Eliminating Heterosexism

Eliminating Heterosexism
Vol: 26 Issue: 8 Tuesday, August 8, 2017

“The word, “phobia” is defined as an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations. That’s the social definition as defined by Princeton University.

The dictionary defines it as a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

The Atty. Gen. of Québec assigned the government the task of eliminating all forms of both “homophobia” — and something that the government now calls “Heterosexism”.

As I understand the term heterosexism, it must mean something like what homosexuals are guilty of instead of homophobia.

For reasons I can’t explain, ‘homophobia’ is bigoted but opposing heterosexism is somehow not.

The policy is to be called the “Québec Policy Against Homophobia” and its goal is to enlist the government in normalizing homosexuality in society.

And, to quell criticisms levied against “sexual minorities”-which means, “lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgenders”.

I suspect that pedophiles, necrophiliacs, nymphomaniacs, and those into bestiality are all on the phone with their various representatives and lawyers demanding an answer to why they have been left out.

And I’m sure the government will rectify the situation as soon as it’s been pointed out to them.

The policy was introduced by Québec premier Jean Charest in a letter that serves as the policy’s introduction.

“An inclusive society such as ours must take the necessary steps to combat homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns and move towards full acceptance of sexual diversity.

The policy sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles to full recognition of the social equality of the sexual minorities, at all levels of society.”

And that’s not all.

According to the government what must be changed is the “affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm, or the highest form of sexual orientation.”

According to the government of Québec, heterosexism is a new form of discrimination and heterosexuals are the new bigots. And the name for this new bigotry is homophobia.

The government plans to highlight and publicize the most insidious forms of homophobia, by targeting; “the various locations in which homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns as well as heterosexist values on which some institutional practices are found.”

The government also warns,”it will be necessary to deal with the heterosexist values on which some institutional practices are founded”.

I wonder, where would one find an institutional practice of celebrating heterosexuality? Let’s see. Where does one find an institutional foundation for opposing heterosexuality?

My guess would be the first institution that they will go after will be the Church.

Atty. Gen. Weil is very proud of the new policy saying, “the policy release this morning shows, once again, the Québec society is a leader in the field of sexual minority rights.”

It’s interesting that no one has noticed the the new sexual minority rights come at the expense of the majority who will have been made legal targets of official government discrimination.

It is impossible to extend rights to the minority, when those rights conflict with the majority, without infringing upon somebody’s rights.  

Evidently, the rights of the majority are the ones on the sacrificial altar. 

That isn’t rocket science.  It should be obvious. But apparently, either it isn’t that obvious, or in its eagerness to rectify perceived wrongs, the Québec government doesn’t much care.  

Gary Cass of the Christian anti-defamation commission, told WorldNetDaily that the practical application of such laws have already been implemented in other countries.

In the United Kingdom, a senior citizen was accused of hate crimes for writing a letter objecting to a pro-homosexual festival.

“This is the way it gets implemented in all the other countries,”Cass said.”Christians are singled out for prosecution, with threats, imprisonment and fines simply for refusing to stop doing what Christ commands: proclaiming the truth.”

The fact that some other group doesn’t believe it’s the truth doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s hateful to disagree with them.

But as we’ve seen with all liberal groups, dissent is only the highest form of patriotism when they do it.

When another group disagrees with their opinion, they are racist, bigoted, homophobic, or just generally evil and disgusting people who deserved to have their own right to free speech curtailed, at least until they get it ‘right.

One line in the policy is particularly interesting. It declares that schools can ‘play a key role’  in “retraining the populace on sexual minority rights”.

What the government is planning to do is to impose homosexuality training on children in school. They’re already doing that with ethics and with culture and with social engineering, but this is the first time, to my knowledge, that they’ve openly admitted to an official policy of brainwashing impressionable young minds.

And if you don’t like it, well, you can move. Until they make that illegal.

Assessment

What this all means, is that today’s Omega Letter could possibly be used as evidence of a crime at my trial, were I to live in Québec, and try to express my opinions regarding this policy. 

When it comes to the Left, the only opinions that count are those that they share and those with which they disagree are those which should be criminalized. The interesting thing about it is that there are so few of them, when you get right down to it.

By “them”, I mean both liberals and homosexual activists. It isn’t an issue so much of my wanting to deny someone else their rights, so much as my wanting to retain my own.

I am not homophobic. I have no particular fear of gays. I have no particular dislike for them. 

But I no more want to hear what they do in their bedroom than I think that they want to hear what goes on in mine.

However, my not wanting to discuss their sexual practices seems in some way to offend them and the government has determined they are not to be offended.  Moreover, what offends me is completely irrelevant.

This is an open effort to stamp out what the government now calls heterosexism — by replacing it with homosexuality– in the name of anti-bigotry!

Assuming for a second, that a lifestyle choice is the equivalent to an immutable physical characteristic, (which then would qualify as discrimination),  then this policy imposes new discrimination upon one group as a remedy for perceived discrimination against another.

It gives you some sense of just how powerful propaganda can be. From the beginning of human history until now, the institution of marriage has existed for the purposes of propagating the human race.

Suddenly, in this generation, we have become confused about biological facts known since the dawn of time.

And make no mistake about it, it will be no defense to prosecution that the statements made are factually correct.  The ‘dawn of time’ argument has already been deemed prejudicial. 

Put another way even if you could prove an offending statement is factually true, the fact that it offended someone else still means that you are guilty of a crime.

So it’s illegal to state the truth, unless its politically correct.  Truth is subordinate to politics. 

I am sure that there are at least some within the government that are involved in this policy who believe that what they are doing is the right thing. But they have overcome the problems associated with ‘cognitive dissonance.’

On one hand, you have all of your knowledge, your experience, your common sense, and your logic telling you one thing, but on the other, political correctness tells you that the exact opposite is true.

Some people might find that disorienting, but that’s the idea. 

This isn’t something that’s happening in Nazi Germany. Isn’t something that’s happening in the Soviet Union. It’s not even something that’s happening in Europe. This is happening on the other side of the border from Maine.

But it’s something that’s also happening on the American side of the border. The only difference is, the government has not yet officially articulated the policy.

But now that Québec has broken the ice, you can be very very sure that the activists will use Québec as a template for formulating US policy.

The Bible expresses it this way, in the book of Proverbs. In fact, the principle is so important that God repeated Himself to make sure that we got it right.

Proverbs 14: 12 and Proverbs 16:25 both make the identical observation:

“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

Recent news on this story:

This Letter was written by Jack Kinsella on January 18, 2010

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s