Folly, Fraud And Homosexuality

A solid bit of intellectual waterboarding!
With History as the board, and Logic as the water.
Well done, ol' Chap!
The positions taken by various “main-line” churches sheds more darkness on this mysterious process of Enlightened conformity.

While having significant historical notation and predating Greece back to Sodom and Gomorrah, it is just one leg of the war on families.
Thank you for this brief study.

Four years ago I wrote a column arguing that the need for a gay rights bill had not been demonstrated. I based this judgement on an examination of the testimony before the judiciary committee and on the public statements of Equality Maine. I noted at the time that I was the first person to actually take the trouble to check the relevant volume out from the State House law library. This brought the expected e-mails condemning me for homophobia.

It also provoked some perfectly civil exchanges with some gays, one from Saskatchewan (? go figure). Their argument was that they should NOT be judged solely on the basis of their sex lives, but as law-abidingcitizens, professionals, etc. I agreed that this was just, but that it was not the business of government to control people's attitudes.

My point is that many or most (I have no evidence on proportions) gays desire equality, acceptance, tolerance. They are not at war with their families or with families.

On the other hand, the "political" gays find themselves in effective alliance with those who are hostile to the traditional family. Such hostility seems to be an integral part of all utopian enthusiasms.

My point is that many or most (I have no evidence on proportions) gays desire equality, acceptance, tolerance. They are not at war with their families or with families.

On the other hand, the "political" gays find themselves in effective alliance with those who are hostile to the traditional family. Such hostility seems to be an integral part of all utopian enthusiasms.

Amen to those observations.

In that context it seems sweetly retrograde -- the respective nostalgia on both sides for the quaint bondages of matrimony.

The pure progressives and libertarians ought to find common ground on getting the state entirely out of the marriage business. No?

Their argument was that they should NOT be judged solely on the basis of their sex lives

Wouldn't that be nice? For all of us.

I also don't see gays as a threat or even hostile to the traditional family, nor do I see sexual orientation as an illness or a cheap substitute for reality - it just is, a condition of one's life that a person is free to act on or not. The sad fact is that our sexuality consumes far more than its share of our being - we spend far too much time on it, and many have allowed this one rather base-line factor to define themselves.

There have always been gays among us, I can't imagine a world (and wouldn't want to) without their presence and their contributions to life - in art, music, science - in every field of human endeavor. Hostility to gays is as wrong as hostility to traditionalists, and it is counter-productive.

I am at a loss, however, in pretending that the gay lifestyle is best served by mimicry of the heterosexual lifestyle - that seems a denial of homosexuality rather than an affirmation of it. I like the Gore Vidal model in which sexual orientation plays a lesser role in one's work and life. When asked by the NYT's Deborah Solomon on his "support" on gay marriage, Vidal replied with refreshing candor:

"...I know nothing about it. I don’t follow that.

Why doesn’t it interest you? The same reason heterosexual marriage doesn’t seem to interest me.

If we look at the situation apart from you — It’s my interview, so we’ve got to stay with me."

The pure progressives and libertarians ought to find common ground on getting the state entirely out of the marriage business. No?

Yes, yes -but also add the pure (meaning here not political) traditionalists and you've got a trifecta.

...trifecta.

Hey, turns out there are plenty of cots in this dormitorium.

"My point is that many or most (I have no evidence on proportions) gays desire equality, acceptance, tolerance. They are not at war with their families or with families.

On the other hand, the "political" gays find themselves in effective alliance with those who are hostile to the traditional family. Such hostility seems to be an integral part of all utopian enthusiasms."

I think that this is a point that needs to be empathized--that "rank and file" gay people, for the most part, simply want to be treated with respect, and are not at war with our culture, especially the alleged 'religious right'. It is the 'political gays', who are largely hard left, who are seeking to wrap our society around themselves and who are aggessively hostile to those who do not agree with them. Charlotte has kindly given us an example of the latter, at "Holy bullies and headless monsters".

The question for me, in part, has become "How do we resist the latter without harming the former?" The answers, in part, is to do the opposite of the Left; leftists deal with "groups" and "classes"--your worth is measured by what group or class you belong to more than your worth as an individual. We need to recover the 'liberalism' of the Founders, who empathized the individual over the State and as the basic unit of a functioning society, and wrote laws and philosophy protecting the individual from the State and the group.
So, we treat people as the individuals that they are, and resist the Left in how it seeks to herd us into nameless, faceless 'groups'. Not an easy task, seeing as how 'groupism' is already so inculcated into our society, but one worth attempting, I think.

So, we treat people as the individuals that they are, and resist the Left in how it seeks to herd us into nameless, faceless 'groups'. Not an easy task, seeing as how 'groupism' is already so inculcated into our society, but one worth attempting, I think.

One measure of success at that would be the extent to which arguments manage to refrain from shorthanding gay concerns as "the homosex agenda" and categorizing gay individuals as "perverts" and "homosecularists."

delete

One measure of success at that would be the extent to which arguments manage to refrain from shorthanding gay concerns as "the homosex agenda" and categorizing gay individuals as "perverts" and "homosecularists."

And perhaps drop the “culture war” rhetoric altogether. I’d welcome this, and look forward to the day when we aren’t compelled to politicize every aspect of our lives, and we can get on with living them.

But, it would have to be reciprocal, bilateral disarmament, universal détente - a truce.

The institution of marriage doesn’t belong in the political arena, and will stand on its own merits. The State has no justified interest here, and those that seek the sanction of the state are chasing a mirage. Simple honesty - it usually outlasts and outweathers the sturm und drang of hatred.

Wow! A civil exchange on sex on AMG!

Hard to believe Gore Vidal wrote "Lincoln" and still voted for Nader...

Well, this may be the final straw for me, the one admission that will banish me from AMG for good, beyond the relatively benign exile reserved for RINOS (a golf course?) or even the chilly remote islands of the occasional libertarian (a damp basement?) – but I vote for Nader every chance I get.

The crazy uncle vote, the Quixotic curveball of the irrational voter.

But Vidal is an excellent writer, I’d agree. I don’t - for a minute - believe that political affiliation (or sexual affiliation, for that matter) has any bearing on talent and discipline, do you?

"One measure of success at that would be the extent to which arguments manage to refrain from shorthanding gay concerns as "the homosex agenda" and categorizing gay individuals as "perverts" and "homosecularists.""

I don't disagree with you.

delete

Perhaps those on AMG who want others to 'refrain' from using said terms (a very classic way of framing a debate, btw, which most of us learned in high school debate class, or many years before) might consider the following information in regards to the term "homosex".

I've linked to the website of Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon more than a few times on this forum and in particular have adopted the use of "homosex" for precisely the reasons he sets forth:

Why use the term "homosex"?
"The term homosex is now in use by some advocates of homosexual behavior [see the eleven examples he provides] and note that [he does] not endorse these sites). It focuses on the behavior of same-sex intercourse rather than on the homosexual persons per se and can be utilized as a shorthand adjective or noun by analogy to the term sex. I prefer to use it in such expressions as pro- or anti-homosex rather than to make use of pro- or anti-homosexual. The latter expressions are open to abuse because the term homosexual can refer to a homosexual person. The present debate about homosexual practice is not a debate about whether one should be pro- or anti-homosexual persons. All believers are called on to love persons with a homoerotic proclivity or, for that matter, any other sexual "orientations" that are at variance with Scripture. To oppose a person’s self-destructive behavior is not the same thing as opposing the person. Indeed, to support a person’s self-destructive and other-destructive behavior is, in effect, to oppose the person, albeit unwittingly. True love works in the best interests of those who experience homoerotic desires."

Good point, LMD. Bishop George Langeberg (ret'd) of the Traditional Anglican Church, told me he thought hatred of homosexuals, as homosexuals might be considered a graver sin than homosexual acts. On reflection I recall no scriptural condemnation of fhomosexual desires. The condemnation is directed at acts.

No one I've noticed denies that heterosexual priests and parsons are biologically hard-wired to respond to feminne architecture. They are simply forbidden to transgress the lmits placed on their desires and damned if they do.

Old John Calvin reckoned that such restrained was an inadquate evasion of the inescapable burden of sin. Hence no one, homosexual or heterosexual, DESERVED to go to Heaven. Salvation could come to vile sinners only through God's grace.

So you acknowledge that gays and lesbians can still consider themselves gay/lesbian while not acting sexually?

Just as I can consider myself as a recovering alcoholic (31 years dry last June, thank God) and not be drinking.

Just as many people consider themselves 'post-gay' and live happily in hetrosexual relationships.

Human sexuality is mutable, not immutable, since we're not biological robots or salmon. We possess will, consciousness, and self-awareness, and therefore can make moral choices.

What I acknowledge is that heterosexuals and homosexuals have desires and urges which ought to be controlled. I make no attempt to list them or suggest how---that's way beyond my competence.

I might add that sex encompasses love, tenderness, romantic poetry, heart-wrenching love songs, devotion, conjugal bliss, valentines, procreation, manipulation, mendacity, adultery, hate, rape, bitter divorce, domestic violence, sadism, masochism, abortion, wankage, coprophilia, unsanitary orifices, and a variety of venereal diseases . Among other things. Many other things. Sex produces a multitude of problems, none of which are susceptible to political solution although. some may be contained and restrained. Neither systematic repression, as in the Puritan Commonwealth, or total liberation, as ome clearly aspire to, offer solutions.

So you acknowledge that gays and lesbians can still consider themselves gay/lesbian while not acting sexually?

Nope. When I was a child and it occurred to me how easy it would be to steal a candy bar at the local grocers I didn't act on it because that still small voice was telling me that it was the wrong thing to do. So, while I admit I was tempted, many times, I don't consider myself a thief as I strive to distance myself from that repugnant behavior.

So you acknowledge that gays and lesbians can still consider themselves gay/lesbian while not acting sexually?

No one cares what they consider themselves. The objection is that some want to impose an established consideration that meets certain arbitrary criteria on others.

LMD’s point is well taken, on the distinction between the person and the act – however Dr. Gagnon’s framing of the issue still implies that it is our role to judge the merit of the act, to ascertain that it is, in fact “self-destructive” or “other-destructive behavior”. I submit that it is not “our” role, and it certainly not the role of the State, but it is the role of the individual agent. It becomes our role only at the point of harm to another, and for the State only at the point of criminality. Dr. Gagnon claims to be acting based on love, in the best interest of “ those who experience homo-erotic desires” – but this is a paternalistic love, a love that assumes the agent is incapable of acting in his/her own self interest.

(And who, really, wants to go to John Calvin's heaven? )

francisz,
Define "harm to one another".
You will be unable to do so without engaging some "framing of the issue"; some moral absolute.

Dr. Gagnon's "framing of the issue" is based on Scripture.
Do you believe the Pope would agree with this "framing"?

I do believe the Pope would employ similar framing, yes, and also based on scripture. And if a person were to appeal to him as a moral authority, as well they should, I am sure he would give them excellent advice.

If there is one constant theme in the writings of Benedict, however, it is that of the essential, defining and continuously renewed condition of freedom in which each man must act as his own moral agent. I think this is best articulated in his second encyclical, Spe Salvi, in which he attempts to describe this condition as one of hope, of man's appeal to the promise of fulfillment from God.

From it:

"Freedom presupposes that in fundamental decisions, every person and every generation is a new beginning. Naturally, new generations can build on the knowledge and experience of those who went before, and they can draw upon the moral treasury of the whole of humanity. But they can also reject it, because it can never be self-evident in the same way as material inventions. The moral treasury of humanity is not readily at hand like tools that we use; it is present as an appeal to freedom and a possibility for it."

We are free to reject, and we are responsible for our choice - we cannot rely strictly on external structures no matter how good they are - even scripture - but at some point we must make the goodness our own (that is, to recreate it - each one, anew). Or we may reject it, in full knowledge of that we risk or lose:

"Freedom must constantly be won over for the cause of good. Free assent to the good never exists simply by itself. If there were structures which could irrevocably guarantee a determined—good—state of the world, man's freedom would be denied, and hence they would not be good structures at all."

It isn't enough to proscribe or command behavior for others (even if you are the Pope), it isn't my place to tell others what scripture is telling them, or could be telling them - they must come to it of themselves. God seems to have more faith in man, than we do in each other. Not surprisingly.

The pope is a swell guy and Benedict insightful, but why not read the words spoken by THE LORD, Himself?
You may not have considered this but Jesus actually knows a lot more than all the popes and commentators combined.

You know, I have considered that.

But thanks for the tip.

"Free assent to the good never exists simply by itself. If there were structures which could irrevocably guarantee a determined—good—state of the world, man's freedom would be denied..."

True on both counts I think. Assent to the good is not inherent in man, or if there are inherent inclinations to the good they coexist with contrary inclinations. Virtue, if I may use that antiquated word, needs support from the culture. But...the legal structures devised by state authority cannot be relied upon for irrevocable guarantees.

No clear and final answers are available to us. But the vacuity of relativism provides NO support for the good. It denies the possibility of determining the good.

Virtue needs support from the culture, yes, and it needs to be actively practiced at the individual level to effect the collective good.

"But the vacuity of relativism provides NO support for the good. It denies the possibility of determining the good."

If, here, you mean relativism to be the cherry-picking or manipulation of what Benedict calls the "moral treasure of humanity", then yes - I agree. The fact that man is free to choose his/her own morality ( up to the point of criminality with regard to the State, and up to the point of orthodox sacrality with regard to the Church) is not, itself, relativism - the moral treasury remains intact, and the moral truths that support it remain firm.

I have two strikes against me already while desiring to add comment. First, I couldn't stay awake during philosophy class, and second I can't even retain brilliant lectures on the shortcomings of philosophy by Dr. Ravi Zacharias.
Utility and all that sort you know. Anyway, surprisingly people are equipped with warning devices that have to be bypassed in order to play with the big boys. Simple concepts like the feelings of guilt, remorse, or shame don't require textbooks to follow and are very useful guides until that are made uneffective by deliberate conditioning and callousing. People who like to romp around in public exposing themselves are usually referred to as liberated, but (in my day) as exhibitionists and not used as a term of flattery. Likewise with a whole laundry list of behaviors that even though we are conditioned to try to tolerate, still stink to high heavens and have personal costs.

Keep coming back. :)