On Homosexuality

This is Not a Defense,” by “Aaron,” tdaxp, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2004/12/14/derbyshire_s_homophobia.html, 20 December 2004.

“This is not a defense, because it doesn’t call into question the primary reason behind homosexuality.


Many lesbians do not even engage in sexual intercourse, nor do some men. I sincerely doubt that Sir Ian McKellan is still punting or receiving at his age. This article doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of romantic affection between parties. Given the bevy of homosexuals who would no doubt be lining up to court Sir Elton John, I find it entertaining that his monogamous relationship has lasted so long. Lots of heterosexual religious folk establish meaningful relationships long before they ever engage in erotic fulfillment exercises. Is it impossible for homosexuals to do the same?

Now, men are genetically predisposed toward sexual activity. We produce far more testosterone than we need, which keeps us in a constant state of sexual receptiveness (except with the presence of dysfunction). Two men together are probably pretty likely to heavily focus on erotic fulfillment. But that’s not the sum of their relationship. Anyone who can’t see a homosexual relationship as a consensual sharing of emotion shouldn’t be able to see it in a heterosexual environment, either.

So, if a relationship cannot exist without sexual intercourse, or not focusing exclusively on it, then I deeply question the religious’ views on pre-marital relationships. Why even bother? Pre-arrange marriages and stone women who have extra-marital intercourse. That will solve all our societal dysfunction exactly as well as it has for the Arab world.

The only answer to this question is acceptance. The right needs to drop their fear of the “niggers” of the 20th century and realise that marriage isn’t under attack from homosexuality. Divorce, an economy that demands more and more “efficiency” (both parents working, etc.) , and a society of competition are far more destructive than young Billy Cheney having two aunts. He’ll just eat twice as well when he’s at their house.

Aaron’s post is well argued, and seems to contain three theses. I’ll summarize them as best I can, with apologies if I am incorrect

1. Love is transcending
2. Homosexuality is not necessarily sexual
3. Men are hypersexual
4. Homosexuals are an oppressed class
5. Homosexuality isn’t attacking marraige
6. The modern world is attacking marriage

First, aphrase for shock value: “love” is almost meaningless. I mean here the word “love” — it incorporates a variety of sometimes contradictory meanings. The four most important are romance, devotion, affection, and loving kindness, or in Greek eros, stergo, philo, and agape. Especially in controversial areas, it pays to be precise. Civil Roman society was once convulsed because of the catastrophic ambiguity of translating “Eucharist” as “love feast” (written in Greek as loving kindess, taken by Romans as romance).

Clearly Msrs. McKellan or John feel romantic for other men. Feeling devotion, affection, or loving would be irrelevent. Applying pseudo-Christian rherotic of loving kindess to romance leads to confusion.

Second, two different ideas of asexual homosexuality are presented. One example sited is older male homosexuals, who relates to the ambiguity of love above. As to lesbianism, it can’t be taken as homosexuality. There can be no intercourse. While the Puritans meerily executed homosexuals, lesbianism was classified under private indecency, which was a petty crime. This neatly flows into…

… the third argument, which is male hypersexuality. Young men are the most productive, healthiest, most violent members of society, and least careful members of society. This gives itself to a natural parasite-host relationship. The history of all hitherto existing society is the cooption by young males to benefit other classes. In patriarchal societies (by far the most common), productive efforts are channeled through a combination of civil (paid for in women, psychological relaxation as part of a defined hierarchy, and promises of future positions of power and wealth) and uncivil (conscription) bounds. Human culture is built on this parasitic cooption, and subcultures that remove parasitic influences (male homosexuality circles, military special forces, Islamic madrassas) tend to be hyper-productive hyper-deadly.

Fourth, Aaron compares homosexuals to pre-Civil Rights American blacks. I’m unsure why, as the situations are so different. Even if you agree that homosexuals are oppressed, astounding important differences include

Fratriachical v. Patriarchal (Southern black) or Matriarchal (Northern black) society
Easily identifiable (black) v. not easily identifiable visual characteristics (if identification is undesired)
Disproportionately wealthly v. Disproportionately poor
Disproportionately educated v. Disproportionately ignorant
Marriages confined to in-group (Jim Crow marriage laws) v. Marriages confined to out-group (homosexual men may marry only women)

Homosexuality has more in common with a religious sect (a comparison that is more disturbing the longer pondered) than a race or ethnicity.

Fifth, homosexuality is a direct attack on the purpose of marriage, which is childraising in a male-female environment. Obviously a homosexual relationship does not have this sexual (as opposed to gender) bipolarity.

Last, marriage is under attack from other forces as well. As John Kerry might say, “We do not live in a simple world.”

2 thoughts on “On Homosexuality”

  1. Childlessness is not the purpose of marriage.

    I'm fine with civil unions for gays as long as it doesn't include children.

    Frankly, if a couple is going to be childress a civil union would make more sense. Childless divorce (simple contract termination) and family divorce (the destruction of children's lives) are hugely different things.

    The promotion of children is in the nation's long term nationl security interest. Licentious personal unions should be permitted in our liberal society, but not have the special protections and promotions of marriage.

  2. Many, many couples marry with no intention of bearing children. For many, marriage is a consummation of affection and not a vehicle to species propagation. If homosexuals in a civil union are to be denied health benefits and tax benefits under this arrangement, then childless couples should as well.

    If we make those provisions into a defense of marriage act, I'm entirely fine with it. No marriage benefits until your first child.

  3. Deal.

    And we have some allies (http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/10243661.htm).

    ” If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile,” he said. “If they're isolated – if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness – then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside.” “

    (Hat tip Modern Fabulousity (http://modernfabulousity.blogspot.com/2004/11/church-and-state-culture-war-revisited.html).)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *