Margaret Court won more Grand Slam titles than any other woman in history, but she’s going to lose this shouting match.
When PC stormtroopers close ranks against someone, there can only be one winner. Mrs Court has found herself on the receiving end because she remarked that tennis is “full of lesbians”.
It took the stormtroopers minutes to marshal their forces. Riding their rainbow-coloured horses in the vanguard were three other former Grand Slam winners Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King and Samantha Stosur. Martina immediately castigated Mrs Court as “a homophobe and a racist”, although neither the first nor especially the second follows from her remark.
Being lesbians, all three crusaders are in a weak position to dispute the factual aspect of Mrs Court’s remark, and nor is it their intention. In the distant past, people used to object to good women being branded lesbians. Now they object to good lesbians being branded lesbians.
Samantha still keeps one foot inside the closet, but the other two ladies proudly parade their perverse sexuality. Billie Jean once described herself as “a dyke with fat legs”, while two years ago Martina had the good taste to propose marriage to her girlfriend on bended knee in a crowded restaurant.
Anybody who follows tennis knows that Mrs Court was factually correct. This stands to reason.
Tennis is an aggressive game and, as numerous studies have proved, aggression is largely a function of testosterone. Women seldom start wars, do they?
It follows that professional tennis attracts a disproportionate number of women who are hormonally and psychologically close to men. I could name offhand dozens of known lesbians among women players, one with regret. I used to fancy Gigi Fernandez, who was gorgeous. It was heart-breaking to discover she was living with another player, Conchita Martinez.
My cracker-barrel explanation of this situation may be debatable, but the situation itself isn’t. Professional tennis indisputably has more than a statistically predictable number of lesbians.
Nor do the stormtroopers bother to deny it. They object not to the fact but to Mrs Court’s disapproval of it – especially since she’s on record as a fierce opponent of homomarriage.
Since her playing days, Mrs Court has become a Christian preacher, lamentably in the iffy Pentecostal confession. But whatever the denomination, she correctly says that not only Christianity but all Abrahamic religions regard homosexuality as a sin.
In fact, one Abrahamic religion executes homosexuals in variously imaginative ways, thereby creating a conflict of PC pieties. On the one hand, Islam satisfies PC multi-culti cravings. On the other hand, Muslims could be legitimately called homophobes and misogynists. Personally, I enjoy watching progressives tie themselves in knots trying to untangle this conundrum.
Yet on this issue there’s no conflict. Margaret Court has transgressed against the PC dicta and must be punished. For starters, Navratilova wants the Margaret Court Arena at the Australian Open to be renamed after a more acceptable personage. May I suggest Caitlyn ‘Bruce’ Jenner?
Or perhaps Andy Murray, who has joined the battle. “I don’t see why anyone has a problem with two people who love each other getting married,” he said. “If it’s two men, two women, that’s great… It’s not anyone else’s business. Everyone should have the same rights.”
Now Andy is an intelligent tennis player but that, alas, isn’t quite the same as an intelligent man. He clearly hasn’t thought about this issue as deeply as it requires.
First, marriage isn’t just about love. While it’s no longer invariably a union before God, it’s certainly one before the state, replete as marriage is with social, economic and demographic implications.
Hence it’s wrong to say that “it’s not anyone else’s business”. Both the state and society have their say, and not everyone has the same rights. For example, under the current subversive law Andy could marry a man – but not his brother Jamie. And if he should divorce his beautiful wife, he could marry any woman – but not his mother Judy.
Marrying anyone one pleases isn’t a matter of God-given right. The legalisation of homomarriage was a political act, which these days means a politically correct act. PC fascism rules the roost, with cockerels marrying other cockerels and hens marrying other hens to push through a pernicious, immoral and socially destructive ideology.
As both homo- and heterosexuals demonstrate, two people in love don’t necessarily cohabit or, if they do, don’t necessarily get married. In fact, about 60 per cent of cohabiting couples don’t end up tying the knot.
Homosexuals have lived together for centuries, in England unmolested. Even Oscar Wilde was convicted not for his predilection but for sex with minors. So why this sudden urge to get married?
Here’s another question, which is a kind of answer to the first one. Why is ‘correctness’ political and not, say, moral, ethical or social? Because for once our anomic activists are being truthful: PC is indeed a political tool designed to bring about tyranny.
No tyranny can be imposed without destroying all meaningful opposition. In this case the opposition comes from what could be broadly described as tradition or, even more broadly, Western civilisation.
For fascistic progressivism to triumph, Western civilisation has to be routed. Its religious and moral foundation, Judaeo-Christianity, has already been marginalised at best. Ditto, Western polity, reduced to spivs pandering to a braying mob. Ditto Western economics, rapidly heading for debtors’ prison. Now the PC crowd are destroying the family, the core unit of society.
You might say that the term fascistic is too emotive, but I don’t think so. Militant intolerance of opposing, especially traditional, views is a hallmark of fascism, however this is expressed. Initially different forms of expression vary only in the pejorative names screamed by the mob.
It could be ‘Jews’, ‘capitalists’, ‘whites’, ‘blacks’, ‘traitors’. Or, as is more fashionable in today’s West, ‘homophobes’. Typologically, neither the slogans nor the people who scream them differ all that much.
They’re all united by their hatred of the West and everything it has stood for over millennia. PC also means post-civilisation.
The prefix “phobia” gets stuck onto people expressing traditional views far too easily. I for one do not have an innate fear of homosexuals; I simply know that God’s Word states it is wrong. They can sip latte near me and I won’t run out in fear. I would treat them as any colleague who was an adulterer or a dope smoker; it’s their choice they are responsible for any eternal consequences.
OOPPS! Did I call a suffix a prefix; will have to proof read earlier.
Actually, if you want to be a stickler for such matters, ‘phobia’ is neither a prefix nor a suffix. It’s the second element of a composite word. I mean, ‘scraper’ isn’t the suffix of ‘sky’ in ‘skyscraper’.
Islamophobia, homophobia, nature-phobia…has “phobia” joining the ranks to be one of the most common contemporary tail-end attached composites.
“Since her playing days, Mrs Court has become a Christian preacher, lamentably in the iffy Pentecostal confession. But whatever the denomination, she correctly says that not only Christianity but all Abrahamic religions regard homosexuality as a sin.”
There it is in the nutshell. “Telling the truth during a time of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” What was his name said that.
George Orwell.
The truth hurts, as any Soviet citizen trying to use Pravda for better use for personal hygiene would have known.
I think that homophobia, so called , is entirely natural and necessary for the continuance of the human species.
Most people, most of the time, feel repulsed by homosexual acts, especially when directed at themselves. If they weren’t, we would all be at it, but we aren’t.
This repulsion is at the heart of religious prohibitions. Homosexual acts do not fall within the description: ‘Whatever is true, lovely and of good report’ if people are repulsed by them.
This has been arranged by Darwinian means so that the human animal doesn’t waste valuable time and energy engaging in dead – end sexual activity.
People say, ‘What about the Greeks?’ But the Greeks frowned on sex between two adult males. The passive partner especially was held in contempt. They thought it OK to have sex with pre pubescent boys though. Connoisseurs liked those just on the cusp of puberty. Is that a model we should follow? Hardly.
Homosexual acts aren’t always sinful, I think. Although we are told by Cameron and his ilk and by homosexuals themselves that homosexuality is ‘normal’, it is plain that to be exclusively homosexual is to be in the grip of a condition of radical psychosexual miswiring.
Homosexual couples in a committed relationship can hardly be blamed for doing what they do, any more than say, people with Aspergers or some other affliction on the autism spectrum can be blamed for doing what they do. ‘Marriage ‘ between such people on this basis is still a travesty.
What is objectionable sinful is the ‘gay lifestyle’ which can involve multiple sexual partners. George Michael is said to have had hundreds. Such behaviour, which homosexual people can surely refrain from pursuing if they want to, would also be objectionable in heterosexual people. It’s using people as means, rather than as ends.
Profound.
“Homosexual acts aren’t always sinful, I think”, you are right in saying that it’s just your opinion. However, Christians not wanting to float in a relative moral vacuum choose the Holy Scriptures as having the the more concrete power of attorney. The new covenant and Testament state clearly in the book of Romans chapter 1 God’s eternal position on this matter. So for Court and other believers, it’s not a matter of what we prefer or think, the standard of God is very clear on this issue as it is with adultery.
I agree with every word except for ‘homosexual acts aren’t always sinful’. Of course they are, in any system of thought in which the word ‘sin’ has any meaning. What I don’t think is sinful is homosexuality – it only becomes that when practised.
Whilst you’re right to say homosexual marriage is wrong. I really don’t see how it destroys the family, as the Soviets discovered, the family has a cunning way of surviving.
Does it really? In Russia, more than 60 per cent of all marriages end in divorce (in England the proportion is only marginally lower, and half of all children are raised in single-parent families). And children in the Soviet Union were largely (though not totally) removed from their families and brought up by the state. The family is a principal competitor of the modern state, and all modern states treat is such.
But how exactly does the legality of homosexual unions affect the success rate of heterosexual marriage?
Legalising homosexual marriages and making it easy to dissolve heterosexual ones are two prongs in the same sustained attack on the family. The former has an extra effect of debauching the very concept of marriage, as it has existed for millennia – and the last nail in the coffin of marriage as a sacrament.
Some people struggle much more than others to find a way to live happily. The bonds which form society are strengthened when those for whom life is easier are kind and understanding towards those for whom it is harder, and when people more attention to their own faults than to the faults of others. As for divorce, I can’t for the life of me see how an unhappy marriage is preferable to a divorce – there are no winners in adultery – the key is always kindness and accountability. We all sin – it’s the human condition – but in seeking understanding and forgiveness we become closer to God and each other. Sermon over.
Sermon not quite over. When society was more Christian than it is now people recognised that those who didn’t fit into societal norms – the two cohabiting men, the spare women, those ‘spinster aunts’, the childless couple – were, regardless of their life choices or misfortunes, made in the image of God, hence loved by God and hence deserving of a place among God’s creation, i.e. society. Society is inevitably geared towards and orbiting around families. They have bigger houses, the better to hold social events; they are greater consumers, the more likely to ‘buy one, get one free’; because they contain children, they are more obviously invested in the future. As a result of godlessness, with communities revolving around schools and playgroups rather than church, people have forgotten to involve the other people in mainstream society. Hence the demand for gay marriage is an attempt to part of society, not to destroy it. I’m not defending Navratilova’s attack, which was shrill and nasty, but think you are misattributing cause and effect.
I get it. When society was Christian, homomarriage was nothing but a dystopian fantasy. Now that society is rather anti-Christian, homomarriage is a reality that should be encouraged. Who can fault this logic?
Well, I don’t think you get it. When society was more Christian, it had a different structure and focus. People were kinder to ‘the other’. Perhaps. I don’t know, I wasn’t there. I just think gay marriage, and especially adoption are an inevitable result of societal change. My next door neighbours are an example of such a modern family. Who am I, and especially who are you to rain on their parade?
Well, somebody has to. And who am I? I’m someone in whose judgement obvious decadence is a factor of social destruction, something for which there are numerous precedents. Also, because something happens that doesn’t mean it’s inevitable. Your next-door neighbours aren’t a family by any traditional, historical or indeed decent definition. And even if that sort of thing is indeed inevitable, decent people, especially Christians, should fight it tooth and nail to the bitter end. Which, I’m afraid, will come soon.
OK, well you can tell them…