In the past few days we’ve seen Democratic presidential candidates dropping off one-by-one as they secede from the race. Buttigieg seceded on March 1, taking what could have been an historical event in American history off the table — namely, the first gay president. Whether or not his election to office was likely is beside the point. He had a decent run.
The election of Pete Buttigieg to the office of president certainly would’ve been an historical event in American history, but would it have been a beneficial turn for America? Those who believe in LGBT+ rights, a term thrown around rather loosely and bludgeonly, certainly would’ve thought so.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no bigot — someone who treats members of a particular group with hatred and intolerance — though undoubtedly some who read this post will think otherwise. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion of me … as I am of them. I actually follow, to some extent, Douglas Murray, author and journalist at The Spectator, and Dave Rubin, of The Rubin Report, both openly gay men. In fact, Murray’s book, The Strange Death of Europe, just arrived in my mailbox yesterday and I’m itching to read it (see also, The Madness of Crowds). Since both of these men are conservatives, although I believe Rubin has referred to himself as a “traditional liberal,” I tend to agree with much of what they say … even on the sexual revolution! Yes, they, too, recognize the totalitarian dangers of this ongoing revolt against humanity.
But there’s the rub; to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, is to be engaged in that which is fundamentally against humanity — to be against that which is natural (according to nature). Yes, I could see myself sitting down with either Douglas or Dave over coffee or tea and, as the English may put it, have a grand old time. I could do this while at the same time disagree with their lifestyle choices. In other words, I can see myself being friends with these gay men, but that doesn’t mean I would want either one of them to be elected to the office of president (Murray couldn’t be anyways, because he’s English), particularly because of the symbolism of the office.
The president represents the people of the United States of America, and I would see it as a step backward, socially and morally speaking, if we were to elect a gay president (or lesbian, or trans, or … you get the picture). It would signal a shift in American culture, the western civilization of which is rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles. We used to believe that nature meant something, which is to say that biology means something. Two men are biologically incompatible, just as two women are biologically incompatible. Neither of these couples could, on their own, produce children. A society that promotes and encourages this lifestyle is a decadent society, a society that cannot reproduce itself. On the other hand, a thriving and wholesome society is a reproducible society, and it encourages that reproduction.
I can hear my critics now: “Yeah, well they can adopt children or have children through a surrogate.” Yes, I know this, but that just proves my point. By adopting, they’re demonstrating their reliance on natural couples. By using a surrogate, they’re participating in that natural or biological process, even if it’s done behind the scene with scientists.
“Okay, okay, but there are ‘natural couples,’ as you say, who can’t have children. They have to rely on adopting or a surrogate.” True enough, but these are exceptions to the rule due to health or mutational issues. The exception cannot be utilized to overthrow the rule.
So we see how this is a deeply social and moral issue. What’s more, talks of polygamy are also on the rise.
Pete Buttigieg is only 38 years old, so it’s likely he’ll end up running for president again. Will he be joined in the race by a trans candidate or a polygamist candidate? Have we, as a nation, thrown biology and morals out the window? These are serious questions that need to be asked and addressed.
Is it good to go against nature? Is it good to set those up who have gone against nature as the leader of our nation? I think not.