The Penn State affair regarding the alleged pedophilia of a former football offensive coordinator has stirred the nation into spasms of discomfiture, just as the same subject has done with respect to the Catholic Church and its predatory priests. This indicates that there’s yet a modicum of decency in this country and an aversion to sexual perversions, at least regarding this particular manifestation.
This, however, presents a question about how deep into decency the public is. Many polls indicate – and in some states legislation has confirmed – that a large segment of the society approves of marriage between two men or two women. Indeed, President Obama, in a flip-flop from 2008 that could only accrue to inordinate campaign opportunism concerning the office, has indicated that he approves of two men walking the aisle in sacred ceremony. This is an actual placing of his imprimatur on homosexual behavior that is intolerably gross and filthy at best, and criminal at worst.
Those who argue the reverse may be quick to say that there’s a difference between consenting adults and put-upon children. Not so fast. The sanctioning of homosexual marriage is also the sanctioning of homosexual adoptions or the birthing of children by surrogates to be raised in homosexual households. This exposes them to weird sexual practices never meant by either nature or God, as manifested by the structure of the human body and mind, to say nothing of the scriptures, though the former alone (for the benefit of the atheists) is proof positive that homosexual behavior is unnatural and unseemly.
Being reared in such a household is bad for reasons of physical as well as mental health. An eminent physician, Dr. James Holsinger, was nominated by Bush 43 to be surgeon general a few years ago. He was not only deep-sixed by then-senator Ted Kennedy, before whose committee he had to appear (I watched the hearing), but also suffered condescension from the senator that was so hypocritical as to be laughable.
Dr. Holsinger had prepared a paper some time before that outlined the physical injuries to be experienced by homosexuals during what they, as well as the politically correct, call sexual intercourse of one kind or another. Actually, it was a clinical stating of the obvious, such as what happens during anal or oral sex-play. The senator considered that carefully researched and prepared paper a horrendous example of political un-correctness but, of course, had never demonstrated his disdain of his own church (Roman Catholic) for the same reason by just leaving it.
The point of the paper was, simply, that homosexual behavior is physically harmful. This doesn’t even take into account the proclivity for HIVAids accruing to homosexuals, who are probably known as much for their “promiscuity” as for anything else. They engage in orgies without discrimination, disregarding the effect their behavior might have on others. Apparently, the senator, whose private life read like an open sewer, was not impressed with merely observing the obvious.
One of the most sickening examples of moral turpitude occurred during the presidential campaign in 2008 and was foisted off on the public by the democrats in their primary-campaigns. It was that famous (or infamous) “debate” conducted by a LGBT (or something like that) group in which all but two of the many candidates, Biden and Dodd, participated. They had the good sense not to place their public stamp of approval on perversion, no matter how they felt in private. I watched some of it and was sickened by the fawning of folks like Hillary Clinton, transparently pandering to practitioners of perversion and thus awarding unnatural behavior their stamp of approval.
This “debate” was indicative of the acceptance by much of the public – in the name of recognizing diversity as god – of being fair to all. It’s reflected in the public schools, in which sexual activity of any kind by students is practically sanctioned as absolutely unavoidable to the point of being virtually encouraged, the philosophy being ascendant that “normal” people can’t and shouldn’t try to withstand the primitive urges one might observe in a zoo or stockyard. Their bottom line, after all, is simply that people are just animals under another name.
So the president thinks men should marry men if the urge so drives them. What, then, does he think about pedophilia between “consenting” participants, or what does he think about marriages among those who don’t like the restraint of its existing just for “pairs?” Why not marriages for groups? What does he think about incest, which, after all, is just a privacy matter – right?
Yes…the Penn State affair furnishes a venue for a thorough self-examination in this country with regard to what’s acceptable in an orderly society. Unfortunately, the nation is tilting toward perversion as normal, a certain predictor of a society rotting from the inside, not being overtaken by an outside force. After all, in changing his position, doesn’t the president feel that the nation is now more prurient-oriented than it was in 2008? He’s campaigning again, so it’s fair to assume that premise.