December 04, 2010

About Sexual Orientation and Moral Fibre

A top aide to German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle (who is homosexual) has been identified as the person responsible for passing on information about government coalition talks to the US Embassy in the latest WikiLeaks disclosures. Westerwelle was reportedly (and aptly) described as "arrogant, vain and critical of America" by Ambassador Philip Murphy in the leaked material.

Guido Westerwelle with his partner Michael Mronz, whom he "married" in a civil law ceremony (domestic parnership registry) in September 2010.

It soon transpired that it was Westerwelle's office manager, no less, who had passed on confidential information, yes, that very informer who had been described in dispatches by U.S. Ambassador Philip Murphy, as a "young up-and-coming" FDP member. Metzner was relieved from his job as Westerwelle's office manager, but no legal action will be taken against him and he will go on working for the FDP organisation.

Metzner, too, is homosexual.

At this point, I'd like to look back on Hamburg's ex-mayor Ole von Beust, who is -- you've guessed it -- homosexual. He entered the twilight zone when he appointed Roger Kusch, who is homosexual, senator for justice. That Beust politically survived the ensueing scandal is due to the fact that he was always known, in any other respect, as a man of utter integrity. So maybe he just made an honest mistake, but oughtn't he have avoided to appoint another homosexual without any especially remarkable qualification to such a high office? Beust always considered his sexual orientation a private matter, however, a shadow remains, the more as Kusch is, to all intents and purposes, a repulsive and spooky creep and still in the headlines from time to time.

Beust is living together now, after he retired from politics, with a man 36 years his junior, whom he had met -- will wonders ever cease -- when the boy had just turned 18.

But I digress. Now what about the leak at the other end, the man who let WikiLeaks have the documents which are causing such a brouhaha right now. It is Private Bradley E. Manning and he is homosexual.

An interesting NYT article informs us:
Then he joined the Army, where, friends said, his social life was defined by the need to conceal his sexuality under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and he wasted brainpower fetching coffee for officers.

But it was around two years ago, when Pfc. Bradley Manning came here [Cambridge, Mass.] to visit a man he had fallen in love with, that he finally seemed to have found a place where he fit in, part of a social circle that included politically motivated computer hackers and his boyfriend, a self-described drag queen. So when his military career seemed headed nowhere good, Private Manning, 22, turned increasingly to those friends for moral support.


And as he faces the possibility of a lifetime in prison, some of Private Manning’s remarks now seem somewhat prophetic.

“I wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much,” he wrote, “if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me plastered all over the world press.”
The rest is history.

And while it isn't quite so that being homosexual makes one more likely to commit acts of mass data transferring, it ought to be worth a thought whether an openly "gay" lifestyle doesn't undermine the moral fibre of those who pursue it. In May 2009 I wrote:
Homosexuals in political positions tend to form "rope teams" and they are EXTREMELY power conscious. Also, theirs is not just an alternative sexual orientation between two consenting adults, it is a way of life. The world rotates around their dick and the world has duly to pay tribute to that. They are, like Islam, creeping in every nook and cranny of our life, dispossessing what is there. With those disgusting "gay pride"- and "love" parades, with all their strident demands and whining about "discrimination" and with incidents like the ousting of Carrie Prejean, with intimidation and discrimination towards those who dare not to consent 100%, they are yanking our chains.
Being homosexual is one thing, being "gay" quite a different matter.

Hat tip: Red County!


Bruce Church said...

Great observation about gays. It makes sense of what I've seen.

I've only known of two openly public gays, and they happened to work in the same two companies as I did, but years apart. One I didn't have much contact with, but the one I actually worked with several years ago was a control freak, but he always said he was into working as a team member! Somehow he got the job of monitoring the email of many people in the company. If someone made an innocent work-related suggestion to someone else via email on how the company could do something a better way, they'd get an email from him saying they should just stick to doing their particular job, and that not doing so might lead to their termination! I left that company, and not surprisingly I heard from coworkers a year later that the company was 80% closed, meaning they kept one profitable part open. They didn't keep on that gay guy, though. That's what happens when a company allows open communication to be stifled.

I just checked and his online resume says he likes working on teams and even doing HR (Human Resource) type jobs! What's funny is no one buys it because with his personality, if he were in the underworld, he would have been a loan shark or an enforcer! In fact, the jobs listed on his resume include "contract compliance" and jobs I'd imagine have him at a desk job in an office off to himself. God obviously had mercy on everyone else and hasn't subjected them to his idea of being on a team.

Alligator said...

There is definitely a militant arm of homosexuality that has an "in your face" attitude about their orientation. Those that I have met like that, seem to define their entire identity as a person that way.

Yet, I have known others who have multi-dimensional personalities and interests. They happened to be "gay" but did not define their entire personae by their sexual orientation.

Also, I have known some heterosexuals who have defined themselves by that one behavior. We call them skirt chasers, whore mongers, sex addicts etc. They are miserable creatures, but they seem not to be politically active about their proclivities the way militant gays are.

The_Editrix said...

My commenters won't believe me when I am saying now that I actually have quite liberal views on homosexuality. I do not really believe that it is a lifestyle choice. I can not believe that a truly heterosexual man will say one day: "Hey, it must be fun to be buggered by another man, so let's try that out!" There may be bisexual men who are *ahem* ambidextrous, but frankly, there are things I don't really WANT to know. I am not sure whether it is a disease of which one can be cured, but I think it ought to be allowed to discuss this.

Heinrich von Brentano, incidentally one of Mr. Westerwelle's predecessors, was said to be homosexual and there is that famous quote by then chancellor Konrad Adenauer, which is probably not even apocryphal. When somebody told him that his foreign minister was homosexual he replied (I translate from memory): "I don't know what you want. He didn't make a pass at ME." And that was that. Sheer and undiluted genius.

Yes, some hererosexual people may make their sexuality the centre of their own little universe, but they are not political about it. Political homosexuals (what I call gays) and Muslims are the only people who turn a character flaw into a privilege and the basis of their political agenda.

Bruce Church said...

One doesn't have to practice homosexuality even if one has that orientation. Germany has long given anti-androgen drugs to pedophiles and ephebophiles, thereby keeping them out of the prison system. For some reason, other countries don't follow suit, probably because among psychiatrists, they don't want to mess with nature when it comes to sexual orientation.

MRIs reveal that the same regions of the brain fire up for attraction to men, and different regions for attraction to women, whether in heterosexuals or homosexuals. Theoretically, as with epilepsy and similar conditions, one could suppress certain regions with drugs or electrical implants or hormones, and stimulate others, thereby turning a homosexual into a heterosexual.

...the brains of the gay men have functional similarities to those of a straight woman

Bruce Church said...

Many want gays to have the same marital rights as heterosexuals, but that isn't going to help any country's economy out. What Europe needs is babies--lot's of them.

Interesting, Greece's aging problems is the worst in Europe, and 2010, this year, is when Greece's workforce will peak in numbers, thereafter going down. The rating agencies downgraded Greece's creditworthiness due to "accelerating demographic pressure on public finances in coming years". Germany will be in the same geriatric situation as Greece in 5 or 10 years. It's industry will be totally uncompetitive because all the money will be going to give mineral hot spring spa treatments to retirees:

So the Greek crisis is about much more than short term fiscal deficit issues, it is about the long term sustainability of a whole economic and demographic model.

beakerkin said...

I have not heard the wikileaks source was gay. This seems a tad unusual as the media is not making him an official victim.

I hope he gets a real trial. I would hate for a modern version of the Dreyfus trial to occur.

He has said little. This is likely due to a professional defense.

The_Editrix said...

BRUCE says: "Many want gays to have the same marital rights as heterosexuals, but that isn't going to help any country's economy out. What Europe needs is babies--lot's of them."

I don't think marital rights for homosexuals would change the demographics. Somehow, I can't imagine a homosexual who says: "Oh well, if I can't marry my male lover, let's get married to a woman and have babies."

I don't even think there would be all that many of them who would put such a right to any use. The promiscuity rampant among homosexuals is only too eagerly hushed-up. No, the rejection of "gay marriage" is a matter of ethics and Christian values. In our culture marriage is for one man and one woman. Full stop.

When it comes to homosexuals, I am with the Catholic Catechism:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I have nothing to add.

BEAK says: "I hope he gets a real trial. I would hate for a modern version of the Dreyfus trial to occur."

Beak, any comparison of the discrimination of homosexuals, real or perceived, with that against the Jewish people is an utter non-starter.