top of page
Search
  • Extremely American
    • Jun 17, 2023
    • 6 min read

Serpentine Semantics Ssanctifying [sic] Sodomy


Serpentine Semantics Ssanctifying [sic] Sodomy


By: Dr F E Dias


[The arguments for sanctioning LGBTQIA+ privileges in Sri Lanka are herein scrutinized. The first part of this trilogy looked at the ideas of dignity and of fundamental human rights]


“All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.”

- The Pigs in Animal Farm (1945) by George Orwell


Equality


“Each individual has equal value” and it is claimed that “a segment of society will be denied equal protection of the law” if gross obscenity - such as faecal sex, is denied.


Stating that sanctioning unnatural carnal behaviour ensures that “all persons shall be equal before the law and be entitled to equal protection before the law”, irrespective of the objects of their inclinations, is disjointed and misleading. Everyone shall be equal before the law, and the law likewise needs to be equal for everyone. The law protects all citizens equally, whether the factor under consideration is “sexual orientation” or a shop-lifting orientation. Even the murderer enjoys such legal equalities, and suicide murder manslaughter medicide abortion serial-killing abortifacient contraception activists (SMMMASKAC+) would not suppose that they are denied equal protection of the law if homicide remained in the penal code.


There is an irrational presupposition, by analogy, that legalising murder is the means of providing equality under the law to those with murderous orientations, since it is asserted that legalising unnatural carnal intercourse provides equality to those with deviant sexual orientations. Equality is due before the law to every person, and the law is the reference by which their acts are judged. It is fallacious to determine that changing the law enables equality of citizens before the law. It is precisely persons who are equal before the law, and self-evidently all acts are not equally legal. Indeed, if all acts were equal before the law, law itself becomes obsolete.


Equal protection before the law cannot be confounded with equal rights to any type of conduct. While thieves have equality before the law, they don’t have thieving rights in spite of their thieving orientation, innate or otherwise, and the same applies with regard to the rights of smugglers to smuggle, and of arsonists to burn. The law protects a woman with dignity having an abducterous inclination, without legalising kidnapping. She protects herself from refraining from abducting.


Conversely, does human dignity and equality before the law, give the rights to those with a perjuric temperament to have lying legalised? Could equality obtained for the lies make lies co-equal with the truth? Would the consequent associated privileged equality granted to liars make speaking the truth an offence since liars feel harassed by the truth? What learned ridiculities would sit in court and determine thus?


Once LGB practicing or self-identifying persons are granted “equal rights” for grossly indecent lifestyles, and such equality allows any configuration of union to be equal, there remains no reason to deny marriages, and children - to abuse or otherwise, on account of prevailing non-LGB “rights” to marriage and children, since such denial would be violation of the acquired equality. Furthermore, if all types of sodomy are equal, and in turn these are judged equal to the natural and fertile heterosexual marital associations, it reduces and indignifies marriage which itself manifests a profoundly deeper reality, into one association among many of equal validity – and the truth will co-equal a plethora of lies. Since the Netherlands jumped in the well in 2001, several nations followed, and India1 has lifted its sarong and is bending over to take the leap just five years after the Bharatian version of the Dolawatta debacle of 2018.


Likewise in a phase of history when the respected, the intelligent and influential, have fallen victim to the mantra of gender equality, companies and institutions will be compelled to establish quotas not only for women, those who have a legal certificate declaring that they are women and for multifarious genders, but also for sexual orientations, whose equality has been sanctioned by law, so that not only ceilings but the walls may be broken and corporate glass houses may crack and crumble in synch with the rest of society.


Liberty


Rights to liberty were meaningful in their meanings of being free from arbitrary rule, and it is included in a constitution of a nation become independent from an empire in that sense. While liberty may be understood as freedom from political subjection, slavery, imprisonment and external obstacles in general, or even as being able to control one’s own destiny, it is no historical novelty to extend its meaning to libertarianism. Even so, the law does provide for limitations on individual liberty when it is necessary to prevent harm to others in society - and as even Herbert Hart who condoned immorality in private asserted, to self.


A nation’s constitution may guarantee liberty to citizens, but that does not provide legality, or a right, to forge, or to indulge in a vandalist inclination derived from a vandalist orientation. Freedom of movement granted to an equal dignified human is limited when attempting to scale of gate of the presidential palace or to enter and sit in the board room at Temple Trees - and then smoke a cigarette. Or would the right to the liberty of driving on the right, of those with an innate dextral conduct orientation that seeks expression, when the prevailing archaic anachronistic Highway code is a puritanical Victorian construct with supposed “backward notions”, need to be granted for the sake of motional autonomy - and ought discrimination against it by a “peeved” sinistral majority be subdued?


Pro-abortion former US Supreme Court Justice, the liberal Anthony Kennedy infamously determined that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”. Dipak Misra had no inhibition in saying that the essence of dignity is to demolish obstructions for the individual to behave as he desires. Liberty thus understood, as John Stuart Mill bangs his skull on his tombstone, is not only the greatest threat to social order - but would make law either incongruous, or inane.


The enthusiastic advocation of libertarianism and sexual autonomy makes the proposed retention of bestiality in the penal code contradictory. Finland Denmark Hungary Romania are just some among many nations that have legalised bestiality, now called zoophilia, to support people who are likely to suffer from mental illness or are lonely. Some nations stipulate that the animals should remain unharmed, and therefore the practice won’t by inhibited by any clauses regarding cruelty to animals. Bestiality is an LGBTQ+ sexual orientation and has its own flags and sub-orientations.


The age of consent to sodomy has steadily decreased in enlightened legislatures from 21, to 18, to 16 to 13. Sri Lanka presently proposes to celebrate sodomy with 16-year-olds. The LGBTQIA+ activists now dignify paedophiles by referring to them as “minor-attracted persons” much like prostitutes are called “sex workers”. Paedophilia and hebephilia are sexual orientations, with their own flags. In March 2023, the International Committee of Jurists together with UNAIDS and the UN’s OHCHR published new legal principles which suggested that children below the domestic minimum age of consent could consent to every imaginable sexual abomination2. The WHO has published Standards for Sexuality Education for victims starting at age 03.


Freedom is not a license to licentiousness. It is not an unfettering to follow any inclination and perform any act, such as the recreational use of heroin, but is rather the absence of constraints that hinder the pursuit of the good.


Privacy


Privacy is irrelevant since the proposal is to permit and dignify public activity related to any sexual orientation, inclusive of anal activity such as fisting. Since however much verbiage has been consumed on the subject, and it is presented as a factor that justifies the change in law it is worthwhile addressing the idea of the right to privacy, bearing in mind that this legal change is a mere step in the advance of the overarching objective of the puppets and their masters which is the decimation of society and the damnation of our children.


The Wolfenden Committee’s report of 1957 in the UK is frequently invoked to suggest that “private morality and immorality” is “not the law’s business”, and it is assumed to carry weight since the Anglican clergy supported such a conclusion. While there does exist morality and immorality, and morality and immorality may be exercised in private or public, what is intrinsically immoral remains immoral whether committed in private or public. The relationship and the limits of law with respect to morality is a separate matter.


John Wolfenden whose son was a homosexual who died at 31, provided reasoning that led to the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 which decriminalised buggery for the English. And Lord Wolfenden’s conditions may be satisfied in the sanctioning of private consensual prostitution, adultery and incest. Legalising group homosexual sex, recognition of civil partnerships, “marriage”, and adoption of children – denied a right to a mother and a father, followed in blighted ole blighty.


Moreover, the fallacy of the victimless crime or even the disputed Mill-Wolfenden principles cannot be smugly asserted because homosexual practitioners are in the highest risk group for several serious diseases, not limited to conventional STDs, and their far lower life spans - caused not merely correlated, to their behaviour, are sufficient reasons for providing legislative protection to them and to others from this destructive lifestyle.


The next consideration is whether all this is constitutional, or sensible.


Dr Eshan Dias


bottom of page