Progressives: Their Inescapable Conundrum (Part II)
Since humans in the Darwinian-Marxist-Progressive universe are endowed with nothing, -and unalienable human rights do not exist since no Creator intended man to possess them, it therefore follows that the natural masters have the right, (in the interest of what is best for the people as a whole, i.e., for the General Welfare of the state) to issue mandates, enforceable by the martial power of the government, to isolate, neutralized, and even eradicate the defective, aberrant, mentally incapacitated, physically & mentally deteriorated, and generally genetically inferior members that are a drag on society, and a detriment to its continual improvement and purification from flawed genetics.
That authority includes the authority to sterilize those who are mentally, or morally inferior specimens of humanity, to isolate those with deviant sexual drives, including pedophilia, homophilia, fawnophilia, and necrophilia.
They must be removed from society in order to protect society from their deviance and their ability to reproduce off-spring like themselves. They should not be allowed to pollute the social environment nor society's gene pool, but should be instead isolated in communities of their own or in institutions qualified to handle them.
Since their aberrant nature is more than psychological in nature, but also springs from their defective genetic make-up and cannot be cured, they must not be allowed to ever return to normal society while they are still young enough to reproduce or live-out their deviant desires.
While it is natural to sympathize with some of these goals, the fundamental issue is that the American government possesses no specific constitutional authority to carry them out. Nor can it claim the moral superiority to exercise such authority via force even if all of the Progressive goals were laudable.
The conundrum of the Leftists is that they've chosen a battle in which they are their own enemy. They've chosen to promote homosexual equality which is intrinsically linked to acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, -at the heart of which is not homosexual attraction and love and marriage, but homosexual sex.
But male homosexual sex is damned on the Right by the declarations of the Law of Moses and the echoing of that view by the Christian apostles, as well as damned on the Left by godless Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest evolution.
It can't escape the conclusion that homosexuality is totally deviant and an evolutionary dead-end, -although it offers no moral judgement (its chief attraction, -no guilt!). But on what is the biblical prohibition against it, and adultery, based? It's based on an innate, visceral revulsion towards such behavior, and it's an element of heterosexual male adult psychology that is a reflection of the nature of the creator in whose image man was fashioned.
Just as certain scents are more than just scents, but are horrible, revolting odors that can never be tolerated, much less accepted, so also are such behaviors to the normal and natural male nature.
That revulsion is like the canary in the coal mine. You don't want to see it expire. If and when it does, it probably spells the eventually suppression of the birth rate in modern societies in which people are capable of preventing or termination pregnancy.
That birth rate is already insufficient for most modern nations to maintain their present population and they are consequently shrinking (or being replaced by third-world, poorly educated, -or Islamic immigrants).
That, in itself, is not a bad thing, but what is bad is the likelihood that that trend will not be reversed by any conceivable circumstance that doesn't involve dire consequences taking place over time, -including the disintegration of a sense of social and national cohesion and unity.
Such consequences would be very gradual and unnoticed, but by looking at the known statistics regarding marriage occurring at later ages, -or not at all, and producing far fewer off-spring that in the past, one can't escape seeing the trend is toward fewer births, more abortions and pregnancy prevention, and more birth outside of a real home with a united mother and father present.
If divorce is bad for individuals and children, as well as society as a whole, then how much worse is not even having a father in the first place? Well, it's bad, -with testosterone and no moral compass being the reason:
"The simple truth is that fathers are irreplaceable in shaping the competence and character of their children." --family researcher David Blankenhorn.
Juvenile male elephants, which are driven out of the all-female herd, feel lost, and somewhat angry, and untethered. They often engage in destructive rampages in groups (gangs) and are only calmed back down to normal behavior by the presence of one or more fully adult males, -their seniors and superiors.
Who can't see the analogy between them and human behavior in the inner cities where 75% of the young males have no father, and all of their local role models are bad?
They are the end result of the erasure of a sense of private and public morality, and it was all brought to you by the sponsors of the Marxist, Darwinist, Progressive, Humanist, Socialist, Atheist agenda. Their faith in the benevolence of their bankrupt philosophy keeps them ever reaching for paradise on earth, for ever greater unconstitutional enactments that will result in a little more of Utopia in our times, while they fail to grasp its failings. Their blindness is leading us toward a Utopia that will slowly prove to instead be a purgatory of our own making. And those on the Right, who embrace their idealistic goals, will have been the enablers that made it all possible. And it will all have been in the name of compassion.
"To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good." --Russian novelist and Soviet gulag prisoner and dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)
(See Part I.)