Many Western nations are committing cultural hari-kari because of their commitment to extremist agendas and radical ideologies. Probably the two most noted examples of this would be Canada and the Netherlands. Both nations have pursued such radically dysfunctional and politically correct agendas, that they may well implode in the near future.
Both nations have taken the wrong approach to a whole range of social and cultural issues, especially in legalizing behaviours and lifestyles that most people would find deeply problematic. These include prostitution, drug use, euthanasia, homosexuality, and so on.
A recent episode in the Netherlands highlights this national urge to self-destruct. As a means of better checking who comes into the Netherlands, the nation will require all would-be immigrants to view a film, which among other things, shows two homosexuals kissing. How they react to that activity will in part determine if they are eligible for entry. Presumably this will weed out intolerant and closed-minded individuals (Muslims seem especially targeted here) and keep the nation a beacon of fun-loving, tolerant hedonists.
But it seems to me that aside from legitimate concerns about monitoring who moves in to a nation, this is another example of how the homosexual juggernaut is crushing everything before it. What next, we may well ask? Will full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle be mandatory in order for people to take up residence in our enlightened and liberated Western nations? Will we need to swear an oath to the homosexual agenda before we secure voting rights?
Will we have to publicly express our pleasure in the homosexual lifestyle before progressive governments grant us our welfare benefits? Will we have to watch homosexual sex scenes in order to qualify for rent assistance? Will we have to pledge allegiance to the homosexual way of life before we are allowed to purchase a house? Will we have to attend the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras each year as a religious duty, in order to be allowed to travel in our nation? Will we have to renounce heterosexuality in all forms before we can be given the right to own a car? The list can go on and on.
Yes, I am being extreme here, even provocative. Yet this is where we really seem to be heading in so many ways. Who would have imagined a few short years ago that approval of homosexual smooching would be a test of entry to a democratic nation? The homosexual lobby has achieved almost all that it has ever wanted in many Western nations. But the one thing it most wants – public endorsement, acceptance and approval – it knows it will never get, at least from a good majority of the world’s population. That is why it always resorts to the heavy hand of the state to do its bidding. It knows it must get by compulsion and force what it can never get voluntarily.
So many of our enlightened Western nations are quite happy to serve as the storm troopers for this radical social movement. This episode in the Netherlands is just another step on the way to compulsory, state-enforced acceptance of the whole homosexual agenda. And soon enough, appropriate punishments will be swiftly meted out to those who do not fully comply.
But wait a minute here. Critics might say I am over-reacting, when in fact the Dutch needed to do something about their current multicultural headaches. Yes, in fairness, a few other factors might be pointed out. Because of the extreme liberal immigration and tolerance policies of the Dutch, they have been getting into some real trouble lately, including the two murders of prominent figures by Muslim extremists. Thus they are realizing that they need to get much tougher on who they admit into their country. Nothing wrong with that.
Yes, people should swear an oath to the values and principles of the host nation. But do we really need to approve of homosexuality in order to prove we would make a good citizen? Based on their new-found criteria, I and many hundreds of millions of people worldwide would never be allowed into Holland, not because we are intolerant and possible suicide bombers, but because we do not endorse and embrace the homosexual lifestyle.
Surely other tests could have been devised. In fact, how people react to a topless female bather is also featured in the film. Presumably enlightened, progressive and tolerant people have no problem with public nudity as well. But if you ask me, these are just lousy tests.
Many would rightly argue that people who embrace these two activities represent not an enlightened and progressive attitude, but a regressive one. By failing to make moral distinctions, we are heading backwards as a people, not forward.
Immorality, and/or amorality, may seem like a good test of a progressive people. But to many others, these are hallmarks of a people who have lost their way, and are heading for a national collapse. Historians have noted how previous cultures have slid into oblivion exactly because of their reckless indifference to public and private morality. We may well be witnessing the same death-throes of a nation, right there in the Netherlands.
Morality is indeed the best test of a strong, healthy society. It is simply about “doing the right thing”.
The Netherlands and Canada are to be commended for providing equality and fairness for their citizens.
It’s a pity that Australia acts immorally by discriminating against same-sex couples.
John Kloprogge, North Croydon
Dear John you say, “It’s a pity that Australia acts immorally by discriminating against same-sex couples.” I say, “Thank GOD that there are boundaries in place to prevent innocent helpless children from being adopted into homsexual co-habitation!
Frank Jetmar, Melbourne
Frank, if you met some children of gay parents, you may have a different view. I’ve met some who love their parents and wouldn’t swap them for the world.
Many children would be much better off in a loving, caring family with same-sex parents than with a couple of bigoted homophobic straight parents.
Look at the number of shameful heterosexual parents who kick their gay kids out of home (often leading them into homelessness, drug-taking or prostitution). One wonders whether they should have been allowed to parent in the first place.
John Kloprogge, North Croydon
John,
We have no control over peoples procreation, but for the adoption process and IVF, we do have the ability to choose the best for the kids involved. A homosexual couple do not have an equal input of male and female role models no matter how many close family friends they have. This is not in the best interests of a child, end of story. The needs of children far outweigh the wants of adults.
Sharny Annison, Leongatha
John,
Morality is not a good test of society, in today’s post modern world, peoples view of morality changes from person to person. ‘Doing the right thing’ can be seen right by one and wrong by the other.
Also John don’t base arguments on what children say, I know of kids who have abusive parents and still say they love them, I’ve even seen those kids screaming for the one’s who have abused them when DHS come to remove them to alternate care.
Ask those same children you know in 20-30 years whether or not the would rather have grown up with loving hetero parents and you may get a different answer.
Andrew Forbes, Melbourne
John,
You make a moral judgement when you state that “it’s a pity that Australia acts immorally by discriminating against same-sex couples.”
But what standard of morality are you applying in issuing this value judgement? Is it an objective moral standard or a subjective one? If the former, from whence does it derive it’s objectivity? If the latter, how do you know which of two or more competings subjective standards of morality is the correct one?
Morality is indeed the best test of a strong, healthy society. It is simply about “doing the right thing”.
The Netherlands and Canada are to be commended for providing equality and fairness for their citizens.
It’s a pity that Australia acts immorally by discriminating against same-sex couples.
John Kloprogge, North Croydon
Dear John you say, “It’s a pity that Australia acts immorally by discriminating against same-sex couples.” I say, “Thank GOD that there are boundaries in place to prevent innocent helpless children from being adopted into homsexual co-habitation!
Frank Jetmar, Melbourne
Frank, if you met some children of gay parents, you may have a different view. I’ve met some who love their parents and wouldn’t swap them for the world.
Many children would be much better off in a loving, caring family with same-sex parents than with a couple of bigoted homophobic straight parents.
Look at the number of shameful heterosexual parents who kick their gay kids out of home (often leading them into homelessness, drug-taking or prostitution). One wonders whether they should have been allowed to parent in the first place.
John Kloprogge, North Croydon
John,
We have no control over peoples procreation, but for the adoption process and IVF, we do have the ability to choose the best for the kids involved. A homosexual couple do not have an equal input of male and female role models no matter how many close family friends they have. This is not in the best interests of a child, end of story. The needs of children far outweigh the wants of adults.
Sharny Annison, Leongatha
John,
Morality is not a good test of society, in today’s post modern world, peoples view of morality changes from person to person. ‘Doing the right thing’ can be seen right by one and wrong by the other.
Also John don’t base arguments on what children say, I know of kids who have abusive parents and still say they love them, I’ve even seen those kids screaming for the one’s who have abused them when DHS come to remove them to alternate care.
Ask those same children you know in 20-30 years whether or not the would rather have grown up with loving hetero parents and you may get a different answer.
Andrew Forbes, Melbourne
John,
You make a moral judgement when you state that “it’s a pity that Australia acts immorally by discriminating against same-sex couples.”
But what standard of morality are you applying in issuing this value judgement? Is it an objective moral standard or a subjective one? If the former, from whence does it derive it’s objectivity? If the latter, how do you know which of two or more competings subjective standards of morality is the correct one?
Frank Gashumba, Melbourne