Tolerance and sexual deviances

In the 90s the Hungarian press favoured the liberal topic of tolerance due to all kinds of minorities.¹ As an effect of the message targeting the “majority”

1 This topic is well written by Tibor Löffl er (Fobofóbia, in: Magyar Nemzet, 23.07.2015.) whose way of thinking was also used here.

it was almost shameful not to belong to the liberal minority. This urged the

“majority”, that in order to feel themselves normal, they should fi nd some kind of “minority” trait in themselves as soon as possible. Those who could not become “minority” had only one choice left: as non-normal “majority”

unconditionally tolerate the minorities who embodied normalcy.

Here tolerance had already become a tool transforming and bringing the “majority” to its knees and identifying the truth as the truth of the

“minorities”.

At the fi rst phase of referring to tolerance the majority merely had to tolerate those following the LMBT² sexual orientation. This meant that they could not be humiliated, discriminated, (at school or at work, for example) or punished legally. At this time tolerance still resembles its original mean-ing, but already decisive obfuscation appear. In the beginning the values of the heterosexual majority tolerating “otherness” prevail, and the possibility for peaceful co-existence of the majority and the “sexual minority” was found within these frames. The common principle of tolerating sexual oth-erness was that sexuality is a personal issue, what is happening indoors is no business of anyone. So tolerance was not related to the truth of values, but simply the dominant “majority” had to be tolerant with the recessive

“minority” without any kind of value judgement.

2.1 Demand for the right to marry and to adopt children

The incorrect reference to tolerance became obvious when same-sex couples started to demand the right to get married and adopt children. These devel-opments did not fi t into the concept of tolerance even when understood in its sense distanced from the original and merely expected on a quantitative basis from the “minority” to the “majority”, because legalising these de-mands presumes blurring the borders between the sexes. The underlying but obvious, and less and less concealed essence of the fi ght for the possibility of same-sex “marriage” and adoption of children is to radically change the way of thinking of the (heterosexual) “majority”.

2 LMBT (sometimes: MLBT) is an acronym, the Hungarian equivalent for the Enlish LGBT (GLBT) frequently used in the international press. It means lesbians (women attracted to women), gays (men attracted to men) bisexuals (attracted to both sexes) transsexuals (a group partly or completely changing sexual roles, sometimes changing external distinc-tive marks as well). The term is used to collecdistinc-tively refer to these sexual minorities.

Legalising the possibility of marriage and adoption of children appear as a tool to change the values of the (heterosexual) majority. The majority is no longer expected to show tolerance to LMBT, but to totally accept sexual otherness. Deviant sexual orientation must not be differentiated in any way, but it must be considered without any value judgement as a simple human sexual habit. In this view the notions of “heterosexuality” and “homosexual-ity” and even “sexual orientation” and “otherness” become senseless. And what is absolutely and above all forbidden is to express any kind of moral judgement in connection with homosexual behaviour. Abusing tolerance in such a way attacks the possibility of differentiation, thereby making it impossible to talk about tolerance at all.

Being labelled by the well-known expression “homophobe” is the weapon of abusing tolerance in connection with sexual orientation.

Anybody who criticises or expresses disagreement in connection with the “equal rights” of LMBT can get it. Ideological terror is created, which, in order to forcefully transform the heterosexual way of think-ing, obliterates tolerance even in its meaning distanced from truth – on majority principle.

As a result of this process, those who were earlier considered tolerant can soon be stigmatised as homophobes. Today it is no longer suffi cient to reject the discrimination and humiliation of the gay, but they demand complete identifi cation and agreement with their set of values. Those who do not agree with gay marriage and dare to expresses this in public are im-mediately called homophobes. They are imim-mediately excluded, saying that they are “exclusionists” and no matter how they insists on the existence of God’s law, on the metaphysical and moral categories, the “otherness“

of his opinion is already “other”, that is, different. Normalcy cannot even appear as “otherness”. Here it is clear to see how out of tune the liberal canon is, since the “respect and protection of otherness” is only due to the behaviours questioning and going opposite the values.

As tolerance becomes senseless if we separate it from truth, or as the notions “minority” and “majority” become uncontrollable expressions, so does “homophobia” remain undefi ned. Anybody can be declared homophobe and this phenomenon is very similar to how the communists stigmatised the poor peasants as kulaks, and the social democrats as fascists. The case of the fashion designer couple Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana is similar. The earlier celebrated heroes of “coming out” immediately got

the homophobe stigma when they expounded that they did not agree with gay marriage.³

2.2 Stigmatising is the tool for ideological terrorism

Those who profess tolerance often practise intolerance conducting an aggressive militant practice against those who reject the positive discrimi-nation of LMBT and who refer to the rules of God and nature. There is nobody among the human rights defenders and the “suppressed sexual minorities” who would dare to stand up against the aggressive practice of stigmatisation and would bid patience for the defenders of the traditional values of marriage and family. The liberal legal struggles have long been using the expressions ending in phobia⁴, with the intention to make the non-liberal thinkers, who are declared to be homophobe, xenophobe, islamophobe etc., feel themselves abnormal and in order that society would exclude them.

The excessive use of the term phobia often leads to glaring contradic-tions. It is conspicuous that for example the same “human right defenders”, who readily shout homophobia and demand positive discrimination and the change of norms in society for the “minorities”, merely on the basis

3 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/03/14/gay-fashion-designers-dolce-and-gabbana-attack-non-traditional-families/; http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/dolce-gab-bana-sorry-for-anti-gay-comments/story-fn907478-1227485306198 (Last download: 14.

10.2015.)

4 In these words the second element -phobia (φόβος – phobos) is usually connected to a word of Greek or less often Latin origin. The majority of the words ending in -phobia has a real content, so their use in certain cases can be justifi ed. Expressions with -pho-bia appear in psychiatry (irrational, binding fear of something), in chemistry (chemical aversion), in biology (description of certain characteristics e.g. environmental aversion of microorganisms), and in medical science (hypersensitivity e.g. to noise or light). Fur-thermore there are several words ending in -phobia in literature, where they are only used to raise interest.

-phobia can describe aversion against nationalities or other groups. In this sense -phobia is used as synonim of words with the prefi x anti-. Aversion or prejudice can also refer to a status or material. In political discussiond these words often appear with a modifi ed meaning as verbal abuse. These are for example: homophobia, islamophobia, or xeno-phobia and antisemitism, too.

that they are minorities, are against “islamophobia” too, not realising that

»there is no pride in the Caliphate«⁵.

The intolerant groups of the “movements for gay rights” are in the same situation as the sons of Lenin were in former times. There has always been a hard core among the communists, the members of which thought that they were the most qualifi ed representatives of the idea. These “bests” organised the newer and newer Internationale from the current good men thereby giving an organizational frame to the fi ght against deviants.

However, the members of the gathering, which call themselves “LMBT-community”, and which is considered homogeneous, do not necessary acknowledge each other as equal or equivalent. The situation in the United States is a good example for this. There are gays who do not want to cooperate with transsexuals or transvestites, while the black and Latino gays are not exempt from mutual racial confl icts either. The case of the fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana proves that gay rights movements that stand up against all kinds of exclusion and stigmatisation are ready to exclude and stigmatise if they meet people with different mind-set within the “LMBT-community”.

The greatest danger of the ideological terror using stigmatisation is that we cannot see the limit to the newer and newer “sexual rights” and the new demands towards the values of the majority. If, neglecting the divine, moral and natural laws of sexuality and marriage, gay marriage and the right to

5 The International Organisation of Homosexuals, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Trans- and Inter-sexuals (ILGA) drew attention to the fact that the situation in Uganda – where in February 2014 President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni signed the law on Monday, on the basis of which

“serial criminals” can be sentenced even to life inprisonment – is by far not unparal-leled: in seven countries homosexuals are sentenced to capital punishment. These coun-tries are Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Jemen, Sudan, Nigeria, Mauritania and Somalia. Similar to Uganda gay people are sentenced to life inprisonment in Tansania, Malaisia, Guyana and Bangladesh. In Morocco, Kenya, and Jamaica they are sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment reprts The Independent. In: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/

politics/and-you-thought-uganda-was-bad-map-shows-where-in-the-world-it-is-worst-to-be-gay-9152558.html P.S.: 2015.10.16. Neither is life a bed of roses for the gay in the

“enlightened” Muslim countries: in Saudi-Arabia (the main ally of the US in the region) a homosexual man was sentenced to 500 (!) lashes and fi ve years of imprisonment. Re-cently the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey (the country is a candidate for EU mem-bership) referrd to homosexuality – together with the consumption of pork meat – the manifestation of treachery and inhuman. In: http://www.economist.com/node/21546002 (L.d.: 16.10.2015.)

adoption by gay couples can be institutionalized is there any real impediment to have paedophilia accepted, or why couldn’t zoophiles demand to marry their favourite animals? What can prevent polygamy or polyandry? Why are there no LMBT quotas beside female quotas? Why do not we yield to the demand of the gender-mainstream, that advocating the equality of the sexes, sharply separates the biological and social character of sexuality to obliterate the last signs of traditions on the altar of personal liberty? If the notion of “rainbow” family is self-evident why wouldn’t it be the target to wipe out the notions of “father” and “mother”? How is it possible that the principle of “equality” does not prevail yet in the sexual education in schools? If the moral limits of sexuality are not valid, why would not all the imaginable sexual acts of LMBT be presented to students as self-evident elements of sexual life? To go even further, is it not discriminative to use the acronym LMBT when a lot of “sexual minorities” are missing from it.

These questions are not any more absurd than those new rules, which were promoted by homosexual rights activists, and which have come into force recently, and which would have been unimaginable a couple of decades ago.

We have got to the stage where, if anyone doubts the basis and legitimacy of these or similar questions will immediately be accused of homophobia.

In this ideological terror, public fi gures can easily be put under pressure, can be discredited and can even be forced to resign. Stigmatising with phobia is a standard tool to break people’s career and to attack the livelihood of those having an opposing opinion. Nowadays it must be seriously considered to publicly express opinions about these questions lest the person doing so be declared homophobe, be publicly defamed, and be dragged into costly trials.

2.3 Phobophobia

Due to the ideological confusion the tragicomic paradox seems to come true that people stigmatised with homophobia in order to defend themselves will start using the arguments of the LMBT gay-rights activists and human rights defenders. They take on the stigma of homophobia with the reason that their phobia is the sign of a certain disposition, and with this argument they declare themselves “minority” with due rights.⁶ If homosexuality and any other LMBT sexual behaviour can be considered “equivalent” sexual behaviour, then based

6 http://mno.hu/velemeny/fobofobia-1296622 (L.d.: 14.10.2015.)

on this, aversion to homosexual behaviour can characterise a “minority”, and immediately they have the reason to have their rights acknowledged.

A characteristic symptom of chaos, is that those who call others homo-phobe cannot escape being called phobiacs either. Following the pattern of homophobia we can by all means talk about heterophobia and this is not all.

The expression photophobia is already in use expressing the fear of others’

(supposed) phobia. Using the word phobia is an almost amusing parody of the ideological confusion, the madness of which can at the same time be under-stood as a lawful punishment for separating the questions from eternal truth.