|
Has Hollywood passed the point of maximum homosexual saturation?
Stogie at Saberpoint tells us that he’s is a live and let live guy when it comes to homosexuality, but when TV starts telling him that “the whole world is gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, and that we should present it, portray it and celebrate it as if it were as normal, as widespread and as beautiful as wildflowers in Spring,” then he feels that things have gone too far. I wonder if the society as a whole will have the same reaction at some point.
There’s a name for a society that has reached the point of maximum homosexual saturation: Sodom. If you don’t know what I’m referring to, check it out in Genesis chapter 19.
- end of initial entry -
May 11
Wade C. writes:
Stogie’s first and last sentences in his article show exactly what is wrong with the conservative approach to homosexuality. In fact these two sentences form the bookends to a flawed understanding of the fact and phenomenon of homosexuality.
His first sentence—“I have made it clear that I am tolerant of gays.” This leads one to believe that if one takes a neutral approach to homosexuality, one’s neutrality will be respected. But in fact sentence one leads to the last sentence—“Too much gayness makes us nauseous.” The last sentence is an extension of the first sentence!
The assumption that there is an acceptable degree of gayness in society is equivalent to assuming that there is an acceptable degree to the bubonic plague. If homosexuality is defined as a sin by God, then there is no acceptable degree, there is no neutrality. It is to be expected that the kernel of homosexuality will grow into a tree, spreading its roots and branches. In fact it is tolerance of homosexuality that leads to its expansion. Tolerance means opening a space for its growth.
Stogie expects that limits can somehow be placed around the phenomenon of homosexuality. But sin by definition is expansive in a formless way since it is anti-essence. There is no circumscribing a plague once it makes its way. Tolerance does not place limits on a phenomenon, it does not restrict its development.
What does a physician do with an illness? Tolerate it? Hope it limits itself to a narrow corner of the body?
Now I’ve noticed an interesting aspect to VFR. Whenever a topic is broached that concerns religion, homosexuality or Darwinism, there is very little if any response by VFR’s correspondents and posters. It’s as if conservatism can be limited to political or economic matters and much like Stogie, those other messy issues can be circumscribed and limited (somehow) through tolerance. We “tolerate” homosexuality and hope that gays come to behave respectably in a limited manner when they see our tolerance. [LA replies: This paragraph is so off-base about the nature of VFR discussions that it’s evident the commenter has never read the site with minimal reading comprehension.]
And yet this does not happen! The more they see our tolerance, the more expansive and public they become. And people like Stogie wonder why this encroachment on his space.
Now the problem is not solely personal attitude towards homosexuality. A bigger problem is that tolerance is viewed as a political virtue as embedded in the historical notion of the American nation. We presuppose that the political structure of this country is neutral with respect to personal ethics and so we declare “tolerance” to be the personal expression of the larger political and historical sense of neutrality. Jefferson not Moses is the foundation of American society.
The problem is that Jefferson cannot solve the dilemma of immoral expansion and encroachment. And thus the Stogies of this society now have to bear the nausea of “too much” homosexuality. Although the Old Testament warns us that the problem is not “too much” homosexuality. The problem IS homosexuality and in the Mosaic nation of Israel it had not part.
By having an American nation, instead of a Christian one, our nostrils will become filled with the stench of sin. Yes, go ahead and scream “Theocrat” at me, but enjoy the sight of men kissing in front of your eyes. And contain your nausea respectfully so the vomit doesn’t stain the gay guy on its way out the throat. Tolerance has a price for one’s health …
LA replies:
The commenter is making a good argument, but he’s blown it in a minor way with his total mischaracterization of VFR, and he’s blown it in a major way with his anti-American Christianism which denies the legitimacy not just of America but of any earthly society.
If we leave aside those errors for the moment and consider the commenter’s critique of Stogie’s position by itself, I agree with the commenter. Stogie, like most conservatives, lacks a conceptually worked out position on homosexuality. He has the “average tolerant man” position we’ve all heard a thousand times, i.e., “I have nothing against homosexuals, I’m tolerant, but I do mind it when homosexuality is shoved in my face.” Stogie and the average tolerant man in general do not disapprove of homosexual conduct in itself. The tolerance they favor allows homosexual conduct to spread and homosexualist activism to gain more and more power, which as the commenter points out is the very nature of sin. And as it keeps spreading and gaining power, Stogie / the average tolerant man finds himself disapproving of the very thing that he said he didn’t mind, not seeing how his own attitude allowed things to go from point A to point B.
Clearly, such a vague, amorphous notion as “tolerance” cannot be the basis of society’s position on homosexual conduct. In my view, the correct position is that homosexual conduct is wrong. It is wrong because is against the order of the individual, it is against the order of the family, it is against the order of society, it is against nature, it is against the religious and moral traditions that are the basis of our civilization, and it is against God. Very few conservatives today are close to taking such a position on homosexuality. From my own experience I can say that it takes intellectual work to reach it.
Also, while the Bible is a major authority in this area, it is not a sufficient authority. Liberalism is not going to be defeated by people quoting a couple of passages from the Bible. Orthodox Christian doctrine is needed, for example the Catholic teaching that homosexuality is an objective disorder. And also our Aristotelian reason is needed, reasoning about the nature of things, the fulfillment of that nature, and the perversions of that nature. People who only quote the Bible and who reject the moral and intellectual heritage of the West cannot help us with this issue.
In any case, people who are hostile to America (not just hostile to it in its present degraded state, but hostile to it fundamentally) are not welcome to post at this site. This domain of this site is not named amnation (American nation) for nothing.
Here are some VFR entries on this subject:
How is homosexuality to be understood? [Major discussion, 2003, including consideration of heterosexual sodomy: “By defining the sexual ideal in restrictive terms as heterosexual marriage sans sodomy, a particular argument for the legitimization of homosexual sodomy is closed…. A tentative approach to the problem that I seem to have arrived at is that society should not recognize desires for heterosexual sodomy as legitimate or moral, regardless of how subjectively pressing or “naturally inevitable” such desires may seem to the person himself. Therefore the same restrictions would logically and fairly apply to desires for homosexual sodomy. That is my tentative answer to the problem of subjectivity that I raised.”]
Is is possible to make a religious argument against homosexuality in a non-religious society?
Are homosexual acts right?
Homosexual marriage is a logical and necessary outcome of liberalism
Why homosexual liberation is incompatible with our political order [“Liberty and self-government require a cohesive culture, which in turn requires strong family ties, which in turn require traditional sexual morality.… It’s hard to see how normalization of homosexuality can be reconciled with a free self-governing society.”]
A talk on homosexual marriage [Notes for my talk on homosexual marriage to the College Republicans Club, New York University, December 2005.]
DE writes: I’m trying to figure this out: On the one hand Darwinism/evolution is the defining element in the liberal world view; on the other hand homosexuality is in the liberal world view “normal” . These two views of the world don’t work together. Perhaps I’m coming to realization that Ann Coulter might be right and that liberalism is a mental problem. Thank you for your blog.
Gintas writes:
“Now I’ve noticed an interesting aspect to VFR. Whenever a topic is broached that concerns religion, homosexuality or Darwinism, there is very little if any response by VFR’s correspondents and posters.”
I’ve noticed the same thing. When you post some White Nationalist Jew-blaming rant, no one says anything.
(The preceding was sarcasm. When I first read that comment, my jaw dropped, then I started laughing. Maybe he is at the wrong site.)
LA writes:
Stogie has a follow-up entry at his blog on this subject, where he writes:
I am tolerant of gays in that I do not believe their lifestyle should be illegal, nor should gays be treated like moral lepers and outcasts. There are too many of them, and it seems increasingly clear that homosexuality is inherited. Gays cannot help being gays, and intolerance, including religious intolerance, will not make them otherwise.
On the other hand, it is natural for heterosexuals to find homosexual behavior unnerving and repellent. Therefore, I do resent Hollywood constantly rubbing the lifestyle in our faces. I don’t believe that tolerance = advocacy; and on the other hand, I do not believe that advocacy will create more tolerance. It is likely to have the opposite effect. Gays can do what they like as consenting adults, but I don’t want to watch it on television.
So, on one hand, Stogie doesn’t think homosexuals should be hated or mistreated or that homosexual behavior should be suppressed or discouraged in any way. Homosexual behavior must be tolerated. On the other hand, he is repelled by homosexual behavior and doesn’t want homosexuals to be rubbing their lifestyle in our faces. Well, what’s going to stop them from rubbing their lifestyle in our faces? The only thing that will stop them is society disapproving of homosexual behavior. But Stogie wants homosexual behavior to be tolerated. And as the most casual observer must surely see, the more homosexual behavior is tolerated, the more aggressive the homosexualist movement becomes in rubbing their lifestyle in our faces. This is the very dynamic of sin that Wade C. wrote about. But Stogie says in the same entry that he doesn’t believe in sin. And he also seems to resent Christians who talk about sin. So his position is contradictory and unsustainable.
Clearly, talking about one’s personal feelings about homosexuality, whether of tolerance or repugnance, as Stogie does, does not address the problem. Our personal feelings are not the question. The question is, what should the position of society be on homosexuality?
My long-time view of this problem is that society should not give any public recognition or approval to homosexuality or homosexual relationships. Homosexuals should not be punished or persecuted, but they also should not be approved or empowered in publicly expressing their homosexuality.
At the same time, society should not give public recognition or approval to non-marital heterosexual relationships. And this is not that radical. This is the way things were in America until the 1960s. There were plenty of non-marital relationships. But such relationship were not publicly recognized or approved. If a couple wanted their relationship to be recognized and approved, they had to get married.
In short, the only way homosexuality and the power-seeking homosexualist movement can be contained is by society returning to traditional sexual norms, with regard to both heterosexual and homosexual behavior.
And if someone says that this is impossible, that I am living in a fantasy, because my ideas go against everything that society now believes, my reply is that none of our social problems and cultural ills can be solved within the present liberal order. The liberal order must come to an end. And since I believe in life and specifically in the life of Western man and Western culture, I also believe that the liberal order can and will come to an end.
Jane S. writes:
After “marriage” is greater access to children. I’m surprised more people don’t see this coming. There are entire homosexual organizations dedicated to lowering the age of consent. There are groups like NAMBLA who agitate for the “rights” of children to engage freely in sex.
When I was at San Francisco State, I was on the editorial board of a scholarly journal. The guy who designed some of our covers asked if I would edit his thesis proposal. He knew I was conservative, I think that’s why he picked me. Turns out for his thesis he wanted to do a series of instructional videos teaching sexual techniques to young children, starting from newborns. I called up the graduate studies office and asked if there was even a remote chance this filth would be accepted for a thesis. They told me, “You can write your thesis about anything you want.”
I told a bunch of other people, too. Their responses fell into two categories: (1) “Oh, well, it’s FREE SPEECH,” and (2) “What do you expect? It’s San Francisco.”
May 12
James P. writes:
Stogie writes,
I am tolerant of gays in that I do not believe their lifestyle should be illegal, nor should gays be treated like moral lepers and outcasts. There are too many of them, and it seems increasingly clear that homosexuality is inherited. Gays cannot help being gays, and intolerance, including religious intolerance, will not make them otherwise.
What is the reason to believe there are any more of them now than there ever were? There appear to be “too many of them” because they are more visible now that society encourages them to flaunt their depravity, but I find it hard to believe there are more of them as a fraction of the population than there were when they were not tolerated and had to stay in the closet. If we withdraw our “tolerance” then suddenly there will hardly seem to be any of them at all because they will go back in the closet. “Too many not to tolerate” problem solved!
As for homosexuality being inherited, there are other socially undesirable traits that are genetically inherited, such as the predisposition to violence and drug / alcohol addiction. We should not tolerate violent people and addicts simply because they “can’t help it”, nor should we tolerate gays because they can’t help it. In fact, they can “help it”—in the past, many gays unquestionably suppressed their urges and even lived heterosexual lives (marrying, reproducing) or at least remained celibate and outwardly normal-looking. My view is that this is not too much to ask of them, and we should continue to ask this of them.
James N. writes:
I wish I had time for an extended reflection on this topic, which, as with much of VFR, is a gateway to a deeper understanding of many things.
Alas, I have to confine myself to a question: When we speak of “tolerating homosexuality,” who, or what, are we tolerating or disparaging?
There is a difference between tolerating persons inclined to or gratified by sodomy, tolerating (or celebrating) sodomy itself, and tolerating the entirely novel concept(s) of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
Most people instinctively desire to tolerate people inclined to or gratified by sodomy.
Most people are instinctively revulsed by sodomy between members of the same sex.
In order to be “modern,” however, most people are caught on the horns of a dilemma. That is, in order to believe and act on the belief that one’s nature is manufactured by one’s will alone (i.e., in order to be modern), one must accept that the acts which are revolting define the person, are the person, whom one wishes to tolerate.
Like much of late modernity, this creates quite a bit of intrapsychic tension, tending to render the person under tension more passive, more likely to defer to experts, and less likely actively to structure one’s own environment.
Which is, of course, the whole point.
Buck O. writes:
I didn’t read past the beginning of Wade C.’s remarks. I’ll never understand this.
Stogie’s first and last sentences in his article show exactly what is wrong with the conservative approach to homosexuality. In fact these two sentences form the bookends to a flawed understanding of the fact and phenomenon of homosexuality.
His first sentence—“I have made it clear that I am tolerant of gays.” This leads one to believe that if one takes a neutral approach to homosexuality, one’s neutrality will be respected. But in fact sentence one leads to the last sentence—“Too much gayness makes us nauseous.” The last sentence is an extension of the first sentence!
This issue continues to baffle me more than any other.
Healthy men do not want to be made to feel like a woman—especially by another man. A homosexual man who comes on to a healthy man, or who acts out as gay, in the presence of a healthy man, is causing a healthy man to feel revulsion. At a minimum he will feel that there is something less manly about himself, that would lead a homosexual to hit on him. We’ve discussed this. Healthy men don’t want to be around admitted homosexuals, and certainly not around gay men.
The idea that a healthy man is tolerant of gays does not mean that he wants, or accepts a normal social interaction with gays—as he does in his life-time of male friendships and bonding. Men don’t do gay. You’re in or you’re out.
Every time I hear or read about a discussion of tolerance of gays, I wonder: What specifically they are talking about? Where is this place, where healthy men have normal male bonding relationship with gays? Where? I’ve never seen it. I’ve never heard any man ever talk about his gay friend so-and-so, that he enjoys his evening cigars with, or that he goes on his annual week-long wilderness fishing trip with, or hangs with his buddies at the pub with. [LA replies: Agreed that there is some vagueness around the concept of tolerance, but you are creating more confusion around it than is necessary. Contrary to what you are saying, “tolerating” a person does NOT mean being good friends with him. It means that you put up with that person despite the fact that there is something about him that you disapprove of. If you didn’t disapprove of it, the very idea of tolerating him wouldn’t have come up in the first place. So for example you may have homosexual co-workers or acquaintances. Tolerating them means that you maintain normal professional or social interactions with them notwithstanding your disapproval of their homosexuality. It means that you do not shun them. It does not mean that you are good friends with them, because that would mean that you approve of them, and tolerance, properly understood, means putting up with something of which one disapproves. That’s the correct and original meaning of tolerance. But tolerance has evolved since World War II and now it increasingly means total acceptance and approval. It is this wrong and confused definition of tolerance that has created your confusion. If society returned to the correct and limited definition of tolerance, your confusion would go away.]
I mean—what the hell are we talking about here? Gay men live in a completely separate and distinctly different uni-culture or in their own small society within the larger society. Gaydom has profoundly different and unalterable rules and morality. If it’s not the antithesis of manhood and outside of it—even the myth of it’s a “man’s world”—as are women, it’s at least a third point of a triangle, and not a point along some straight-line continuum between male-female.
What does “acceptable” mean? How does a healthy man “accept” a gay man? Is that like me knowing that I will have to accept the arthritis in my right foot, and take care not to aggravate it, and to take my meds? Someone hands me a $20 bill—I accept it. Someone tells me that they are gay, and I accept it? I don’t get it. What exactly is it that healthy men are being asked to do?
A person’s rights under the law, and his unalienable rights and those defining the United States in our Constitution are not at question. What’s at question is—to what extent should government attempt to force a species—man, to alter or act against their own nature. That’s impossible.
But, this is what modern liberalism attempts to do. We are a diseased culture imploding in on itself. We’re trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It can’t happen. What do modern liberals expect will eventually happen?
James N. writes:
Buck O. expands on my original point. “What,” he says, “are we being asked to do?”
What we are being asked to do is to accept that men who are gratified by, and who seek out, same-sex sodomy are a distinct and separate class of persons, “homosexuals.” This is an entirely novel concept. Until recently, men who did these behaviors recognized that they were not normal. They also recognized that the behaviors did not define them, or, if they did to some extent, that they were third- or fourth-order identifiers behind race, nationality, religion, occupation, etc.
No more. Ex-governor James McGreevey’s truth was “I am a gay man.” [LA replies: His truth was, “I am a gay American.”] This is an extraordinary assertion, it is entirely a product of modernity, and as you have said, cannot stand because it is so unnatural.
Just as socialism demands that a man work for another man’s wife and children, and feminism demands that men’s sexual desire is contingent on women rather than innate and natural, homosexualism demands that we accept that perversity entirely defines another human being, and that, in order to have a peaceable social relation with that being, we must accept both the sin and the sinner. “Why,” say those kindly people who do not understand, “why do they have to shove it in my face? Why do they have to teach it in kindergarten?”
They have to do it because the project of human re-engineering that has defined the left since 1789 cannot rest, cannot let up until the New Man is born and all of the Old Men have vanished. Their constant failures spur them on to greater and greater efforts. They of course cannot succeed because humans are created beings and, as such, cannot be re-engineered in any fundamental way.
But the “homosexual,” who accepts the unacceptable, is a heroic figure to human transformationists. Even more heroic are men who induce surgeons, increasingly in Thailand and other exotic locales, to mutilate not just their souls but their bodies, too.
Buck O said, “What’s at question is—to what extent should government attempt to force a species—man, to alter or act against their own nature. That’s impossible.”
Yes, it’s impossible—but the left does not, cannot accept that, as the mountains of skulls in the Kolyma, in Cambodia, in Poland and GERmany, and elsewhere testify.
The more impossible it appears, the more dangerous they become.
Jane S. writes:
I grew up in a small town, smack in the middle of the Bible Belt—the most gay-unfriendly environment you can imagine. One of my closest childhood companions, the boy next door, was gay. Times were more innocent then, we didn’t think “gay.” There were just some boys who preferred to hang out with girls and do girly things.
As a long-time resident of San Francisco, I have known a great many gays—as coworkers, neighbors, hairdressers, friends, housemates. I am not a “homophobe.” I’ve known gays to be thoughtful companions, sympathetic confidants, protective allies. They throw the best parties. They’re great to go out with, because they don’t paw you. They look out for you. I never ask what they do in the bedroom. I’m so square, I’d probably be shocked at what some straight people do.
I’ve developed a fair amount of insight into the gay community over the years and, let me tell you, when gays complain about being “discriminated against,” what they are really describing is their extreme jealousy and resentment of women. Here’s the deal: fags don’t want to be with other fags—they like MEN, real men. Unfortunately for them, real men prefer women. This is not going to change. As long as gay men have to compete with women for male attention—and constantly lose—they are going to complain bitterly that they are being treated unfairly. [LA replies: I question this theory. The theory says that homosexuals are sexually pursuing heterosexual men, and are being rejected by them, and are angry over this. From my understanding that’s not at all the case. The homosexuals are in their own world, living among their own “team,” as the famous bit on “Seinfeld” put it. They’re not interested in our “team.” They’re interested in their “team.” They know that the people on our team are not interested in them. So I question whether your theory is correct.]
Gays like to play-act that they are women, especially when no one else is around, and gay “marriage” is just another variation on that theme. Gay “marriage” is a huge insult towards women, and I will never understand why the majority of women are so thick-headed they don’t realize this. It’s their way of saying “my aperture is a fair substitute for hers.” Excuse me? I don’t think so.
Buck O. writes:
I hope that I don’t sound like an ogre. I am a nice person. :^) I tolerate and feel empathy toward the gay men that I come in contact with—especially if it’s through friends or family. If I worked with gays I would treat them as I would anyone else—at work. I raised my rant to the extreme because that’s where I see that this is heading. Disapproval has to go beyond the current arena of a free dis-association outside of work or some institutional setting—which has rules that must be followed. I sense that people are acquiescing and accepting what actually makes them recoil, and that they’re primarily doing it to protect their interests, not because they want to. But, this will creep into all areas of life, just as all of modern liberalism’s maladies do, or the reaction will intensify.
I frequent a cigar lounge. Men occasionally talk about women and sex. One guy comes in less often than most—usually in his police uniform. He’s one of our county cops. Many of the regulars know him. The first time that I saw him out of uniform, it was obvious to me that he was gay. He wasn’t hiding it—he dressed gay. He’s generally quiet and keeps to himself. After he left, I looked to a couple of the guys. My puzzled look generated laughter and a response: you didn’t know?
That lounge is, in effect, a men’s club. He’s clearly welcomed and treated with respect. Yet, I wonder whether, if he was not a cop who patrols our neighborhood, would that tolerance last? I don’t know, but I suspect that if he was not a cop, and he felt compelled to insinuate himself fully into this lounge culture—to be more fully one of the guys, that it would become a serious issue. The two teams would need a ref. Being someone with that kind of authority and power gives him a protection that a civilian would not have. It’s sort of like the tolerance that men have of gays in their work environment. They don’t have a choice, if they want to keep their job. It would be deemed discrimination, and penalties would be forth coming. We’re intimidated into a greater level of tolerance than we might otherwise choose. Treating someone with respect is, to me, automatic. But, there will never be a time when the men in our lounge treat this gay cop as one of them.
Remove the constraints on our natures, and most men will not regularly associate with, or tolerate gays among them, except on the odd occasion or within their own family.
Elena writes:
Buck O. writes:
“Every time I hear or read about a discussion of tolerance of gays, I wonder: What specifically they are talking about? Where is this place, where healthy men have normal male bonding relationship with gays? Where? I’ve never seen it. I’ve never heard any man ever talk about his gay friend so-and-so, that he enjoys his evening cigars with, or that he goes on his annual week-long wilderness fishing trip with, or hangs with his buddies at the pub with.”
I think he, and perhaps some others in this thread, are confusing the most visible part of gay “culture”—the flamboyant clothing, the parades, etc.—with the act of being gay. This is a product of gays defining themselves as gay so visibly and vociferously; the rest of society, when told over and over again, ad nauseam, to define a person by their sexuality, will naturally eventually say, “All right, fine, you want to be defined that way, that’s how I’ll define you.” But there are plenty of gay men who do not define themselves primarily as gay, and those men end up inhabiting an uncomfortable no-man’s land: they have no interest in going to gay clubs or parading around in pink feathers, but when normal people find out they’re gay, those normal people automatically assume that the gay man in question affiliates with that gay “culture.”
My husband and I have a good friend, whom I’ll call Sam, who’s a perfect example; he was my husband’s college friend first, and when I became my now-husband’s girlfriend, Sam and I became close friends and have been so ever since. Sam and my husband hang out and do guy stuff, like discuss what video card goes with which motherboard, and argue about programming languages, and talk about what’s wrong with Sam’s car. Sam and I talk politics and go to see horror movies; we have never done any of the activities people associate with gay men hanging out with women (shopping, watching girly TV, whatever). And yes, he hangs out at the pub with us and drinks beer.
The bottom line is that gay guys who are guys, and not overly feminized, don’t go around constantly announcing themselves as gay; people think they don’t exist simply because unlike the flamboyant activist gays, that’s not how they primarily identify themselves.
Robert B. writes:
With regard to the post about gay men being attracted to heterosexual men I would suggest you go on Craig’s List and see for yourself. There are lots of adds for such. In other words, she appears to be correct.
Jane S. replies to LA’s reply:
It could be that, as a theory, it is incorrect. But I’ve heard enough gay men say so themselves, enough times to convince me that it’s true at least for some of them. They like men for the same reason women like men—because men are masculine. And they dislike other gays for many of the same bitchy, faggy reasons the rest of us dislike them.
As for the theory that gays view women as hated rivals—I’ve had plenty evidence of that, up close and personal, to convince me of that totally. One thing that constantly amazes me is the way that gay guys can project a stereotype of women that is utterly demeaning and get away with it. The movie “Bird Cage” is the perfect example of that. The “female” half of the gay couple is silly, scatterbrained, emotionally labile, prone to hysteria—such a flattering image! If a straight man went around referring to women as histrionic ditzes, he’d get crucified.
I agree that they tend to sequester themselves and “live in their own world.” You could most certainly say that is the case in San Francisco. When it comes to politics, these guys know how to set aside their personal differences and get things done—I’ll say that for them. But that doesn’t mean they all love each other and harmonize. Gays fight with each other all the time and they like loud, dramatic, over-the-top fights, too.
When I came out here, I was the classic dumb little farm girl. The first couple of months, I stayed with some gay friends. The gay guys here are all from the Midwest, right? I can’t help it—I feel an affinity with Midwesterners wherever I go. It was like two months of gay boot camp. I was ready to run from there screaming. I took a job in a place where it was all female because I was dying to hear the voices of women. Praise the Lord I had that experience at a young age. It opened my eyes. A “gay, gay, gay, gay world” would be a dreadful place—even for gays—no, especially for gays. They need someone to save them from themselves. Even they think so. They just won’t admit it.
May 13
Alex A. writes from England:
If the discussion is still open, may I comment on the question of tolerating the irregular conduct of homosexuals?
Three reprimands against homosexual promiscuity and how they’re repudiated:
(1) An instinctive revulsion of sodomy shared by many perhaps inarticulate people who could not give the grounds for their opinion or evaluate an argument about the matter one way or the other. Rejected as being the vulgar and unconsidered views of the untutored mob.
(2) Censure of homosexual practice based on a moral judgment grounded in religious beliefs. Any disapproval claimed to be authorized by “God’s law,” is usually rejected on the grounds that religious beliefs are “irrational.” No further argument is thought necessary.
(3) Invoking natural law as a “rational” position from which it can be argued that homosexuality is “unnatural” and therefore wrong. Rejected on the grounds that the premises involved are mere matters of opinion. (For starters, there is no incontestable definition of what is meant by “natural.”)
If this brief summary detects fatal flaws in conventional opposition to homosexual licentiousness, it’s easy to see why liberals get the upper hand on this issue.
With my best compliments to the director of one of the most eloquent and informative sites in the blogosphere.
LA replies:
Thank you,
But if all three arguments can so easily be defeated by the other side, what arguments should our side use?
Alex A. replies: I don’t know of any argument based on religious principles or even garnered from a secular philosophy (against homosexual promiscuity) that will have much traction in a world governed by liberal opinion.
This is a counsel of despair, but I have no other.
Buck O. writes:
Elena writes:
I think [Buck], and perhaps some others in this thread, are confusing the most visible part of gay “culture”—the flamboyant clothing, the parades, etc.—with the act of being gay.
That’s two confusions. A gay man tells you up front, without fear of you knowing, that he is a homosexual who has chosen to be gay. I’m not confused about that. He wants you to know. I grew up in 1950s. What is going on now, was largely unimagined then, by our culture—main stream society. Obviously, it was a dream of homosexuals to be openly accepted into the mainstream and to flourish along with everyone else. But, of course, they run into the real world where healthy men and women react naturally, and here comes the politics, the aggression, the protesting, and the clear separation from the mainstream. Obviously, not all gay men are flaming peacocks. I assume that this is just the same as it is with healthy men, a function of our different personalities, etc. But, all gay men act gay, or they aren’t gay. They openly discuss their gay lives. This is what I’m talking about. It doesn’t take long to learn that a gay man is gay. A homosexual man may live next door or work with you, and you won’t necessarily know it. That’s up to him. Gay men let you know up front that they are gay, because that is how they want to be defined. It’s declared almost immediately. It is this whole gay ball of wax that is in our faces and is being forced on us with insufficient resistance.
Elena’s friend Sam is a homosexual. I’m certain that he’s a great guy and a good friend to her and her husband. But, from what she says, they are his captive audience. When they are at the pub, he isn’t gay. Sounds like he is never gay. This is the distinction that I keep trying to make. Sam is a homosexual that has straight friends, who now know that he is a homosexual. He hasn’t declared himself gay. He may never do so—which is the way it should be. He was born a homosexual. He did not choose it. If he were to frequent gay bars and bring gay friends home, next door, things might change. If he doubles-up on the ear-rings and brings a gay date along to the pub, would you still be hanging out with him? Do you double date at his gay bar? If he lives his life like a man with a secret, then Elena and her husband will keep his secret. Sam may be repulsed by the flamboyant gay lifestyle himself. He’s not going to sit around with Elena and her husband and talk about the guy that he picked up last night, and all that went on. He talks cars and sports. He respects them, they respect him. Gays all along the range of gay activism and politics have an agenda that demands a changed society and culture, against our nature. Sam doesn’t seem to be trying to change anything. He just wants to be normal. If Sam sticks to his plan, he can be life-long friends with people like Elena and her husband. But, even there, the husband has a limit when it comes to some things. Sam must instinctively know this.
Elena’s bottom line—that “gay guys who are guys don’t go around announcing themselves”—is how it should be, but is not. I don’t know any, but it sounds like they aren’t actively trying to change us, but that they are trying to fit in. That is not what’s at issue.
Alissa writes:
“The bottom line is that gay guys who are guys, and not overly feminized, don’t go around constantly announcing themselves as gay; people think they don’t exist simply because unlike the flamboyant activist gays, that’s not how they primarily identify themselves.”
The difference is that these guys tend not be liberal or leftist in their worldview and tend to agree that the traditional patriarchal family and religion should be the main focus in society. They don’t go around being ‘open’ because they may view homosexuality as immoral and as something to be hidden. There are plenty of guys like this in religious communities.
James N. writes:
Buck O. is on a roll!
He says, “But, of course, they run into the real world where healthy men and women react naturally, and here comes the politics, the aggression, the protesting … ”
This is of course the central issue of the left vs. mankind, healthy men and women reacting naturally. Elimination or rigid control of our natural reactions—in economics, in politics, in family life, and in the bedroom—is essential to the leftist project. Homosexualism is just another front in the same old war.
And, by the way, this is why “they have to teach it in kindergarten.” There may be (or may not be) an age at which natural disgust has not set in.
May 14
James N. writes:
I missed this colloquy the first time through.
Mr. Auster replied to Alex A.:
But if all three arguments can so easily be defeated by the other side, what arguments should our side use?
To which Alex replied:
I don’t know of any argument based on religious principles or even garnered from a secular philosophy (against homosexual promiscuity) that will have much traction in a world governed by liberal opinion. This is a counsel of despair, but I have no other.
It’s only a counsel of despair if you believe that “a world governed by liberal opinion” is ineluctable.
The premise of VFR, if I understand it correctly, is that this is incorrect.
As Jim Kalb put it, “The point is that today’s public order, the one all respectable public institutions and authorities support, is antihuman because it denies fundamental aspects of human nature. It tells us that safety, comfort, and the satisfaction of desire are the point of life; that increasing and equalizing such things is the noblest goal conceivable; that love, loyalty and sacrifice are personal tastes like any other. Such a view cannot last or long remain tolerable. It must and will change.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 10, 2011 07:34 PM | Send
|