Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
bear by san

I am wiser now you know and still as big a fool concerning you.

Do they not maintain bawdry, insinuate foolery, and renew the remembrance of heathen idolatry? Do they not induce whoredom and uncleanness? Nay, are they not rather plain devourers of maidenly virginity and chastity? For proof whereof but mark the flocking and running to Theatres and Curtains, daily and hourly, night and day, time and tide, to see plays and interludes where such wanton gestures, such bawdy speeches, such laughing and fleering, such kissing and bussing, such clipping and culling, such winking and glancing of wanton eyes, and the like is used, is wonderful to behold. Then these goodly pageants being ended, every mate sorts to his mate, every one brings another homeward of their way very friendly, and in their secret conclaves (covertly) they play the sodomites, or worse. And these be the fruits of plays and interludes, for the most part. And whereas, you say, there are good examples to be learnt in them: truly, so there are; if you will learn falsehood; if you will learn cozenage, if you will learn to deceive; if you will learn to play the hypocrite, to cog, to lie and falsify; if you will learn to jest, laugh and fleer, to grin, to nod and mow; if you will learn to play the Vice, to swear, tear and blaspheme both heaven and earth; if you will learn to become a bawd, unclean, and to devirginate maids, to deflower honest wives; if you will learn to murder, flay, kill, pick, steal, rob and rove; if you will learn to rebel against princes, to commit treasons, to consume treasures, to practice idleness, to sing and talk of bawdy love and venery; if you will learn to deride, scoff, mock and flout, to flatter and smooth; if you will learn to play the whoremaster, the glutton, drunkard, or incestuous person; if you will learn to become proud, haughty and arrogant; and finally, if you will learn to contemn God and all His laws, to care neither for Heaven nor Hell, and to commit all kinds of sin and mischief, you need to go to no other school, for all these good examples may you see painted before your eyes in interludes and plays.

-PHILIP STUBBES, The Anatomie of Abuses (1583)

I have mentioned on numerous occasions that most of the American public--including Christians are clueless as to the diabolical, systematic agenda the gay community has meticulously carried out over the past thirty years.

For example, the removal of homosexuality as a psychological disorder from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM (Diagnostic Statical Manual) in the early 1970's was not the result of convincing, newly discovered evidence which clearly established the theory that this sexual orientation and expression was genetic (in-born). 

On the contrary, it was the result of powerful, subversive gay activism. The vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder was not based on scientific research; rather, it was the outcome of months of behind the scenes lobbying, intimidation and threats leveled at psychiatrists by gay activists. Their solidarity, financial clout, and brilliantly executed battle strategy netted them a watershed victory--one that would help change our culture!

--Exodus International, 2000

Western Civilization, somehow still ticking along. For, yanno, ironical enough values of civilization.

Stubbs was a better prose stylist.

And on that note, to bed!



I thought at first that the second one was a joke. I was very dismayed when I realized that it wasn't.

Re: :(

I'm reasonably certain that the personal terror of both authors shines through, at least.


I've often said there's just not enough fleer these days. Aside from the content, it's interesting to me how modern Stubbes English is -- he's a contemporary of Shakespeare and Ben Johnson, when English intelligible to modern ears was confined to a fairly small radius around St. Paul's. In Northumbria they were still speaking a language completely different from English. Of course, modern Brits probably still think that's the case about the northeast of England.
*g* Part of the problem, I think, is that when we think of Elizabethan English, we think of Marlowe and Jonson and Shakespeare and Spenser.

Which is like, if you think of it, judging modern English by Joyce and Burroughs and Ginsberg and Beckett.

When I started reading a little Nashe and Dekker and Kyd, I was amazed how much easier it was to follow. They're not making the language sit up and bark the way the others are. *g*
Next you need John Bunyan.
That first one is too long to make pretty, print out, and give to a playwright-director friend of mine for Christmas. Hmph.
Just take it down to "sodomites or worse."


So to speak.
*g* I speak tyop!
>>Their solidarity, financial clout, and brilliantly executed battle strategy netted them a watershed victory--one that would help change our culture!<<

Yes, what a shame it is that there are no Christian organizations out there with a few months' worth of activism, solidarity, financial clout, or battle strategies. Maybe someday "Christianity" will be taken out of the DSM too. :)
All right, I'm going out on a limb here, but...I'm sure you already know I'm conservative on most issues, though I'm willing to listen to the other side of things and adjust to a less conservative viewpoint if it seems appropriate. So I'm rather more on the side of both of these writers, though not so extreme as they state.

Put me in as one who doesn't really disagree with them, so much as I think they overreact.

Hm. I had a whole lot I was going to say here, decided it wasn't appropriate, so I'm going to post it to my own LJ.
I'm sorry, Carol, but I have family members and loved ones who are homosexual, and I can't tolerate attitudes of hate or intolerance towards them, any more than I would tolerate attitudes of hate towards loved ones who are people of color.

I don't hate them. And I'm not saying you said I said that. I do think they can love just as well and intensely as any hetero. I think most of them are highly productive and intelligent members of society. I would not knowingly discriminate against someone based on their sexuality. I'm just saying that I think the two quotations are (actually quite a bit) farther right than I would go, but that they do make some points worth thinking about. The Stubbes is definitely the "slippery slope" argument--if you allow this, then the world will go to hell in a handbasket. The second is more an "Us vs. Them" argument--"they" said this so "we" must do something about it.

Me, I prefer hearing both sides, so long as I get to make the final decision on my own.
What always amazes me about the Elizabethans (and the 18th and 19th century novelists and historians as well) was that they managed to be so prolix while writing manually with quill pens by candlelight. It took typewriters to produce minimalism.
"Their solidarity, financial clout, and brilliantly executed battle strategy netted them a watershed victory--one that would help change our culture!"

Oh, yes. Because, you know, us Gayz have the Clout and can force people to vote for us -- or else we will redecorate their houses, repot their flowers, fix their sinks, rebuild their decks, and neuter/spay their pets. Also, we will police their neighborhoods, rescue their families from burning houses, collect their taxes, write their newspaper articles, deliver their pizzas, teach their children, preach in their churches and synagogues, mow their lawns, play professional sports on their TVs, dress well, cook and serve those restaurant meals, clean up after their crowds, roof their houses, make their blockbuster movies, deliver their appliances, take their phone calls, write their wills, process their paperwork, paint their houses, research their diseases, keep their pets healthy, keep them healthy, worry about our own families, pay our taxes, shovel our driveways and sidewalks, and -- in general -- act just like everyone else in the neighborhood -- only without any legal protection of our relationships.

Ahem. A button was pushed. Sorry.

I remember when the DSM was modified to remove the "homosexuality" diagnosis. Charles Socarides, a proponent of the "pre-oedipal" theory of "the cause of homosexuality" was a major player in the controversy (he was for keeping it) and sure enough, his son Richard is openly gay. Do you think that -- if there is a god/dess -- she was laughing at Dr. Socarides?
I think God is an Iron.


Thank you for that froth. It was cheering froth. And should be quoted and write large.
I think God is an Iron.

Would that be a 9-iron or a 5-iron? (I have to admit I wouldn't know either one of them if it marched up and smacked me across the face.)

Cheering froth dispensed free to all. Quotage prescribed prn. Also egg nog. Or tea. :-D

...I love your icon so much.

It's a Spider Robinson quote. *g* "If a burglar commits burglary, God is an iron."

I love my icon too. When I'm drinking lots of tea*, I think fondly of my icon.

Now I remember the Spider quote. Someone certainly commits a lot of irony.

*and this would be every day.

Why do I get the feeling that, were one to ask the author of the screed from Exodus what convincing evidence existed that homosexuality was a psychopathology in the first place, one would get an echoing silence in reply (or, possibly, incoherent spluttering that resolves into "'Cause it is! Anyone can tell that just by looking!")?

OK. Four punctuation marks in a row just to get myself out of the sentence. Is bedtime for sure.

It's a pathology because it's bad for you! Like... like self-injury! And masturbation! And kicking puppies!