On Second Thought: The Right to Be Disgusting


The United States government has decided at long last to use the term “sexual rights” when discussing global development and human rights.  However, this is a less radical move than it might appear.  According to a statement made by Richard Erdman, “deputy ambassador to the UN,”sexual rights are not human rights, and they are not enshrined in human rights law.”  At first sight, then, this change in language is only a meaningless gesture, an accommodation to the leftist rhetoric of the administration.

On second thought, however, this little change does signal a shift with long-term consequences.  It was not long ago that the imagined “rights” of wives and children were not defined in international “law” but were left up to the diverse cultures and religions of the world.  No more. There was also a time, before Jimmie Carter, when US foreign policy was based on America’s national interest and not on some speculative theory of “human rights.”  No more.  There was a time, before the Clintons, when the US State Department did not send loud-mouthed women around the world declaring that it was America’s purpose to liberate women from the shackles of patriarchy.  Now, alas, no more.

So, no matter which thug from which criminal conspiracy against the American people is elected,  we can expect to see a big push for the rights of LGBTs—though we shall probably have to add new letters, as new forms of unnatural vice are invented by sex-therapists and Queer Studies professors.  What about coprophiliacs, bestialists, and transspeciesists?  How much surgery would it take to turn Hilary into a pit bull?  She’s already….

This is America, and as soon as a vice is tolerated, it is endowed with rights.  Once upon a time, sensible people just ignored homosexuals so long as they did not act up.  These days, they have the “right” to make out in public places, dress up like women, teach young students, and adopt children.  Young aspiring “trannies” have the “right” to use bathrooms of the opposite gender.  I don’t even want to speculate on what’s next when cannibalism and coprophilia are legalized.

Avatar photo

Thomas Fleming

Thomas Fleming is president of the Fleming Foundation. He is the author of six books, including The Morality of Everyday Life and The Politics of Human Nature, as well as many articles and columns for newspapers, magazines,and learned journals. He holds a Ph.D. in Classics from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and a B.A. in Greek from the College of Charleston. He served as editor of Chronicles: a Magazine of American Culture from 1984 to 2015 and president of The Rockford Institute from 1997-2014. In a previous life he taught classics at several colleges and served as a school headmaster in South Carolina

5 Responses

  1. MD says:

    If a person fashions himself a “progressive,” he must be completely supportive of any disgusting, deviant act that the human mind can conceive, because eventually, the long mach will get there. Lest we forget, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Gore Vidal, Ralph Nader, even Ronald Reagan, all once seen as progressives, later purged from the movement, as the train kept chugging along. Today’s progressive is tomorrow’s bigot. Our dear leader, Mr. Obama, was being a horrible bigot, just a few years ago when he cynically declared that gay “marriage” was a bridge too far. Of course, this was an election lie, but I’m sure that he caught hell from many of the passengers on the death train…

  2. Dot Delano says:

    Apparently, the latest addition to LGBT is Q for queer. I guess it means anything out in the periphery.

  3. Harry Colin says:

    Our Pervert in Chief has now capped his triumphant trampling through our military institutions with his appointment of a homosexual to be the Secretary of the Army. This appointee has fewer credentials to lead the Army than my mailman, but in Obamaville, all that matters is his sexual orientation. Even more sadly, I’m certain he will assume his duties without a peep from Congress, except for the truly progressive Dems who’ll no doubt salute his “bravery” as they gleefully vote their approval.

  4. Harry Heller says:

    Admin note: For the past several TFF emails sent to me, I have been unable to access this blog site via clicking on the link within the email, even though that hypertext appears to BE a link to this site. To get here, I now have to Google “TFF”. This is a new “bug”, which I thought someone should know about.

  5. Harry Heller says:

    I wish Dr. Fleming WOULD speculate on where he thinks all this will end up. I fear the only real option for civilized people is, first, internal psychological, as well as behavioral/sociological, “secession” from the regime (we lead the lives we should, and don’t provide any “affirmative” or “proactive” support for the Pervert Regime); followed ultimately by real, geographical and ultimately political secession. I actually know pervert-supporters (pro-abortion/gay rights /SSM /diversity, etc) here in San Francisco who strongly would favor allowing “reactionaries and bigots” to leave the US and take part of the country with them.

    I think all factions of the Authentic Right – Christian, white nationalist, Constitutionalist/libertarian – need to recognize that we have lost the country, and that America will never again be the semi-Christian nation it once was, even to the extent of restoring anything like the rather vague and universalistic deistic “Faith” (as TF has discussed it) of the pre-Sixties; nor will we be white again as in my parents’ youth (nor will assimilated nonwhites preserve Western cultural norms), even if we might be able to prevent Amnesty and perhaps someday reduce legal immigration, if only on working-class employment “nationalist” grounds ; and neither will the Old Republic or anything remotely like ‘laissez-faire’ be resurrected (though we could still eke out some victories, eg, on taxes, or public sector pensions, or some really egregious and costly regulations, if the GOP could be forced by its grassroots to become more aggressive in confronting Democrats).

    The second half of the 20th century was one of macro-“integration”, whether within nations, or economically (and to a lesser extent, juridically [if that’s the right word for legal transnationalism]) between them. I think this century will be one of dis-integration, as people continue to make greater cultural demands and come to realize that they can only realize them by forming smaller polities composed of persons ever more like themselves.