Why does this sort of thing happen

Here’s the obvious one you missed:

It was the right thing to do.

Jody, I said this in a different thread:

“In correctly pointing out that legalization of homosexual marriage would lead INEVITABLY to legalization of polygamy and polyamory, Prof. Kurtz appeared to be holding back so as not to shock people. He could have put it more starkly, and said it would lead in addition, as night follows day, to the following what can only be called abominations: people marrying their pets or farm animals (imagine a lonely or depressed woman marrying her dog — that’s precisely what will happen), people marrying their favorite plants or trees (anyone doesn’t think so? COUNT ON IT!), adults marrying infants, fathers marrying their daughters, mothers their sons, brothers their sisters, people marrying machines or toys or computers or other inanimate objects, and the list goes on.”

Would you have any objection to anything on the list of horrors I gave? If so, why? If not, then when is free-wheeling, anything-goes sexual freedom NOT “the right thing to do,” as you put it? I’m NOT talking about what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom or motel room or whatever. I’m talking only about what society officially, publicly, explicitly approves and protects against any open showing of disapproval by any of its members who may disapprove — as when it adopts “the gay rights agenda.” Is it EVER not the right thing to do for society to do that?

Is the program of the North American Man-Boy Love Association also “the right thing to do”? What about snuff films where the woman who stars honestly wants to participate? What societal rules would snuff films featuring a willing female star violate? What societal rules would instituting the program NAMBLA calls for violate? Is it totally impossible that instituting the full agenda of “Gay rights,” including “Gay marriage,” violates some fundamental societal rules which are needed for society’s healthy funcioning?

I’m not being sarcastic, but am honestly trying to get an idea of what limits you support, if any.

Also, does narcissism exist? If so, what is it, according to you, Jody?

Jody, glancing through the wording of my post above, I see that I ought to repeat that I am NOT talking about a person’s or group of people’s private sexual conduct or the ways in which that conduct is already fully protected by all the civil-rights protections we enjoy in this country, and rightly so. I’m talking ONLY about the question of society being called upon to officially sanction, and protect against any opposition at the private level, certain sexual practices, transforming some of them in effect into public institutions.

Does society have a right — indeed an obligation to its members — to officially sanction only those sexual practices, such as heterosexual monogamous non-consanguineous age-appropriate marriage, which have always seemed to be part of that society’s vital underpinnings? Or does society have no such right?

That’s the question, Jody. Trust me, I have no interest whatsoever in what you or anyone else does sexually in private, and I surely hope nobody has any interest in what I do sexually in private.

The so-called “right of privacy” is not and never has been about privacy. It was initially created by justice Douglas to insure that Griswold could purchase a pack of condoms in public in Connecticut, for example — so that Griswold could come “out of the closet” about his purchase and use of condoms. That is what a “right of privacy” actually entails — the right to engage in acts that violate the moral law and public standards without any public consequences.

That by the way brings up the great utility of unenforced laws governing sexual behavior. An unenforced law insures that certain behaviors, if engaged in, will remain truly private. If those behaviors have public consequences then one always runs the risk of public outrage and enforcement of the law.

Considering the electoral voting power of New York, the passage of the New York law shows how near we are to a tyranny of the majority. New York law makes it illegal to recognize differences in sexual desire and to act on those differences. The democratic system will be gone when differences are no longer tolerated, when a person is called square for not dating both men and women. (I assume everyone knows children can be taught to take sexual pleasure from children of the same sex.) Sodom has been rebuilt.

The nearness of tyranny is why people must make time now to use the democratic system before that system is gone forever. The American South foolishly channeled its children’s lives and its enormous patriotism and ethnic pride into making war instead of into making itself invulnerable to aggression. The history of the Jews and the South’s near victory show how an outnumbered group can prevail. In a nonviolent war, the defeated get to rise and to fight another day. Do become active.

The argument here isn’t anything in the laundry list of “It’s gonna happen, let’s be scared!” reasons you provided. It has to do with society recognizing that the arguments used to deny gay people equal protection within the arenas of housing, employment, public accommodation, education and credit — various as to gays being sick, perverted, unnatural, evil or some combination thereof — have been found wanting. The justification for discrimination against gays has more than ebbed, its evaporated.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the passage of “Gay Rights” laws “violate fundamental societal rules which are needed for society’s healthy functioning.” Allowing gay couples to be as free and secure in their homes, jobs, education and lives as non-gay couples are promotes stability, encourages security and advances the common good.

Una, you can tell yourself that you hat you aren’t concerned about what people do “in the privacy of their own homes,” but please don’t try to pass that line of poppycock off on me. You know full well that what you do in the privacy of your own home, with whatever person you are physically and emotionally intimate with, has everything to do with what goes on in the civil arena, from choosing to have children, to buying a house, to education, to hospital visits and on and on. The “vital underpinning” you are trying to preserve isn’t Western Civilization (trumpets sounds and voices sing), but rather the irrational idea that gay people, that gay couples specifically, are out to take something from society that isn’t theirs and thus destroy the whole edifice. Nothing of the sort is in play.

Jody says, “The argument here … has to do with society recognizing that the arguments used to deny gay people equal protection within the arenas of housing, employment, public accommodation, education and credit — various as to gays being sick, perverted, unnatural, evil or some combination thereof — have been found wanting.”

Homosexuals already have equal protection — it’s called civil rights law and other already-existing statute law, as well as the whole cannon of Anglo-Saxon Common Law. As for them being denied “credit,” that’s nonsense — they are among the most well-to-do groups in society. (I’d sincerely bet that bank loan officers consider homosexuality a plus as far as low risk is concerned.) Likewise, “education” — homosexuals’ freedom to get an education has not been compromised. If they insist on being overt about their vice on some sectarian campus such as some Yeshiva or Bob Jones U. for example, such that there is negative feedback, then (though I’ve NEVER heard of such a case) I support the right of the sectarian institution to discriminate, and the gay ought to apply elsewhere. Notice that if forced to apply elsewhere, the gay still gets educated.

What the homosexual movement wants is to be BOTH out of the closet — sometimes obnoxiously, screamingly so — AND accepted by society at large as overt out-of-the-closet homosexuals. What’s NOT at issue in any of this is men who are private about their homosexuality OR WHO ARE PRIVATE ABOUT THEIR HETEROSEXUALITY for that matter, which when private do not confront anyone or anything and are none of any landlord’s or employer’s business. What IS at issue is ramming flaming-queendom down the throats of landlords who may want a family atmosphere in their rental properties for example, or forcing employers to hire overt homosexuals where the flaunting of such behavior is totally inappropriate, or forcing parents to approve of their nine-year-old sons being in the custody of overt homosexual scoutmasters during a weekend isolated far away in the woods. The “gays” want it both ways — getting hired or becoming tenants AND totally disregarding the legitimate concerns of others.

Jody says, “Allowing gay couples to be as free and secure in their homes, jobs, education and lives as non-gay couples are promotes stability, encourages security and advances the common good.”

Gay “couples” are not the issue either, unless you mean allowing “gays” to be married to one another, in which case extending such societal recognition not only debases marriage but opens the door to all manner of degeneracy such as polygamy and the other things mentioned, which are incompatible with healthy functioning of Western society and probably of any society that has ever existed. As for “gays” being free and secure in their homes, jobs, etc., they already enjoy the same protections toward those ends as all the rest of us do. BUT … as are all the rest of us, they may be required to respect the need in some situations to not flaunt their perversion in front of others, and they have no right to be excused from that normal, legitimate societal requirement through the passage of laws that force everyone to accept their perversion in its brazenly overt form.

Jody says, “Una[dorned], you can tell yourself that you aren’t concerned about what people do ‘in the privacy of their own homes,’ but please don’t try to pass that line of poppycock off on me.”

If “gays” don’t wish to have to deal with others’ disapproval of their perversion, let them keep it private and no one will bother them.

If anyone wants to know why I originally reacted strongly to Jody’s first post, it was because of his radical left-wing web-site which I had clicked on and perused (click on his name) before responding to him.

I have not seen even the first sentence of my argument addressed. For a productive discussion to occur, it is helpful if the respondent throws in at least one word from the other’s argument or if the respondent otherwise makes it clear which idea is being challenged. Free association is useful only in a first draft. Otherwise only the respondent is certain about which idea is being challenged. It is also useful for clarity if at least one unified paragraph is used to challenge each idea.

Mr. Murgos, whom were you referring to in saying your argument had not been addressed? As for me, I agreed with almost all you said, which is why I didn’t address your points and aimed my comments at Jody’s. (One part of your comment which I didn’t understand was, “The American South foolishly channeled its children’s lives and its enormous patriotism and ethnic pride into making war instead of into making itself invulnerable to aggression.” Were you talking there about the South’s participation in the War of Northern Aggression, also known as Lincoln’s War, or the War for Southern Independence, 1861 to 1865?)

Sorry Unadorned, I was talking to Jody. I should have been clear. (By the way, I have not criticized your style in my other postings.)

Yes I was talking about Lincoln’s War. I was giving an example of what happens when people fail to use peaceful means to the fullest extent. My idea is if even a minority would commit themselves in peacetime as fully as they are forced to commit in wartime, the minority could prevail peacefully. Many interests can be bought off by the minority. Social security recipients are probably the best example.