Democratic Sex
By Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com (01/22/06)
It goes without saying that homosexuals are generally liberal Democrats. Gay rights is a relatively new phenomenon which of course means that liberals can exploit it by ignoring the conservative wisdom that got us this far through history, and embrace what is new, because, after all, it is new and what is new is very very important, to liberals.
But gay sexual expression is not the only new form of sexual tolerance. In fact we live a magical new world of liberal sexual tolerance. Six men simulating anal sex on a float during the Gay Day Parade in NYC is just one example of liberalism helping us to accept and appreciate diversity. Last week we learned of a man and his friend who jointly, in Vermont, raped a little girl for 4 years and was then sentenced to 60 days in jail. To show his liberalism, the Judge expressed his pro criminal sentiment that it was more important that the rapist be treated rather than imprisoned. This of course was not very comforting to conservative parents who believe in punishment for those who rape their children, and who know that sexual offenders are the least likely to be treated successfully.
And then there was Dateline: a TV show whose investigation brought pedophiles out of the woodwork and into the home of a little girl where they were lured to have sex with her. A Rabbi, a teacher, and assorted others showed up. A few weeks later Dateline did the same thing in the same home and, despite the publicity the first show had received, still more pedophiles showed up, at least one of whom admitted to having seen the original show. And of course normal heterosexuals have been liberated too. They divorce at a rate of about 50% only to have sex with other people in far shorter second marriages, with nary a conservative scarlet letter to be seen. It is called no fault divorce because it is beyond their fault or ability to control, according to the liberals. It is deemed natural, like homosexuality and pedophilia. The liberals have no need to assign blame, they just accept and tolerate what is new without a wish or ability to understand or conserve wisdom from the past. Everything is morally relative. How dare Republicans analyze history in a way that asks them to repress or confine our sexuality in a manner consistent with civilization, they wonder ?
And then there is Bill Clinton who in perhaps the most important and memorable act of his presidency taught our teens, and impressionable adults that oral sex isn't sex, and has nothing to do with love. Most teens seem to have accepted his Democratic wisdom too. I just heard the story, through a trusted friend, of an upper middle class family in Ohio who had a coed birthday party for their 13 years old daughter. It seems the parents left the room for a short time only to come back to find 10 boys lined up against a wall receiving oral sex from the girls. One has to wonder if the Clinton library features promiscuous loveless Democratic sex as one of the primary displays on the first floor near the main doors.
One also wonders where on earth these diabolical, overpowering, and perverse sexual appetites come from? The truth seems to be that evolution's greatest fear was that we wouldn't reproduce enough to survive; so we were given a sex drive designed to overpower every other aspect of our being in order to assure that no matter what fate befell us: even war, famine, disease, and total exhaustion (normal conditions during the period in which we evolved) we would still see to our primary directive: reproduction.
The result was a hugely chaotic human sexuality, that could be measured in millions of dead bodies, until the saintly religious right stepped in to invent and promote the concept of love and family in which sexuality was finally given a context consistent with civilization. Under the religious right, civilization blossomed in 1000 years 10 times more than it had in all of human history. But today the chaotic liberals are back and opposed to the incredible progress the religious right has bestowed upon mankind. And again their failure can be measured in millions of dead bodies. 50 million Africans and 3 million Americans are scheduled to die in the next 30 years because they had sex in a liberal context. About 80% of the American children who grow up in poverty would not be poor if their parents had chosen the religious right's version of sexuality. This is to say nothing of sky rocketing child molestation. The mainstream liberal ACLU is now defending NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), in the name of liberal civil liberties, in a Massachuttess case while concomitantly attacking the religious right? Dead amoral parents, and starving, sick, abused children seem to be the liberal legacy; yet the self described enlightened, sophisticated, educated, and oh so sensitive liberals, regard the religious right as the very antithesis of civilization?
So what should we do about Gays, divorcees, and pedophiles, and their uncivilized liberal version of sex? We should do what the saintly religious right has always done, i.e., encourage them to do the best they can at love and family, and in the extreme cases put them in jail. Indeed the ultimate question is: do we want to harness humankind's greatest and most powerful instinct and tie it inextricably to love and children, or do we want to destroy civilization by acting out some loveless liberal pornographic vision of human sexuality?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com
