The Republicrats affirm the sexual flexicrats in their…whatever

[update at the end]

Peter Thiel ( I think his name was), founder of PayPal, gave a speech last night during which he announced how “proud” he was of being gay. (That means ‘homosexual’ for you linguistic revanchists). I am heterosexual, but have never been proud of it. I was glad of it, once I figured out what it was good for, but never proud, since I was in no way responsible for possessing it. When I say “I am heterosexual,” I mean that it is intrinsic to my very being. When a man says he is homosexual, isn’t he saying the same thing? So why then is he proud of it, as though it were some sort of accomplishment, when in fact it can only be a gift from God? If it is a gift from God, why do I never hear homosexuals thanking Him for it?

Later, Donald Trump reached out enthusiastically to the “LGBTQ community.” He was very pleased with the crowd’s approval of Thiel’s speech. Now, I don’t think that Mr. Trump, prior to the speech, would have known to put the ‘Q’ into the community without proper instructions from a speechwriter. I don’t think he knew what it stands for. Just guessing, of course. It’s kind of funny, too, since during the campaign Mr. Trump found occasion to roundly denounce Mr. Romney as a loser, but in their attempts to suck up to that ‘community’, they sound a whole lot alike .

Owing to some urgency, I had to leave the room a couple times during the speech, but in what I did hear the word ‘unborn’ never made a sound. Other matters interest me as well, such as forcing women to register for the draft and compelling combat units to admit them to their ranks. Some still think that allowing openly declared homosexuals and the ostensibly transgendered to serve remains problematic, but I doubt – should Mr. Trump denounce this ongoing attempt to transform the military into a Disney Park for sexual utopians – that it would go over very well with Mr. Thiel. So I don’t expect that he will.

He did make some noise about replacing Antonin Scalia with another one. You know, the Scalia who hated abortion and the same-sex mimickry of marriage. Suppose he got his Scalia 2.0. He might even get 2.1. And what if this new and wondrously conservative court overturned Obergefell vs. Hodges? What’s he going to say to the ‘LGBTQ community’ then? Or will he litmus-test his Scalia clones to make sure they’re only Scalia-lite?

Another topic that interests me is the conscience rights of people who don’t want to facilitate the moral mayhem: photographers, bakers and candlestick makers, for example, who refuse to cater to the marriage mimics. Mr. Trump did thank the evangelicals for their support, but I didn’t hear any promises to actually do anything. Well, as I said, I had to leave the room so I might have missed something. But I doubt it.

By the way, what self-respecting evangelical Christian would support this man? Who are these people? What creed do they hold that allows them to imagine they also heard echoes of it in last night’s speech?

There was a movie once called Left Behind. If I recall, what happens in that story is that a thing called the Rapture descends upon mankind and all the good Christians get spirited off to be with Jesus, while those of whom He says “I never knew you” get…left behind. I’m not sure what their ultimate fate was since I never read the book or saw the movie. But after watching the euphoria of last night’s proceedings, that’s how I feel, like one of those left behinders. All the good Republicans have gone to join the new savior, while I got left behind. It’s not Trump’s fault, though. The process began a long time ago and last night was nothing more than (to descend to cliché) a nail in my coffin.

[of interest: at NR, Maggie Gallagher gives a broader overview of the problem, and an unflattering profile of the real political leanings of the Trump family. It's mostly quite good. But then she says this: "Peter Thiel was right to say he’s a proud gay man but wrong to say that the culture wars over transgender bathrooms don’t matter." Are these things not connected? Even this great warrioress in defense of marriage seems to want to have it both ways.]


This entry was posted in culture and morality, Politics, Religious Liberty, the marriage wars. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Republicrats affirm the sexual flexicrats in their…whatever

  1. Zippy says:

    Welcome to the faggotocracy. Eventually even approval won’t be enough. Participation will be mandatory.

  2. William Luse says:

    You mean like Obamacare for the sexually recalcitrant? The behavior will be deemed physically and spiritually salubrious with untold benefits for societal cohesion and the general welfare, and therefore you must try some? And how will it be verified that you participated? And what is the penalty for refusing?
    (I’m not sure I want the answers.)

  3. William Luse says:

    Btw, this honest man does not thank God for his homosexuality, but rather considers it a “wound.” His quote from B16 might require chastening of my contention that heterosexuality is “intrinsic to my very being.” I guess rather that it is masculinity that is intrinsic, a natural attraction to women bound up with it, the ‘sexual’ part of use only on earth, not in heaven. But I think people understand what I meant by it.

  4. C.A. Sebacher says:

    I do cheer on Milo Yiannopoulos. Is that wrong?

  5. William Luse says:

    Are you cheering his homosexuality or something else?

  6. C.A. Sebacher says:

    Bill, did you happen to catch the linked at the time? Watching the video then, I applauded (not all of it). Yiannopoulos steps up about twelve minutes in:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLqkizGtFo0

  7. William Luse says:

    Okay, I don’t have time to watch all that. Truth be told, I had never heard of this Milo guy until a few days ago when someone linked to a story about him on facebook concerning an entirely different matter (a movie review he wrote, of all things). A Twitter brouhaha ensued. (I don’t follow Twitter). Some actress’ s feelings were hurt. Milo was banned. Yawn. Based on the few minutes I watched, he and I would obviously agree on a few things. But, frankly, I think it’s inappropriate for a mini-celebrity to come to town to lecture us on any matter from whatever political point of view in the wake of a mass murder. I think rather that at such a time everyone should just shut up. As much of the movie review as I was able to get through, he struck me as a very mediocre writer afflicted with the common cold of internet commentary: a narcissistic love of one’s own voice.

    Did you have any thoughts on the main subject of the post?

  8. C.A. Sebacher says:

    Just rebuke.

  9. William Luse says:

    Take it kindly.

Comments are closed.