I leave comments on blogs hardly ever, but I did leave a quick comment making the point that it is quite a commentary on today’s culture when a flamboyant sodomite as Noel Coward was displays the kind of virile moral leadership in calling out the descent of western culture that we can only FANTASIZE about today. Put another way, things said by queeny, British fags of 60+ years ago are now so far to the “right” socially that they would be characterized by the howling moonbat SJW’s as “fascist” or “Nazi” or whatever the non-sensical pejorative du jour is.
This, in turn, spurred a conversation about homosexuals in art and how decent, moral people should relate to such. The key question is this: Is it morally licit to consume art (music, painting, dance) that we know, after the fact, was made by sodomites? My thesis is this:
Consuming art created by sodomites is permissible so long as the art in question does not have a “sodomite aesthetic”, and does not point to nor glorify sexual perversion.
The Russian classical composer Tchaikovsky was a sodomite. Is it okay to listen to his music? Here is the Pas de Deux from the Nutcracker Ballet one of my favorite pieces of Classical music. Does this have a sodomite aesthetic or glorify sexual perversion? I would say no.
In the spirit of self-correction, the critique of Noel Coward that has to be made is that his entire persona, like that of Liberace or Elton John, was, as the Brits say, “camp”, that is, queeny. Noel Coward inspired the chorus boys in the West End (London’s theater district, like Broadway in New York), to openly manifest as fags, which carried on through the years into the growing cancer of “poofterism” in British culture. THAT is a problem.