Fake Crystall: Reflections on US Human Rights Concept

Thousands of years old cultural taboos are reasonable and logical unlike US State Department statements. All deviations from family traditions impede the full performance of the most important natural function: to give birth and raise descendants, to transmit one’s genetic, intellectual and moral potential through them. By imposing its specific preferences to the whole humanity the US ruling strata not only undermines universal moral values, but, threatens the existence of the United States itself.

The fight for human rights has become kind of a global mission for the United States. The Human Rights Concept is presented as rational and true as the Newton’s laws, as whole and logical as an unbroken crystal; and what is most important — as universal, equally acceptable for all cultures and nations of the world. More over, as the US sees it, the Human Rights Concept is mandatory for all nations — as a basis for universal right and uniform civilization code for the humanity.

An overwhelming human rights concept is based on the axiom of freedom: one is free to do what doesn’t restrain the freedom of others. What if someone doesn’t like others free actions? In this case one should follow the Voltaire’s rule: “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write”. Seems to be very logical, harmonious and universal in theory. But it’s not an unbroken crystal in practice. Obvious logic defects give rise to significant doubts concerning good faith of its creators. Rationality dives way to evident preferences.

Recently the Saint-Petersburg’s deputies came out with a bill meeting the wishes of the majority of city dwellers. It envisaged responsibility (fines) for the propaganda of homosexualism in the presence of minors. But it sparked a sharp protest from US State Secretary Hillary Clinton even at the stage of debates. This kind of reaction on the part of State Secretary seems to be inadequate and disproportionate. What the great power’s State Secretary has to do with local city legislation of a far away country? Have the Petersburg’s lawmakers deviated so much from common law? Have they really encroached on one of significant civil freedoms?

It seems the minors freedom implies a special legal regime allowing additional restrictions, be it Russia or the USA. For instance almost all Russia’s cities restrict minors freedom of movement after 23 o’clock in the evening. Strong alcoholic beverages sales banned, their advertisement restricted, alcoholic sales outlets are kept away from children’s facilities. All countries have these or other age restrictions when it comes to traditional sex life (erotic channels, sex shops and adult films). Political parties propaganda and politics involvement are banned in case of those under age.

A number of US municipalities have gone even further by vetoing religious symbols in children’s facilities. Of course no star of Bethlehem looks unusual at Christmas time but what a strange thing, nobody in the State Department censured the New York law makers. All the above mentioned restrictive practice evoked no exasperation on the part US ideologists. But the recent event with the Petersburg’s law made them go berserk.

Actually Hillary Clinton displays special interest towards sexual minorities. It is confirmed by what she said, for instance: “gay rights are human rights, human rights are gay’s rights”. According to her words she highly appreciated the gays and lesbians for courage and decisiveness they displayed during the last forty years of their activities and offered them support in their future important endeavors. Looks like the global promotion of non — traditional relationship has become the forward battle area of struggle for human rights. The explanation could be Mrs. Clinton’s personal frustration with family values and search for life alternative. But she didn’t say these things privately over a cup of coffee. These were official statements of US State Department that constitute basing starting points for foreign policy!

In reality lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) protection becomes a core direction of US foreign policy. That’s what was confirmed by the UN Human Rights Council resolution of June 2011. To pull this obviously unpopular (frankly shameful in the eyes of many people of the world) resolution the State Department employees did huge amount of preparatory work with the diplomats of Africa and Latin America. As we can see political resources of the planet’s leading state are mobilized for achieving the goal made public by Clinton. Millions wonder why this very issue gets hot support from US establishment? Unisexual relations are condemned by Christianity, Judaism, Islam, al other traditional ethic systems. Why Human Rights Concept — a new universal code of conduct offered to the world — differs so much from many centuries old moral experience?

The Human Rights Concept advocates say imposing a taboo on unisexual relations is an irrational phobia. But what about the conduct of US ideologists who defend LGBT, is it rational? Certainly it is! — say the creators of new moral coordinates. It’s free choice of two personalities that we’re talking about. The choice is not imposed by force. Talking about those who find it unpleasant to see LGBT near themselves and their children, — let them be tolerant. It has no relation to their personal freedom limitation. Then why is it impossible to be tolerant in case of stars on New York schools Christmas trees, but it’s a must to be tolerant towards unisexual relations agitation in Saint-Petersburg’s schools?

Perhaps the topic is of such delicate character that it’s out of place to draw parallels with religion and politics? O. K. let’s turn to intimate issues. If US homosexuals cannot be discriminated against than why polygamy is strictly forbidden? Please, note, it’s not only advertisement but actual living with a few spouses that is banned even if strict conspiracy is observed. It’s not just a small fine but prison term violators are punished with. There are dozens of polygamists behind bars in contemporary America.

We remember the state of Utah, home of polygamy practicing Mormons sect, was denied membership in the Union for 34 years. By the way Mitt Romney, the leading presidential race Republican candidate, is a Mormon. It’s only in 1896 UItah could join “the kingdom of pluralism”, when Mormon leaders formally condemned polygamy. Even now it’s Mexico, where polygamy discrimination is not that tough, the sect followers clandestinely go to get married.

What the rationale for such stark contrast? Why polygamy advocates are discriminated unlike gays? What’s the core difference in legal status? Both cases presuppose free choice of personalities. No force used to get you to harem. Polygamists don’t stand in anybody’s way, they behave quietly, they don’t even try to plague monogamic majority with polygamy parades. Why not be tolerant towards polygamy even if it’s unpleasant to someone, like in case of LGBT? The ban is devoid of liberal logic. Perhaps polygamy is unjust towards women? A great majority of fair sex thinks homosexualism is even more unjust towards women. Perhaps polygamy is unacceptable because of inequality of the sexes? But the US laws not only forbid polygamy but polyandry as well. That is the taboo has no relation to legal logic. So what about human rights?

It’s a rare occasion human rights concept addresses biological logic considering a human being as an abstract entity rising above natural conditionality. May be US rights creators resorted to biological, physiological logic? Say, homosexualism is a natural quality and those who possess it should be taken for what they are. But the polygamists have more reasons to say their sexual orientation is of natural character. Almost any adult has own experience to corroborate genetic strength of poligamy instinct. Love triangle is the most widely spread plot of world literature from ancient Sumeria civilization to our days.

Still the dramatic problem with a few unknowns has been solved in fidelity’s favor for thousands of years. A generation after generation people had to suppress the propensity to polygamy under the pressure of moral standards. Why symmetric practice of “cultural reforging” is not good for LGBT community? Who proved that homosexual instincts are harder to suppress than polygamy? There is no such evidence because there is no biologic logic in US legal disbalances. True, the Human Rights Concept advocates may come up with a special argument: “Minority rights are more important than the majority ones”. Doesn’t sound democratic but rather law — human like. It immediately explains privileges of sodomy in comparison with polygamy.

But it gives no explanation for legal persecution of one more non-traditional form of sexual relationship — incest, the intercourse between parents and children. Blood mixers are a rare minority making free choice and not standing in the way of others. Why this “sexual group” is discriminated unlike the LGTB community? No abstract legal logic can explain that. Perhaps the matter is that blood mixing is an unheard of loathsome thing to do? Perhaps it is. But it’s the very same verdict millions of people are ready to bring concerning unisexual relationship. Than why banning incest is a justified measure of public protection but prohibition of homosexualism it’s an irrational phobia?

As one can see the US Human Rights Concept is far from being impeccable. Either the logic is distorted by irrational preferences of its authors: or becoming an absurd it’s mission is to legalize all human vices and abrogate morals. Instead of transparent crystal we have a defective structure that doesn’t bring order to society but rather destroys it. May be Peter Sprigg, head of Center for Marriage and Family Studies, could shed light on the nature of obvious distortions of the Human Rights Concept’ logic. He said that if “polygamists” were as well organized and had as many media connections as homosexuals and lesbians, the USA would face a powerful public movement coming out for polygamy and sodomy defense.

Looks like it’s ordinary lobbying. The Human Rights Concept has nothing to do with search for legal truth. As it normally takes place in lobbying, it’s not civil majority but rather elite groups who enjoy privileges. That’s why attention is concentrated on “minorities” problems in such an undemocratic way. That’s what explains the special status of LGTB once propagation of such attitude is of rather elitist than genetic nature. It’s privileged groups of rich societies that unisexual relationship finds fertile ground in. The people, satiated with pleasures, look for non-standard sensations. The experiments have little relation to human dignity, civil rights and freedom. But they destroy not only public moral standards but, first of all, the very soul of “experimentalists”.

No doubt this review of US legislation defects is not done to legalize polygamy and incest. It’s just the very comparison of polygamists and blood mixers status with the status of LGBT that makes evident the absence of logic in the Human Rights Concept being imposed on humanity. On his part the author, unlike the State Department, finds thousands of years old taboos to be justified and corresponding to logic. All deviations from family traditions (like homo — or poly-) stand in the way of the most important human natural function: to give birth and raise descendants, to transfer genetic, intellectual and moral potential through them — that is to continue fundamental existence of human kind. It’s exactly this durable logic — the logic of human kind preservation for eternity, — not irrational likings that traditional moral norms are based on.

Declaring an obvious deviation a norm, “human rights fighters” not only confuse millions of people that belong to traditional orientation, but, first of all, block the way to psychological restoration for those who are destitute of natural joy of human existence. By imposing its specific preferences on all humanity the US ruling strata not only undermines universal moral values but, first of all, threatens the very existence of the United States.

Source: World Intellectual Network

RELATED ARTICLE:

US State Department Defends Russian Sodomites