Daily Archives: January 6, 2011

Christmas 2030: Frank And Christy Adopt Little Jennifer

“If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.”
Boris Johnson, when he still said what he thinks.

I am heartily sick of hearing people say “why this shouldn’t be allowed” and “why are you against that” concerning matters of obvious moral relevance. When such words are uttered, you can be sure that “they don’t harm anyone” is not far away.

Whenever I hear such expressions, it seems to me that “not harming other people” has become, in the mind of many, the only perceived criterium of morality. If one wants to commit suicide but “doesn’t harm anyone” (beside himself, I think it’s meant), then he should be free to demand to be put to sleep like a dog; the same reasoning applies to many of the other absurdities nowadays smuggled as “human rights”.

Christians have a different system of values, but they are not the only ones having values different from “provided that he doesn’t harm anyone”. In fact everyone has them, they merely forget it whenever appropriate. Ask your liberal interlocutor what he thinks about incest and bestiality and you’ll see him recoil like an artillery gun in a WW II documentary, but without giving a satisfactory answer as to why homosexuality should be allowed and incest and bestiality forbidden.

The reality is that the only reason why homosexuality is not forbidden anymore, but incest and bestiality still are, is simply that some perverts are better lobbyists than others. Look at suicide and euthanasia and you’ll see the same process happening again.

If we apply to everyone the same criteria of “human rights” I fail to recognise why, say, two siblings of 22 and 26 – both perfectly happy with their respective “partner” – should not claim the same “human rights” of two males, or two females. The dangers for the offspring’s health can certainly not be a criterium as liberals tend to be great supporters of contraception and abortion. Besides – and if we want to be really progressive – mandatory sterilisation would certainly put an end to the issue. It goes without saying that the “couple” would then be free to adopt, making the joy of the gutter press by every “Zachary”.

Also very funny is the argument about anyone (say, a male dog of adequate dimensions and an assenting adult female) being “harmed” by sexual intercourse when it is evident to the least enlightened that the introduction of a human penis into a human sphincter is an equally disgusting but certainly a more difficult and potentially harmful exercise. Still, the same people who are disgusted at the mere mention of the girl don’t have any problem in talking of “same sex relationships”, and I’d love to know why.
I imagine that this is what 50 years of liberalism have done to their brains, and to their conscience. Dr. Goebbels would be proud.

A society where everything that doesn’t cause harm is allowed is a society open to every form of disgusting behaviour. Of course, in reality every society has some moral criteria; but modern society has substituted the coherence and solidity of a divinely founded system of values with a random approval of some perversions and punishment of others without any coherent motive as to why.

If you approve of Elton John and “partner” living together and adopting a child then you must explain why you don’t want to have Frank and Christy, the couple in “sibling partnership” down at the 23, informing you that they have adopted little Jennifer; or why you don’t want to be invited to the civil partnership ceremony between Joanna – the mature woman who is always the first to say “good afternoon” and is never short of a smile – and Thunderbolt, the three-years old male of West Highland White Terrier so much devoted to her. (Disgusting, uh? Well, now you know what I think when I read about the parents of “little Zachary”…..).

If you want to have morals, you must limit the “freedom” to be gravely immoral. You can’t have a system in which freedom and individual conscience is the basis of morality because this is a social system open to debauchery of every kind.

Next time you hear of more or less famous “civil partnerships” think of Frank and Christy, or of Joanna and Thunderbolt.

If you don’t wake up, one day they could be your neighbours.


%d bloggers like this: