Can It Get Any Sicker?

1Matt Barber penned  A Politically Incorrect Guide to Sexual Orientation,  that lets us know 2013  can and will get stranger, and more  perverted!

Through the secular-“progressive” looking-glass, the term “sexual  orientation” has, in a few short years, evolved to accommodate an ever-expanding  fruit basket of carnal appetites.  First it was “LGB” — liberal shorthand for “lesbian, gay and bisexual.” Then  they added a “T” for “transgender.” That’s cross-dressing. You know, fellas like 45-year-old  Clay Francis (aka “Colleen”).

Mr. Francis enjoys macramé, long walks on the beach, wearing lady knickers  and showering fully nude with 6-year-old girls.  Because it’s illegal to “discriminate based on the basis of gender identity,” and since it’s the only “tolerant” thing to do, this brave bellwether of the  persecuted LGBT victim-class has secured the “civil right” for him and other men  to fully expose themselves to your daughter in the locker room at Olympia  Washington’s Evergreen State College.

But slow down, Dad. According to the law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis  baring it all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin sister, er, brother … whatever). Deck this sicko for  terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to  the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.”

But to make sure they didn’t miss anyone, pooh-bahs over at Child Corruption  Central added a “Q” to the “sexual orientation” mix.   In case some fifth-grader  in Ms. Adamsapple’s health class gets the urge to “taste the rainbow” (and I  don’t mean Skittles), the catch-all term “questioning” was tacked on.

According to the “gay” activist group GLSEN,  sexuality is “fluid” and “may change over time.” Unless, of course, you’re  already “gay,” and then change is impossible, fixed and immutable. Like that  hotel in California, “You can check out any time you like, but you can never  leave.”

Still, because “progressives” aren’t progressive unless they’re progressing  toward progress, this nonsensical alphabet soup of sexual deviancy has ballooned  to a marvelous “LGBTQQIAAP.”

The latest word  salad in the counter-“heterosexist” war against “heteronormativity” (yes,  they consider these real things) is “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,  Questioning, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, and Pansexual.   In Canada, they’ve added “2S” which  means: “Two-spirit. The visionaries and healers of aboriginal [sic] communities,  the gay and lesbian shamans.”

I just can’t believe these closed-minded bigots left out members of the  mistreated “BDSM” community (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism). That’s  OK, I guess. Being mistreated is their whole shtick, right? Or maybe they’re  covered under “P” for “pansexual.” That means, more or less, that if the mood  strikes, you’ll take a roll in the hay with anyone or anything in any way  imaginable (or unimaginable).

It looks like we’ll soon be adding another “B” to the mix.  The late “gay” activist icon Frank  Kameny — a pervert before his time — endorsed the practice of bestiality a  few years ago. He called sex with animals “harmless,” saying that “as long as  the animal doesn’t mind — and the animal rarely does — I don’t mind, and I don’t  see why anyone else should.”

So we’ve further lowered the bar from “consenting adults” to “consenting  adults and hoofed mammals.” How does that work? Bestiality is OK, but “neigh” means “neigh”?

In today’s frenzied struggle for unfettered sexual license cleverly couched  as “civil rights,” we shouldn’t be surprised, then, that oppressed peoples  representing all form of “sexual orientation” are lining up for their slice of  the “equality” pie.

According to a recent  report by Florida’s Gainesville Sun, for instance, “Lawyers  representing a Marion County man accused of sexual activity with a miniature  donkey have filed a motion asking a judge to declare the Florida statute banning  sexual activities with animals unconstitutional.”  According to the lawyer   “The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions,  cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties.”   This line of argument is directly from the homosexual activist playbook – the  rationale adopted by the majority in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case.  In Lawrence, the U.S. Supreme Court manufactured, for the first time in  history, a constitutional “right” for men to sodomize each other.

Once our culture decides, as a matter of course, that all morality is  relative, all bets are off. Once we determine, as a matter of law, that people  are entitled to special privilege because they subjectively define their  identity based upon deviant sexual proclivities and behaviors, moral, legal and  cultural anarchy are inevitable.

The brave new world is upon us.

You can read the article in full at this link.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *