Category Archives: Homosexuality

Homosexualism v Homosexuality

(This post continues a discussion on Samizdata. Like at CCK, Samizdata’s comment system works… sometimes.)

The reason I’m using “homosexualism” and not “homosexuality” is that the latter is so vague as to be meaningless. As John Derbyshire wrote, homosexuality sometimes is used to include

  • homosexualism (male preference for sex with men over men)
  • ephebophilia/pederasty (male perference for sex with youths)
  • monasticism/faute-de-mieux (male sex with men as a substitute for women)

Monasticism clearly existed then, as it exists now in prisons. Likewise, we have detailed descriptions of ephebophilia from the Greeks (such as the Ganymede story).

Some quote from Leviticus

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

(or more literally)

And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman

as the very preceeding verse is a condemnation of rival religion ceremonies

You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD

And the very next condemns an obvious form of substitution

You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.

The context argues against knowledge of homosexualism. Additionally, as Hebrew boys became “men” at a young age, Leviticus 18:22 may be intended as a double-condemnation of monaticism and ephebophilia. Whatever its meanings, there’s no evidence in the chapter that shows knowledge of homosexualism.

Denormalization: From License, to Explicit Horizontal Control, to Implicit Horizontal Control

Fighting for the Culture,” by Perry de Havilland, Samizdata, 20 April 2005, http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007468.html.

I disagree with Perry’s history slightly, but in a post on racism Mr. de Havilland outlines a “cutural shift” that denormalized a New Style ideology

Only a wilful fool would dispute that racism moved from being the unremarkable default mainstream view in the western world to being a prejudice which scarcely dare speak its name. I would argue that this did not come about just because a few anti-discrimination laws got passed. A great many things are illegal and yet doing them does not put you ‘beyond the pale’ in polite society. In most circles lighting up a spliff or speeding or paying your builder/nanny/housekeeper in cash are matters of little or no account and few people would think less of you if they discovered you were doing so. Overt racism on the other hand has precisely that effect because regarding that there has been a cultural shift. To be a racist is not just wrong, it makes you a jackass in the eyes of others [non-racism is once again “normal” — tdaxp]. Most racists are now more prone to keep their views to themselves, not because someone will call the cops and have them hauled off to a re-education camp, but because they can no longer safely assume others will share their meta-context.

de Havilland is writing about a horizontal control in transition. The plicitity of a control — its position on the implicit-explicit axis — is shifting. Racism has gone from unquestioned, to a wrong thing to think, to a weird thing to think.

Racism is a New Style ideology that dates from the early 18th century. It is a New Style innovation and it is being destoyed

Other such beliefs — feminism, homosxualism, &c, can be destroyed the same way.

We can win. And we are winning.

Homosexualist Legislative Collapses

Take Action: Microsoft abandons gays,” by John, America Blog, 20 April 2005, http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/take-action-microsoft-abandons-gays.html (from gay news blog through technocrati).

Texas House Bill Bars Gay Foster Parents,” by Natalie Gott, Associated Press, 20 April 2005, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=11&u=/ap/20050420/ap_on_re_us/gays_foster_parents (from Democratic Underground).

Following Tuesday’s denormalizing debacle, more good news: the collapse of a stateside homosexualist legislative effort, and the rise of an antihomosexualist one

Microsoft abandons support for a Washington State House Bill 1515, which would give the state’s Human Rights Commission sway in homosexuality-related cases

The radical right activist reportedly told Microsoft it had better pull its support for the gays or anti-gay bigots would launch a nationwide boycott of Microsoft, and guess what – Microsoft caved. A single anti-gay jerk, and Microsoft chose to reverse over ten years of policy and bash gays [sic].

In a move that angered many of the company’s gay employees, the Microsoft Corporation, publicly perceived as the vanguard institution of the new economy, has taken a major political stand in favor of age-old discrimination.

The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch.

The pastor, Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, met with a senior Microsoft executive in February and threatened to organize a national boycott of the company’s products if it did not change its stance on the legislation, according to gay rights activists and a Microsoft employee who attended a subsequent April 4 meeting where Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft’s senior vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary, told a group of gay staffers about Hutcherson’s threat..

Meanwhile, in Texas as in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, and many others…

Texas could become the only state to bar gays from becoming foster parents under legislation passed Wednesday by the House.

The ban is part of a bill to revamp the state’s Child Protective Services agency. It passed 135-6 with two abstentions and now heads to the Senate.

“It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children, and I don’t think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual,” said Republican Rep. Robert Talton, who introduced the amendment.

To quote President Bush in a popular song

The war goes on
and we are winning.
We are winning.
The war goes on.
We are winning.

As if to make the news better, the Texas bill also further privitizes the system

It would give all of Child Protective Services’ foster care and case management duties to private companies, which already manage 75 percent of foster homes in Texas.

Let there be no understanding: we are winning.

Update: Slashdot picks up the Microsoft story

Vertical Homosexualism V. Horizontal Antihomosexualism

Students tell of tension on gay tolerance day,” by Kati Phillips, Daily Southtown, 20 April 2005, http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsindex/20-ds3.htm (from Democratic Underground).

(On the lighter side, an alernative title for this post was: Gay? Not fine by me (unless you’re a lesbian) – a stand-out quote from the article.)

An attempted use of the state’s coercive education system to spread homosexualist propoganda was foiled Tuesday.

A student-led effort to oppose homophobia at Homewood-Flossmoor High School may have backfired Tuesday when hundreds of students donned shirts with Christian and anti-gay slogans.

Student activists who wore shirts emblazoned with the words “gay? fine by me” said they were outnumbered by peers wearing hateful [sic] messages and were targeted for harassment.

The T-shirt drive was intended to create a safe place for gay students and to put a human face on gays, lesbians and their allies.

But student journalists covering the event described the atmosphere as “tense.”

“It was crazy. There were all these students with gay shirts and God shirts,” said student newspaper reporter Joe Maloney. “In my first-period class, debate class, there were way more God shirts.”

One of the organizers thinks the school-rally did far more denormalizing than normalizing

Alissa Norby, one of the T-shirt day’s organizers, said she didn’t know whether to define the project as a success or failure.

“If I was still in the closet and came to school (Tuesday) and saw hundreds of kids wearing anti-gay shirts, I’d probably go home crying and begging my parents to let me transfer,” she said.

This is good news for a number of reasons. It demonstrates the overreach of the homosexualists. It shows youthful resistance to government-enforced indoctrination. And relatedly, it shows the power of peaceful networks over the power of a coercive state.

The states have built socialist education bureaucracies that takes money from citizens, operates a terrible system comparable to Tunisia, preempts the emergence of free schools, and tries to brainwash students.

Throughout the past century, the states have suceeded. There were too few media outlets, and churches were too weak and confused, to do anything to stop this. So bureaucrats or petty politicians would take power, determine what children should believe, and use a prison-like setting to make them believe that.

The ability of citizens to know that the state’s views are not the only “wise” views, combined with the technological revolution that makes ideas available to all, combined with strong horizontal church networks, made Tuesday possible. This is our beautiful new world.

Good.

The Cause of the Plague

Health Department: HIV/AIDS cases up in 2004 in Minnesota,” Associated Press, 15 April 2005, http://www.in-forum.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D89G036O0.

The Associated Press – Friday, April 15, 2005

As a people-killer spreads in Minnesota

More than 300 people in Minnesota were diagnosed with HIV last year, an 11 percent increase over 2003, the state Health Department reported Friday.

The AP waits until paragraph seven to state the main vector

The department continued to find disproportionally high numbers of cases among gay and bisexual men. During the past three years, the group has accounted for 50 percent of all diagnoses although they account for only 5 percent of the population.

That rate is roughly in keeping with national trends.

What aggrevates me is that the lower something appears in a news story, the more likely it is to be cut. The AP wrote the article so the homosexualism angle would be the one most likely to be left out.

If that’s not intellectual dishonesty, it’s close.

Libertarian Antihomosexualism

Marriage and the Limits of Contract,” by Jennifer Roback Morse, Policy Review, April 2005, http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html (from Stanley Kurtz on the Corner).

Yesterday, National Review linked to a libertarian attack on legal recognition homosexualist marriage. The article, written by a Hoover Institution fellow, raises good points and agrees with tdaxp in several places. While I think I would disagree with Jennifer Morse on some other issues, here is she spot-on.

First and most importantly, the article recognizes there are different kinds of freedom

Rousseau could be describing the modern hook-up culture, down to and including the reluctance of hook-up partners to even talk to each other. He seems to define “natural” as acting on impulse and “freedom” as being unencumbered by law, social convention or even attachment to other people.

Libertarians cannot accept these definitions. Being free does not demand that everyone act impulsively rather than deliberately. Libertarian freedom is the modest demand to be left alone by the coercive apparatus of the government. Economic liberty, and libertarian freedom more broadly, is certainly consistent with living with a great many informal social and cultural constraints.

(If only Robert Locke was so wise!)

Morse also shows how increased family size can lead to decreased government size — a brilliant application of the horizontal/vertical dichotomy.

But the influence of the libertarian rationale goes far beyond the membership of the Libertarian Party or the donor list of the Cato Institute. The editors of the Nation, for instance, support gay marriage but do not usually defend the sanctity of contracts. This apparent paradox evaporates when we realize that the dissolution of marriage breaks the family into successively smaller units that are less able to sustain themselves without state assistance.

Families also serve as an alternative to state welfare

But for this minimal government approach to work, there has to be a family in the first place. The family must sustain itself over the course of the life cycle of its members. If too many members spin off into complete isolation, if too many members are unwilling to cooperate with others, the family will not be able to support itself. A woman trying to raise children without their father is unlikely to contribute much to the care of her parents. In fact, unmarried parents are more likely to need help from their parents than to provide it.

Pat Buchanan, normally a loon said it best: “liberals” want government so strong we don’t need families, conservatives want families so strong we don’t need government. Put another way, “conervatives” want to create a culture of freedom by replacing vertical controls with horizontal controls.

Third, she realizes the permance of Old Style Man.

Libertarians have every reason to respect marriage as a social institution. Marriage is an organic institution that emerges spontaneously from society. People of the opposite sex are naturally attracted to one another, couple with each other, co-create children, and raise those children. The little society of the family replenishes and sustains itself. Humanity’s natural sociability expresses itself most vibrantly within the family. A minimum-government libertarian can view this self-sustaining system with unadulterated awe.

Exactly right. Functioning systems of control are ones that survive. Just as “sustainability” is an important part of determing what third-world aid programs we create, “sustainability” must be a vital part of what controls we protect and establish.

tdaxp’s note: The first time I read this article I found four serious flaws. All went away on a second reading. She clearly has a unifying philosophy of the world that I would disagree with. Nonetheless, on homosexual marriage she is exactly right. This paper is a brilliant defense of traditional marriage from the homosexualists and the New Stylists.

Clinton Reenforcing Horizontal Controls With Vertical Ones

Clinton Joins Democrats’ Values Push,” by Luiza C. Savage, New York Sun Times, 8 April 2005, http://www.nysun.com/article/11894 (from Democratic Underground).

Senator Clinton, having discovered religion…

“Religious liberty is one of the most important issues on the world’s agenda today,” Mrs. Clinton told the Religious Liberty Annual Dinner of the Seventh day Adventist Church.

Freedom of conscience is often “a bellwether for human rights,” she said.

The senator’s religiously themed speech comes as Democrats seek to identify anew with the “moral values” that were said to play a role in the Republican victories in November’s election.

… joins a bi-partisan coalition to extend religious rights in the work-place… and with enemies and denunciations like this it has to be good!

The senator’s strong endorsement of legislation that is opposed by some abortion-rights and gay-rights groups is likely to add to speculation that she is moving to the political center ahead of a potential 2008 presidential candidacy. But the issue of religious liberty is one she has championed consistently since arriving in the Senate.

Elected in 2000, Mrs. Clinton has been one of only a handful of bipartisan co-sponsors of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would require employers to accommodate their employees’ religious observances when reasonably possible. Critics say the law could enable religious zealots to discriminate against or harass gay workers or interfere with women’s access to birth control or abortion.

The bill was introduced again last month by Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, and Mrs. Clinton is again a co-sponsor. Senator Schumer, too, has come to back the bill.

“We think the bill that Clinton is a co-sponsor of is too broadly drafted and could have consequences that could make it difficult for employers to stop people from proselytizing on the job or hanging up anti-gay Biblical quotes on their cubicles,” the legislative director of the gay-rights advocacy group, Human Rights Campaign, Christopher Labonte, said.

But the meat of the beast

The Seventh-day Adventists are a Protestant Christian denomination that follows the literal meaning of the Bible. They number 14 million around the world and one million in America.

Adherents celebrate the Sabbath from Friday evening until Saturday evening. The church wants stronger legal protections for employees who do not want to work in those hours.

Mr. Standish said that on an average day, three Seventh-day Adventists in America lose their jobs for observing their faith.

“Senator Clinton has not only had compassion for these men and women, but she has had the courage to stand up for them,” he said.

And here’s the problem. The bill will help the faiths in the short-term. But what will be the long-term effects for religion? Or freedom in general? The problem comes from the unique nature of work.

Work is essentially a horizontal relationship. Neither party may use force, and either party may quit. No party has the right to legislate the actions of the other. But because a company can absorb the loss of an employee easier than an employee can absorb the loss of a company, the bargaining positions are never “equal.” A company has the ability to absolutely control workers’ lives for a substantial portion of their day, unless the employees find a different employers. This is compounded by workplace regulation and activist judges. Because of fear of lawsuits, companies often default to Left-Authoritarianism (very politically correct, and very hierarchical).

So on balance I think Clinton’s bill is a good one. But a much better solution would be to rollback the power of lawsuits. Religious freedom is important. But so is freedom of contract.

Kerry, Clinton, and Santorum should focus on the real problem — activist judges. But until they do, this is a step more good than bad.

Update: MyDD and the Human Rights Campaign hates it, so it has to be good.

Antihomosexualism Rolls On

More Americans oppose gay ‘marriage,’ poll finds,” by Jennifer Harper, Washington Times, 2 April 2005, http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm (from Stanley Kurtz at The Corner).

Kansas Voters Approve Gay Marriage Ban,” by John Hanna, Associated Press, 6 April 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4916964,00.html (from Stanley Kurtz at The Corner).

Homosexualist marriage is truly New Style Marriage. It is found nowhere in history. It track record in thousands of years of human development. It has no forerunners. It is a dangerous innovation. And it will not be coming to Kansas

Kansans overwhelmingly voted to add a ban on gay marriage and civil unions to their state constitution, but supporters and opponents predicted court battles over the amendment.

The ban reaffirms the state’s long-standing policy of recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. It also declares that only such unions are entitled to the “rights and incidents” of marriage, prohibiting the state from authorizing civil unions for gay couples.

With final, unofficial results from 104 of the state’s 105 counties on Tuesday, 414,235, or 70 percent, voted “yes,” and 178,167, or 29 percent voted “no.”

Happily, the nation may be trending the same way

Public opposition to “marriages” between homosexuals is at an all-time high, according to a poll released yesterday.

When asked whether they thought same-sex “marriages” should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not.

The 2004 collapse of the Democrat Party is like a big bang — it keeps generating waves of change. It weakened every faction of the Democrat Coalition. The success of antihomosexualist initiatives in every state they were tried in 2004 sent the message. Now that message has the momentum.

Marginal Marriages

A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other,” by Jane, Jane Galt, 2 April 2005, http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html (from Stanley Kurtz at The Corner).

Jane Galt uses economic analyzes in the homosexual marriage debate. Many homosexualist-apologists don’t consider marginality and so make important mistakes.

Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.

A very common response to this is essentially to mock this as ridiculous. “Why on earth would it make any difference to me whether gay people are getting married? Why would that change my behavior as a heterosexual”

To which social conservatives reply that institutions have a number of complex ways in which they fulfill their roles, and one of the very important ways in which the institution of marriage perpetuates itself is by creating a romantic vision of oneself in marriage that is intrinsically tied into expressing one’s masculinity or femininity in relation to a person of the opposite sex; stepping into an explicitly gendered role. This may not be true of every single marriage, and indeed undoubtedly it is untrue in some cases. But it is true of the culture-wide institution. By changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial underpinning.

To which, again, the other side replies “That’s ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!

Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. “That’s ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!” This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can’t justify sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he’s only making 60 cents on the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity. Similarly, you–highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you–may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn’t mean that the institution of marriage won’t be weakened in America just the same.

Jane has a second insight. Homosexualists may be trying to change the definition of marriage for the first time in history.

Also, a lot of readers are saying that I’m wrong about marriage always being between a man and a woman, citing polygamy. I have been told this is a “basic factual error.”

No, it’s not. Polygamous societies do not (at least in any society I have ever heard about) have group marriages. Men with more than one wife have multiple marriages with multiple women, not a single marriage with several wives. In fact, they generally take pains to separate the women, preferably in different houses. Whether or not you allow men to contract for more than one marriage (and for all sorts of reasons, this seems to me to be a bad idea unless you’re in an era of permanent war), each marriage remains the union of a man and a woman.

No to New Style Marriage.

Federalism on Homosexualism

House OKs citizen vote on gay marriage,” by Jean Hopfensperger and Conrad Defiebre, Star Tribune, 1 April 2005, http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5323674.html (from Democratic Underground).

Governor of Maine Signs Gay Rights Bill,” by Glenn Adams, Associated Press, 1 April 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4906031,00.html (from Democratic Underground).

Different states, different policies. The beauty of federalism.

Minnesota is pondering upping its legislative institution on heterosexual marraigesto a constitutional one.

A controversial bill to let voters decide whether to put a ban on same-sex marriages in the state Constitution was approved by the Minnesota House on Thursday on a vote of 77 to 56.

If the bill passes the Senate, voters in the 2006 election would consider a constitutional amendment to limit marriage or “its legal equivalent” to “only a union of one man and one woman.”

Although Minnesota law already bans same-sex marriage, the amendment is needed to thwart potential court challenges, proponents argued during a heated floor debate.

While Maine decides individuals have too muh freedom. Here come the state controls:

Gov. John Baldacci on Thursday signed legislation that protects gays and lesbians from discrimination. Within hours, a religious group launched a campaign to overturn the new law.

“This act not only offers essential civil rights, but serves as a welcome,” the Democratic governor told supporters who packed the State House Cabinet Room. “Our doors are open to all people. This is a proud day for Maine.”

The law, which received final House and Senate passage Wednesday night, takes effect in late June.

The measure amends the Maine Human Rights Act by making discrimination illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education based on sexual orientation or gender. Maine law now prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, disability, religion, ancestry and national origin.

The new law will exempt religious organizations that do not receive public funds. It also makes clear the law does not condone or authorize gay marriages.

Of course, the news from Minnesota is happier than the news from Maine. Minnesota is defending the status quo, while Maine is sweepign away horizontal bonds with vertical controls. Maine’s unease with private property and freedom of association is obvious (though Augusta has yet to legalize homosexualist marriages).

But on another level, this is good news. Federalism gives voters more power because decisions are made closer to them. Minnesotans may have one future worth creating, Mainites another. This is preferable to nation-wide laws, which the left pushed a few decades ago and the right pushes now.