Letting the camel's nose into the [moral] tent...

There's an old Arab proverb that warns, "Never let the camel get its nose under the tent, because the rest of the body will follow".  It's a variation on the Western proverb that "if you give someone an inch, they'll take a mile".  I daresay the concept is common among almost all cultures.  In politics, they call it "moving the Overton window";  starting with discussion within a socially accepted range, then moving the discussion to gradually include more and more extreme elements, getting people accustomed to the new concepts.  In due course, society will accept as common or normative things that were until recently beyond the pale.  (See also the boiling frog.)

That's long been a deliberate tactic on the part of "fringe" elements of Western society, who've used it to edge their formerly "extremist" beliefs slowly but surely into the mainstream.  The gay and lesbian lobby is a good example, moving from widespread rejection, scorn and disgust to acceptance by most people, largely based on the argument that one's sexuality is not a choice, but predetermined.  (That's not been proven to be genetically or chromosomally valid, AFAIK, but it's nevertheless become the socially accepted view.)  They've been very successful at it.

Sadly, as always in any movement, there are those with ulterior motives, seeking to "piggyback" on the success of the movement to advance their own particular (and often peculiar) agendas.  A good example is a Canadian born as Johnathan Yaniv, who prefers to be called Jessica Yaniv.  This person appears to be using Canadian law as a weapon to extort money from those who won't conform to its demands, and as a shelter for some truly perverted ideas.  This being a family-friendly blog, I'm not going to go into detail in these pages.  Anyone wanting to know more will find the whole sordid story at this link.  I find it sickening and disgusting, but I do recommend reading it to see just how much damage one particular camel's nose inside the tent can do, and how much societal havoc it can wreak.  That article is what gave rise to this one, and the thoughts it contains.

Note, too, how the deliberate engineering of social acceptance has discredited previously axiomatic ideas and social norms, as far as the law is concerned.  To illustrate, consider the preceding paragraph in the light of those who insist that public bathrooms should be gender-neutral.  In the not very distant past, any parent would have considered it axiomatic that a bathroom was reserved for one or the other sex, and that gender had little or nothing to do with it.  If a man tried to enter the ladies' bathroom, he'd be told to get out.  Now, we're told that if a transgender male wants to use the ladies' bathroom, with members of our family inside, he/she/it has the right to do so.  Not in my book!  My Overton window hasn't moved that far, and probably never will.  If any visibly male individual tries to enter a bathroom where my wife is taking care of business, as far as I'm concerned, he's putting her at risk.  The only thing stopping me from stopping him will be the knowledge that my wife is aware of the risk and is more than capable of doing so herself, if necessary the hard way.  (Have I mentioned that I love my wife, and her demonstrated competence in so many areas?)

Many of us were raised in traditional religious faiths, where sexuality was considered to be governed by what we understood to be God's laws and moral norms.  Nowadays, trying to live according to those norms, and educate one's children accordingly, can be seen as a "hate crime".  Pointing out that the Bible's moral norms are directly at odds with modern notions of sexuality and sexual freedom can lead to one being investigated by the authorities for bias and intolerance, or denied the right to adopt because one's views are "out of step with society", or even charged with a criminal offense for refusing to accept someone else's assertions about what's "normal".  The camel's nose has shoved so far into the tent of our lives that it's now disrupting almost every other area of our lives.  I, for one, think that's gone way too far.

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they wish about life, the universe and everything (including sexuality).  As long as they keep it to themselves, it's their business.  I'm not going to foist my opinions and beliefs upon them, and I won't allow them to foist theirs onto me.  On the other hand, I'm not prepared to be told that my outlook on life is somehow "oppressing" them because it disagrees with theirs.  It doesn't have to.  I have as much freedom of choice as they do.  To legislatively force tolerance and acceptance of views that are anathema to my own isn't right or just - it's oppression under another name.  By all means, legislate against unfair, coercive discrimination;  but don't legislate for unquestioning acceptance and approval.  That's far too much of the camel inside society's tent!

IMHO, it's long gone time our politicians stopped kowtowing to political correctness, and enacted that principle into our laws.  That, at least, would provide some defense against the Jessica Yaniv's of this world, without forcing us to (if necessary) take the law into our own hands to do so.  Suffice it to say, if that individual's fantasies about young girls and their bodily functions, protected elsewhere by socially progressive laws, were to come anywhere near where I live, most adults I know around these parts would feel absolutely justified in ensuring that those fantasies ceased to be a problem, forthwith and forever - and political correctness be damned.

Peter