods and evils, only some evils that have to settle a score among themselves, who sometimes behave in a “good” way, but only in a sense of “good”.
      In the end, no order prevails, only a continuity of the same state of affairs, with the one who managed to evade detection and spray the more bullets ending with the “big prize” (as that movies end shows).

      One more reason for me to no longer bother with the film industry, which is nothing but a propaganda weapon in the hands of liberal postmodernism. (both the “mainstream” holywood type AND the hipster celebrated “underground”, with the kind of Lars von Trier).

      1. In the end, no order prevails, only a continuity of the same state of affairs, with the one who managed to evade detection and spray the more bullets ending with the “big prize” (as that movies end shows).

        Even simpler: in the older days, the idea behind literature was transformation. I came, I saw, I had this experience and it changed me, and thus I conquered. What did you conquer? My own fears; the wild; other people who were behaving illogically; a bad organization or idea. Something must be conquered, and there is always an internal component to it. The hero first has to get his act together, emotionally and mentally and spiritually, before he can go to his quest.

        In the modern movie, it’s more like shopping. I want this; I can’t have it. What do I do? I’ll manipulate a way to get it and be clever, and the cost to society and myself I will ignore.

        1. Mihai says:

          “Even simpler: in the older days, the idea behind literature was transformation. I came, I saw, I had this experience and it changed me, and thus I conquered.”

          Yes, well said.

          And the sad part is that even that literature from the past which has transformative power is no longer perceived as such, “thanks” to the progressive mentality. Now, things from the past are mere curiosities, having been surpassed by “progress and evolution”.

      2. 1349 says:

        the old fight between the good and the bad, there is no more “protagonist” and “antagonist”.

        Moreover, in old epics, like the Iliad, both sides are more or less noble, and one can sympathize with either of them, in various situations.
        Cameron used a bit of this in his Avatar.

        AND the hipster celebrated “underground”, with the kind of Lars von Trier

        True.
        One of the reasons i’ve only watched about 5 movies in the last 4 years…

    2. Missy says:

      Long time ago, under the kings there was shared values, but strong centralized control still existed. In theory, a king is a good thing in a society of commonly held values, but so very many kings and queens were cruel and/or crazy. Same as Lenin. Can you recall a sane one?

      Re homosexuality. Nobody lost sleep over its mere existence; when I was a kid in a small village we all knew it was there. Some kids in school were thought (rightly, as it turned out later) to be homo; the priest was a homo; that guy living alone who never married was a homo. They really were. And we socialized with them and we treated each other decently. It is only since the sickness of liberalism came along that society divided up into two groups – those who think that the Folsom Street Fair is a great and wonderful thing; and those who are obsessed with someone else’s birth defect.

  7. Uland K says:

    I read a poll recently, which asked various demographics what percentage of the population are homosexual. Teens and young women placed it, on average, at %30.
    Thought you’d get a kick out of that. The correct answer is 2-3 %, btw…

  8. Bert says:

    I’m not homosexual, so I’m not very interested in homosexuality.

    What an unusual novelty for some many people to be consumed about!

    I am still fighting to have people recognize my powerful heterosexual proclivities. It’s my identity and I want to march in parades so everyone finally understands who I really am.

    1. NotTheDude says:

      Haha so true. I have blue eyes and I want to tell the world that I do! Lol

  9. Aspic says:

    Obsessed by Faggotry is my favourite Sodom album.

    1. EvilBuzzard says:

      Boy, imagine living under the Tyranny of Sodom Hussein?

  10. gg says:

    hopelessly suicidal bad seed neurotic drowning victims who will latch onto anything(preferably living so that it may serve as an audience or for sadomasochistic pleasure like pulling a rescuer down with them if it may deny their emotional overtures) to alleviate the pain of spontaneity and shun any potential new path that the excitement of the unique experience may shock into them channeling a change in behavior and body chemistry that can leap over the need to engage in pretense in the first place.

    People who speak of these issues… their mouths move but they are not saying a word of meaning. They reduce the importance of their language to that of a musical instrument spewing sounds as monkey brained as one can. They flair their emotions and burn their life energy in a matter of seconds, holding onto their own tension for structure and will. Their energetic stagnation sets in deeper and they become even further from ever knowing themselves than ever before, like planet out of orbit.

  11. [...] The bureaucracy’s strength is in its ability to replicate itself. But therein is also its weakness. If something becomes stretched thin, it is all the weaker at any one point. Through sheer use of synonyms, repetition, and vague language one sees clearly that there is no substance underneath. It is akin to incantation or sorcery. [...]

Leave a Reply

39 queries. 0.611 seconds