By Eugène E.

If sexual minorities have ever had a golden age, surely this must be it. The media and the LGBT lobby insist there’s still plenty of bigotry to go around, but the truth is that the sexually idiosyncratic have never had it so good. It’s safe to say that, in much of the West, the LGBT crowd has gained both political and social acceptance. The media and modern culture are saturated with themes of queer love and paeans to the sexually unconventional. The sight of two individuals of the same gender holding hands has become a common one in the streets of the modern metropolis. Businesses and stores are proud to hoist rainbow flags during Pride time and declare their unwavering support for the LGBT cause. Finally, in a growing number of Western countries, same-sex couples have attained the ultimate prize: the right to marry and, in some jurisdictions, the right to adopt children. Given that homosexual intercourse was a criminal offence in many Western countries not too long ago (until 1967 in England, for example), the LGBT movement has done rather well. Equality, it seems, has finally dawned upon a prejudiced and benighted Western civilization. The LGBT lobby appears to have largely reached its objective – normalization, the view that homosexuality, along with a few other things, is normal.

It is anything but.

Contrary to what the LGBT lobby would have you think, homosexuality is abnormal. The term “abnormal” is not pejorative, but in fact “value neutral”: it can be a strength as well as a weakness. An abnormality is merely a deviation from what is considered to be normal or average; it need not be either good or bad. Since the vast majority of human beings is comprised of heterosexuals and only a minority is not, it follows that this minority is abnormal. This view is anathema to the torchbearers and proselytizers of today’s ultraliberalism, who maintain that homosexuality is abnormal only as long as it is considered to be such. There was a time, they argue, when slavery was viewed as socially acceptable until a shift in the conscience and moral outlook of society took place; likewise, homosexuality, once a taboo that required a “cure”, can become perfectly normal if we only will it to be so. Slavery, however, was a purely human construct; sexuality isn’t. The primary objective of the human race is to survive; the survival of the human species is contingent on its continuation – on having issue, in a word. This requires sexual congress between a male and a female. Our ancestors were quick to figure this out and so codified things accordingly. The Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman not because it was concocted by superstitious, backward people, but because it was obvious to that society that this arrangement was the optimal one if they were to survive. Moreover, the recognition of a union between a man and a woman as the only legally acceptable kind of marriage is not exclusive to countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage – marriage in Japan has the same framework as it does in Belarus.

This is not a coincidence. If fifty homosexuals were marooned on a deserted island, whatever their gender, that pocket of the human race would be extinguished with the island’s fiftieth death. A lifestyle or natural disposition that goes against the cardinal rule of nature is unnatural, and no amount of ideological legerdemain will ever correct that. It is impossible to make something normal merely by wishing that it were or by repeating that it is.

Homosexuality is a form of sexual pathology. This is neither a negative characteristic nor a justification for persecution of sexual minorities. Persecuting someone on the basis of one’s sexual orientation is about as fair as persecuting someone for having been born with three arms or two heads. But it would not occur to anyone to call a person with three arms or two heads “normal”, no matter how refined one’s notions of equality might be, which illustrates a frequently overlooked difference between equality and equalization. Equality is the idea that all people should be treated fairly (e.g., that everyone can count on equal treatment before the law). It does not mean that all people are intrinsically equal, as that is an impossibility in principle. When equality is used as a weapon to negate differences between people, it morphs into equalization – with some profoundly disturbing consequences.

In the not-too-distant past, homosexuality in the West was, at a minimum, perceived to be immoral; in many countries, as mentioned, it was a criminal offence. Gays lived in the permanent shadow of opprobrium; socially, they were pariahs. Then came about a major paradigm shift. The French conservative intellectual Eric Zemmour connects the genesis of this shift to the rise of the consumerist society. He might be on to something. Rampant consumerism, that spoiled child of capitalism, recognizes no limits and encourages unbridled hedonism (massive indebtedness, which has become a fact of life for many, is a byproduct of that mentality, as people seek credit to finance lifestyles they can’t afford), which mirrors a culture that does away with all moral taboos. Not to mention that, in the US alone, the LGBT segment is a trillion-dollar consumer group, which makes gay rights a profitable enterprise.

(World Inc. is often believed to be aligned with the political right. That is at best a half-truth. Money is free of ideology; multinational corporations are perfectly libertarian in spirit. Big business cares about money, not values. Conservatism and moderation do not mesh well with a consumerist ethos.)

The promotion of alternative lifestyles, therefore, is a “net positive” for the transnational corporate world. But the rise of the LGBT movement and the rise of consumerism are more complementary than anything else. The increasing clout of the LGBT movement occurred against the backdrop of a general breakdown in mores and values, the smashing of conventions and standards that took place in the 60s, and the revolt against authority (the hippie movement, the student protests in 1968, were all manifestations of this breakdown). With the ultraliberal doctrine propagating its views in the media and on university campuses, the atmosphere was conducive to the growing influence of the LGBT movement and its lobby.

The pursuit of normalization required the LGBT lobby to revolutionize thinking, to bring about an irreversible change in people’s perceptions and attitudes, to move from equality to equalization. Simply put, it was no longer sufficient for society to recognize that some people preferred to have sexual relations with those of their own gender in the comfort of their bedrooms (acceptance). Instead, a complete negation of all and any differences between same-sex couples and heterosexual ones was needed. People could not be permitted to think in terms of abnormalities; to be gay is to be no different from being non-gay. That is the way to normalization.

The strategy of the LGBT lobby can be loosely reduced to several components, which overlap and reinforce each other: celebration, banalization, and stigmatization – essentially, all textbook propaganda tools. Celebration is the veneration of the LGBT movement; unconventional sexual “lifestyles” are celebrated, as if they were something admirable, something festive, something approaching a religious holiday even. Banalization serves to render homosexuality so commonplace that it can be easily foisted on children in schools (indoctrination works best with undeveloped minds, so winning the schools is the surest way to the triumph of any ideology). Finally, the lobby undertakes the stigmatization of any dissenting voices, effectively removing any opposition to its agenda. It is not enough to merely tolerate homosexuality; it is imperative to accept it on its terms, meet all of its demands, and regard it on the basis of the principle of equalization. Those who fall short are summarily accused of homophobia; all debate ends there.

Putting someone who had undergone a sex change on the cover of a Vanity Fair issue was an instance of LGBT celebration. The magazine wanted to highlight and celebrate (there’s that word again) the courage and plight of the transgendered. A man whose own belief that he is a woman is so strong that he opts for surgical intervention deserves compassion and perhaps a psychiatric evaluation, certainly not praise. But the LGBT lobby – and the media that toes the line – has turned things upside down. This, the society magazine tells us, is the new hero of our time, an image to emulate and look up to. There used to be a time when a hero was someone who, say, fought for his country. Now heroism constitutes a sex change. Such is the brave new world we live in.

Celebration, as was noted, reinforces banalization and stigmatization. It is hard to permanently sustain veneration, and perhaps even undesirable to do so. Once the admiration wears off, the hero of our time needs to look quite ordinary, banal. So banal that a Christian (of all things) school in the UK, responding to a recent decision by the parents of a student to withdraw their son from that institution due to the school’s tolerance of cross-dressing, explained that it had policies in place to deal with transphobia, which the school defined, among other things, as failure to accept that he or she was a real boy or girl. That is to say, if you persist in calling a boy who fancies himself a girl a boy, you’re branded a “transphobe” – even at a Christian school. The boy who comes to a Christian school wearing a dress is normal; the boy who refuses to accept it is abnormal. That’s how stigmatization works. It’s a very effective tool: nobody wants to be seen as a hidebound bigot and end up as a pariah. Those daredevil souls that travel against the current do so at their own risk, as the late Rob Ford, a former mayor of Toronto, discovered when he refused to attend the Pride Parade in his city.

(This raises another question – that of the contradictory nature of ultraliberal tolerance. One is supposed to be tolerant of others’ religious views; equally, one ought to be tolerant of others’ sexual preferences. What if the religious views of a Christian politician, who refuses to attend a gay event because it goes against his religious beliefs, clash with the tolerance he is supposed to show towards sexual minorities? Whose position should be upheld? Should we be tolerant of the Christian politician or of the gays at the event? Should we be more tolerant of a major religion that is the pillar of our civilization, or of LGBTs? But this topic deserves its own article.)

Stigmatization relegates legitimate voices of opposition and dissent to the bleak plains of irrelevance or the harsh steppes of marginalization (which, paradoxically, increases the risk of greater homophobic sentiment as a reaction to the absence of moderate opposition). The debate then becomes one-sided; in effect, there’s no longer a debate. At the same time, a new generation will soon come of age, a generation that has been thoroughly steeped in the values of ultraliberalism and will not be able to conceive of a reality that is different from the one that has been inculcated in them. The LGBT movement will have brought about conditions in which its agenda will go unchallenged.

Not that this agenda is facing too many hurdles today. Equalization and the social and political acceptance of the LGBT movement have inspired lawmakers in many Western countries to give same-sex unions the kind of legal recognition previously enjoyed by traditional couples – and, in a number of especially “socially progressive” places, allow them to adopt children. The anti-democratic manner in which family law has been rewritten is arresting: in most countries, the legislative or judicial bodies simply imposed the new laws on the people, often quietly (as happened in the UK) and typically without consultation with voters (Canada, France), presenting gay marriage as a fait accompli (Ireland is one of the few nations to at least have had the decency of organizing a referendum on the issue). A tiny cluster of men and women – whose politics, biases and views are largely unknown – had simply decided that the abnormal ought to be the new normal.

I will not dwell on the arrogance implicit in challenging the most basic law of nature and bestowing upon homosexuals those rights that nature (or “God” if you’re religious) has denied them by default. Nor will I speculate on the long-term effects that same-sex parentage will have on children adopted by gay couples – suffice it to say, these effects are unknown, and we’re embarking on a major social experiment. What is obvious – to this writer, anyway – is that lawmakers in the West have set a dangerous legal precedent. We live in a secular society, but even the most secular society requires a point of reference. Ours, for better or for worse, has been the Judeo-Christian one. The moment society jettisons its points of reference, it is cast adrift, floundering in uncharted waters with a faulty compass. Now that the law has chosen to toss out the principle that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, will it be possible to say no to polygamy? If a Muslim man applies to marry four women, will his request be turned down and, if so, on what grounds? If an exception was made for homosexuals, shouldn’t the courtesy be extended to other groups as well? This kind of precedent can open a veritable Pandora’s box. Drastic reform of family law is not some tax regulation that can be easily reversed with a stroke of a pen. We’re tinkering with the foundation of our society and rebuilding institutions that go back centuries; the consequences can be not only grave, but also irreversible.

Lawmakers do not seem to be concerned, however. They certainly have no reason to be concerned for, in all fairness, same-sex marriage would have never been countenanced if society had not been prepared for it. And that leads us to the most important question of all: what does the triumph of the LGBT movement say about our society? Above all else, that it is sick. A society in which the abnormal becomes normal is a society in a state of decay; a civilization that places the unnatural on the same plateau as the natural is a civilization ambling about in the dying embers of a setting sun. Healthy civilizations have a good grasp of what is normal and what isn’t; they can (and do) promote equality as a means to fairness and not to equalization. The reader will have noted that the ascendancy of the LGBT movement has been in tandem with other behavioural and lifestyle trends that are inimical to childbirth – feminism, childfree, etc. When notions that are hostile to the perpetuation of human life gain the upper hand, a wailing banshee is lurking nearby.

Sexual minorities should have their rights, but these rights should come with limits. In a private setting, individuals are – and should be – free to indulge in such behaviour that appeals to their sexual appetites. The government has no business in the boudoirs and bedrooms of its citizens, as long as they are consenting adults. However, sexual minorities should also be cognizant of the fact that, where the bedroom ends and society proper begins, there are boundaries that have to be observed; and society should enforce these boundaries whenever they are crossed. What John and James get up to in the privacy of their home need not concern anyone; when they take to the streets to impose their notions of normalcy on the rest of us and demand equal rights on that basis, the reaction should be firm and adequate. The strength of the LGBT movement reflects the weakness of the overall society. It is hard to say whether the LGBT movement is merely a symptom of a decaying civilization, or whether it contains a causative component as well. What is certain is that the sick and weak tend to become prey, and that there are always predators ready to pounce. As the shrinking native populations of Western civilization are forced to take in millions of foreigners from civilizations that are often hostile to the West and its way of life, the question of our weakness will become ever more pressing.

The LGBT lobby would also be well advised to consider that a return to a more conservative stand with respect to LGBT rights might be in the interest of the very people it represents. In a state of oscillation, a climate that is unnaturally favourable to certain groups can easily become unfavourable to them as society attempts to reestablish some sort of natural equilibrium. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt writes: “The more equal conditions are, the less explanation there is for the differences that actually exist between people; and thus all the more unequal do individuals and groups become”. If a weak Western civilization is subjugated by a strong but intolerant outside civilization – a very plausible scenario in some parts of Europe – the inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, despite the equality of conditions, can easily reach its tragic apex, for in such a situation the people gaily waving rainbow flags will be the first casualties.