Ukrainian phobia

I couldn’t get past one of the posts on Facebook. A group of people, let's call them volunteers, proposes to create a movement in defense of heterosexual couples. You heard right. The guys are seriously concerned that sexual minorities have far outperformed straight people in the fight for their rights. In a rather lengthy article about the harmonious existence of same- and bi-sex couples, volunteers argue that heterosexual relationships need to be popularized.

The idea is as follows.

We must protect the institution of family, support heterosexual relationships, be tolerant of sexual minorities and try to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Probably so. And yes, society should have brothels, saunas and many, many beautiful women and sexy men.

Excuse me,” I was indignant in my comment to the post, “but by definition, the struggle for rights occurs if these rights do not exist or they are not sufficiently protected. That is, those who go to the barricades obviously recognize themselves as excluded from the majority, generally recognized as the norm. It turns out that if heterosexual couples fight and create movements for the glory of freedom of bisexual relationships, doesn’t this mean that a normal harmonious union between a man and a woman is in danger of extinction?

Who will then be in the majority? Sexual minorities? Who will be the standard of the norm? Our hyper-tolerant society is trying to prove that if a relationship is harmonious and does not cause physical and moral harm to the participants in the relationship and others, then this is the norm. And it doesn’t matter whether boys, girls, or both create a family.

It's hard to call me a homophobe. I am not an opponent of restrictions on a person’s freedom to choose his soul mate. But I believe that in any state, by default there should be a majority + all other dissenters. Without disparaging the latter in terminology.

But I am surprised by the idea of ​​​​popularizing family, marriage and increasing the birth rate through the prism of a social movement.

So let's think about the children first. I want my child to come to a society where heterosexual couples are the majority. Same-sex couples are by definition incapable of reproducing. Only indirectly. To procreate, a man and a woman are needed. Their union. My child should know that children are the basis of the future and they are made through relationships between subjects of different sexes. This idea is shallow and very simple.

Secondly, my child should know that there are relationships on a spiritual level, where the attraction of people to each other creates the basis for a long-term and strong relationship. Such attraction occurs mainly between a man and a woman. But sometimes it happens that people find their soul mates among creatures of the same sex. This is in no way derogatory. But such people, as well as those around them, must responsibly admit that their behavior is atypical for others.

They have equal rights, they are people just like everyone else. They just deviated a little from the majority's idea for a number of internal reasons.

I have always been bothered by gay or lesbian parades, where the sexual side of the issue is deliberately emphasized. People take to the streets naked and demonstrate same-sex kissing and hugging. They try to wear sexy clothes.

I don’t want to be a soulless homophobe, and that doesn’t mean that tomorrow I’ll go yelling “Long live gays!”

I want to live in a country where there is a culture of personal relationships and positioning these relationships externally.

A couple of hundred years ago, exposing your legs for everyone to see was considered a severe violation of moral social norms. But at the same time, homosexuals and lesbians also existed. It’s just that the general culture of society put universal human values ​​at the forefront. People delved into economic, political and other freedoms with much greater interest than the freedom to choose a partner and recognize their choice as deliberately indicatively normal.

If we turn to antiquity, where same-sex relationships were considered the norm, then we inherited very spiritual works, about the value of human relationships, and not about which way of copulation is better.

Let's take one of Plato's works "Phaedrus", this is an appeal from a fairly mature man to a young man, the man is in love with another man, but at the same time about a hundred pages of this text is a conversation about spirituality, about love, about trust and respect, about how love influences a person, and a harmonious union makes a person spiritually better and purer.

Universal human values, spiritual development, and the richness of the emotional world are valued by the author much higher than simply the fact of intimacy itself. Plato's words addressed to Phaedrus can equally be addressed to a woman. Because for the author, the spiritual and emotional side of a relationship is important above all, and the choice of a partner’s gender is not that important and is not even discussed.

Why the hell don't we have censorship? My God, I would impose multi-billion dollar fines for yelling at a woman on live television. Our treasury is not so large, and ratings (and, accordingly, money) are made precisely on the almost causeless humiliation of some people by others.

Why does the broadcast network consist mainly of series about fugitives, maddened by revenge, law enforcement officers exceeding their authority, divorced women who have become private detectives? Why are there so few classics on the broadcast schedule? Our viewers do not see “War and Peace”, “Gone with the Wind”, “Oblomov”, “The Cherry Orchard”. Not long ago, a new version of “Les Miserables” was released in the form of a musical - most people in the cinema considered the film unworthy, since “the plot is unclear.” Naturally, for those who have not read the classics and are not familiar with the history of France during the revolutionary period, it is difficult to perceive a plot where the creators of a film masterpiece only hint at certain events, implying that the audience is familiar with classical literature.

We are a society that is losing more and more of its relational and spiritual guidelines every day. A society in which the fashion of the 90s has long and firmly instilled the blocking of norms and freedoms. Freedom is in anarchy, ignorance. Fashion for stupidity. The value of a momentary beautiful picture. And nothing for the soul. Society of fake women and fake men.

If you are unglamorous, not skinny, unfashionable, smart and strive to work in a non-prestigious office, then you will never get a chance to be a glamorous bastard who received money as a means of wasting his life in particularly ornate ways.

People understand the beauty of life in a very abstract way. The beautiful life as the idea of ​​modern society is to do nothing, have a lot of money, be popular among peers and break the rules. As a result, this is a bunch of idiots of both sexes with brains filled with glamor, who, in their desire to break the rules, live in a state of ruin, and really do nothing and do not strive for mental and spiritual development, they only imagine themselves living beautifully and with dignity. They look like madmen convinced of their role, and madness is massive.

Would you like to live in a country full of slackers who have destroyed their own social institutions, who think that the state is a body that will solve all problems in one fell swoop. Every year our poor, crazy, lazy masses increase their population. The more she runs wild, the more she resembles a herd of sick animals.

And none of them cares that in another couple of decades, in the absence of a reorientation of public opinion and censorship in propaganda bodies (media, blogs, social networks), we will get a terrible tribe, which can be directed in at least some more or less useful direction only by force.

We are slowly growing into the theater of the absurd and releasing our children into this theater. We have nowhere to run. And we can be afraid of everyone who is nearby. This is a terrible state of animal fear, subject to war against everyone, where the criterion of the future is banal survival.

I don't want to support gays, lesbians or be part of the straight party. I want, just like for me, for my children to have some kind of social norms that protect them and subsequent generations. If you don’t think about it now, then it will be much more difficult later.

Intellectuals have weakened, libraries are losing popularity. Theaters are emptying before our eyes. Where, where is our culture? We are people with a rich history and rich cultural heritage. We must develop into progress.