Derbyshire on homosexuality

In John Derbyshire’s latest shift to the left (and how those shifts have multiplied since he came out as an atheist a few months ago), the former scourge of the homosexuals and bête noire of Andrew Sullivan now says that homosexuality is not a problem for society, with the single exception of the armed forces.

So now two regulars at NRO, senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru and John Derbyshire (who is even afforded his own “Derb Radio” page at the NRO site to spread his liberal and atheist ideas), pretty much have the bases of homosexual liberation covered. Ponnuru says homosexuality should be accepted in the U.S. military. Derbyshire says it should be accepted it in the rest of society.

I exposed Ponnuru’s readiness to surrender to the homosexual agenda regarding same sex “marriage” in 2003. I also showed how he took the liberal position that all conservative arguments against same sex marriage were bigoted. Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg protested my characterization of Ponnuru’s position, but if you read the entire thread, particularly my reply to Goldberg, you will see that their defense falls apart.

With even an editor of NR supporting homosexuals in the military (and no one at the Corner objected to Ponnuru’s casual and stunning announcement), and with another prominent NR contributor saying that morality is mutable and that homosexuality is not a problem for society except in the military, what is left of the “conservative” movement?

At least if these people stopped calling themselves conservatives, we could just write them off as liberals and forget about them. It is their continuing role as the spokesmen of “conservatism” that is so dishonest and harmful.

- end of initial entry -

James N. writes:

You say that Derb’s previous abhorrence of homosexuality was based on “instinctive repugnance” rather than on human nature.

Part of the problem that gay men, in particular, present to a properly-ordered society is that the “instinctive repugnance” IS human nature.

It is human nature itself that must be overcome, indeed that must be crushed, for male homosexuality to be normalized.

LA replies:

In a traditional society, instinctive repugnance toward homosexuality is supported by the authoritative morality of the society. Therefore in ordinary situations such repugnance may be enough to keep homosexuality at bay.

In a liberalized, radicalized society such as ours, instinctive repugnance is not enough, because the ruling principles of the society give no support to such repugnance and in fact demonize it. Therefore, once society becomes liberal, only an articulated traditionalist position can be effective in resisting homosexual liberation.

James replies:

I quite agree, my comment was meant to collapse the distinction between repugnance and human nature—they are the same. (And this explains why there is so much propaganda directed at the young—it’s needed to overcome or erase their nature.)

Michael Jose writes:

What you say about Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg made me think about the points you made against Dinesh D’Souza.

It seems to me that together these two factions are presenting us with a false choice—that the way to defeat liberalism is either by surrendering to liberalism or by surrendering to Islam.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 17, 2007 03:49 PM | Send