Now that June has mercifully ended, it’s worthwhile to reflect for a minute on what decent Americans have shoved in their faces and the faces of their children everywhere they turn in June.
June, the wedding month named after Juno, the Roman goddess of marriage, has been appropriated by activists who define themselves by their sexual desires to celebrate the eradication of culture-sustaining sexual taboos.
“Pride Month” had it not-so-humble beginnings as a commemoration and celebration of the Stonewall Riots, which took place outside the pervy Stonewall Inn bar in New York City on June 28, 1969.
The mafia-owned bar catered to homosexuals and cross-dressing men and women whose actions violated state laws. The mafioso who owned the bar routinely bribed police officers not to disrupt the bar’s lucrative business by arresting lawbreakers and also routinely tipped off patrons if a police raid were expected.
In the wee hours of the morning of June 28, the police raided the Stonewall Inn, but unlike previous raids, this time “queer” patrons resisted police attempts to arrest them, with resistance including throwing punches, rocks, bottles, bricks, and Molotov cocktails at police officers. Their uncivil disobedience lasted for six days.
Initially, the Stonewall commemoration took place on one day, but over the years as their unholy pride grew, so too did their commemoration.
Then in 1999, sexual predator President Bill Clinton declared that June would be “Gay & Lesbian Pride Month.” Next, egomaniacal President Barack Obama, who confessed to a girlfriend his homoerotic fantasies, proclaimed June to be “LGBTQ Pride Month.”
And then our inept, principle-free current president followed suit, slavering after the queer vote. Ironically, Biden’s own Church declares that pride, homosexuality, and cross-dressing are sins. So much for Biden’s faithfulness and integrity.
Once upon a time in America, those obsessed with perverse erotic desires claimed all they wanted was to be free to do what they wanted in the privacy of their bedrooms. And now, parades publicly celebrating all manner of sexual perversity (accompanied often by nudity) pollute streets in big cities, small cities, and even suburbs.
Government schools use hard-earned tax dollars to introduce little ones to pernicious ideas and obscene images and keep dark secrets from parents about their own children.
And we have publicly funded libraries proudly creating elaborate displays of books that would have been covered in brown paper and hidden in creepy bookstores in seedy neighborhoods just a generation or two ago.
In some libraries, these month-long socio-political advocacy displays include scores of books—far too many to critique or even list here. So, let’s turn our gimlet eyes to just one book found in public libraries, including in their rainbow-appropriated displays.
The Queens’ English: the LGBTQIQA+ Dictionary of Lingo and Colloquial Phrases is a 336-page tome described as “A landmark reference guide to the LGBTQIA+ community’s contributions to the English language—an intersectional, inclusive, playfully illustrated glossary featuring more than 800 terms and fabulous phrases created by and for queer culture.”
This book teaches readers about cock rings; bondage; sadomasochism; “golden showers;” “leather daddies;” “boy-pussy (busy);” and types of homosexuals based on physique, hair, and age. For example, a “twink” is a “slender, hairless, young, baby-faced skinny gay boy.”
So successful was this book that Simon and Schuster just published a “young reader” version that has grown to a whopping 448 pages.
These pride displays are intended to promote one arguable set of assumptions on contentious topics that touch on politics, theology, philosophy, and ethics. And they advance these arguable assumptions via extraordinarily controversial language and images.
Library patrons should ask their librarians or library boards when they will create a month-long display celebrating and commemorating the long and critically important cross-cultural history of heteronormativity.
The likely demurral of librarians to create such a display will expose the ideological and political advocacy (i.e., propaganda) behind them.
If such a request is posed to them, activist-librarians may try to hoodwink patrons by saying the library is overflowing with, for example, books whose characters are in traditional family structures. But the antitheses of “LGBTQ” beliefs are not depictions of straight couples or traditional family structure.
Heads up—MAIN POINT ALERT: The antitheses of books espousing and promoting pride pack beliefs would be books espousing and promoting dissenting ideas.
So, what are the beliefs of the pride pack implicitly and explicitly advanced in the heaps of pride books libraries are buying and displaying?
The non-factual beliefs central to the “LGBTQ” pride movement include the following:
- Homosexuality is the flipside of the sexuality coin.
- Homoerotic acts are equivalent in moral status to heterosexual acts.
- Homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation are as valuable to the public good as heterosexuality and biological sex acceptance.
- Sexual/ “gender” feelings and desires that are powerful, persistent, unchosen, and seemingly intractable are inherently moral to act upon.
- Marriage has no intrinsic nature; it is wholly a social construction.
- All family structures are equivalent in their contribution to child development and the public good.
- Children have no intrinsic right to be raised by their biological parents.
- And finally, the infamous and idiotic “Love is love.”
If librarians were genuinely committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, and tolerance, they would be hauling out those toolboxes; singing heigh-ho heigh-ho, it’s off to work we go; and erecting eye-catching displays that espouse these eight antitheses:
- Homoerotic attraction reflects a disordering of the sexual impulse.
- Homoerotic acts are intrinsically immoral, harming bodies and souls.
- Widespread cultural affirmation of homosexuality and biological sex rejection harms the public good in many ways.
- Neither the strength, persistence, nor intractability of unchosen desires render acting on those feelings necessarily moral. Imagine a society in which this principle were consistently applied to all unchosen feelings.
- Marriage has an intrinsic nature that societies merely recognize and regulate. They do not create marriage out of whole cloth. (If marriage has no intrinsic nature, why do we conceive of it as a romantic/erotic type of union?)
- The government is involved with marriage for one reason, and it’s not to affirm love. The government is invested in marriage because a marital union is the type of union that produces children, and the state has a vested interest in the welfare of future generations. The type of union that best serves the needs and rights of children and, thereby, society is the union of one man and one woman who produce and rear their children.
- Children have an intrinsic right to be raised by their biological parents. No one has a right to intentionally sever children from their biological mothers or fathers. It wasn’t right during the slave era, and it’s not right now.
- “Love is love” is an idiotic and dangerous slogan in that not all forms of love are the same; many loving relationships ought not include erotic or sexual acts.
Leftists will find these eight antitheses as false and destructive as conservatives find the assumptions embedded in every “LGBTQ” pride book from picture books for toddlers to obscene comic books graphic novels for teens and pre-teens. But librarians whose salaries are paid by the public have no ethical or legal right to promote one set of ideological beliefs over opposing beliefs they hate.
The dearth (or complete absence) of books advancing conservative antitheses reveals the real source of book-banning. The new Comstockians are leftists who control the publishing companies that won’t publish books espousing conservative views on homosexuality or cross-sex impersonation.
Leftists control the professionally recognized review journals that won’t positively review books with conservative views on sexuality.
Leftists socially construct “Collection Development Policies” that librarians use to rationalize the dearth of books for toddlers, pre-teens, teens, young adults, and adults that depict in word and image conservative assumptions on sexuality.
Unless and until conservatives insist on real diversity, inclusion, and parity in library displays and book collections on the topics of sex and gender, leftist librarians will continue to use public money solely for their pet ideological projects. This is yet one more of the thousands of cuts that are killing civilization.