— NYPD 34th Precinct (@NYPD34Pct) June 26, 2016
Yesterday was “Pride” day. Pride. Pride?
I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart.
No, surely not that kind of pride.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Hmm. Perhaps not that either.
God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
That can’t be right. Newman?
I love the garish day, and spite of fear,
Pride rule my will: remember not past years.
Nope. But wait: Lewis often knows.
A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.
No. Maybe Sheen?
Pride is an admission of weakness; it secretly fears all competition and dreads all rivals.
On the other hand, there’s Ruskin.
In general, pride is at the bottom of all great mistakes.
Evidently we’re on the wrong path. It’s a cliché to quote Webster (1913), but we’re running out of options. So:
That of which one is proud; that which excites boasting or self-gratulation; the occasion or ground of self-esteem, or of arrogant and presumptuous confidence…
Aha! Self-esteem. That has a happier ring to it! This kind of pride, the unbridled love of self, carries the proper modern tone (Webster uses the old word) of self-congratulation for unaccomplished deeds, of trophies for participation, of awards for you being you, of rights and payments for just showing up.
Yes, and this must be the definition we’ve searched for, because the “pride” evinced in marches across the country was for the stated purpose of flaunting objectively disordered sexual desire.
Don’t be angry. The phrase “objectively disordered sexual desire” is proper, scientific, and true. It is proper because the truth is always welcomed, and it is scientific because engaging in any kind of sexual activity not directed toward procreation and the preservation of the species is by definition disordered, which itself is a truth. This conclusion is simple biology, indeed the simplest, and is indisputable.
Now having “pride” in a disorder is odd. A disorder is not an accomplishment, another truth with which even those who march would agree. Participants at these events did not scale mountains or build inventions or do mighty deeds. Instead, all they did was to admit to having a non-procreative sexual desires, desires which they intend to embrace and, as is well known, in which they insist you countenance—or else.
There must be something different about sexual from other disorders. For instance, there are no marches to espouse pride in congenital maladies like cleft palates or renal dysplasia. Nor are there demonstrations of pride for acquired disorders such as drunkenness and clogged arteries. For every other kind of malady or malfunction but sexual, there is sympathy and the very natural desire to heal.
Not all disorders can be healed, of course. Some departures from health are chronic, some fatal. Yet here is invariably found compassion by the healthy for the sufferers. The exception, a lack of sensitivity, if there is one, is for self-inflicted disorders. Imagine the reaction to a parade of drunks who flout their disorder and in which marchers tell the world they intend to remain drunk, that they encourage “straights” to experiment with drunkenness. Detractors would be denounced as drunkophobes and “Tsk tsk-ing” a man falling out of a bar classed as “hate speech.”
Same-sex attraction, even if that be inborn, and the evidence for this is dubious and is anyway false for all cases, is neither here nor there. Some have it, some lose it, some keep it. Non-procreative, same-sex acts are always a choice. “Pride” marchers are asking for two things. Respect for the attraction and admiration for the acts.
There is some justice in the first claim. Many who claim same-sex attraction would rather be rid of it, they say, but can’t. Even if these people enjoy their state, sympathy and compassion are anyway called for. But pride? That makes no scientific sense, as we saw, and no moral sense either. Because invariably pride in the state, instead of recognition that it is a disorder, leads to demands that the acts which follow from the state be seen as “good.” And that’s the case here. (The picture above is more than proof enough.)
What follows from denying the disorder is that, sooner rather than later, it will come to be seen as wrong and immoral to disparage the acts. Saying “Anal sex is always wrong and destructive” will be “hate” speech. And when that happens yesterday’s marchers will be proud.