Category Archives: Homosexuality

Homosexuality (only for the trivia)

I thought I would just make 3 unfounded points with a rainbow (no irony intended) summary point at the end, but I found I had too much to say,” by “Aaron,” tdaxp,, 11 January 2005.

Free from the constraints of the practical, I give a rambling reply to Aaron’s well-thought-out post.

“I thought I would just make 3 unfounded points with a rainbow (no irony intended) summary point at the end, but I found I had too much to say.

1. Few people have ever chosen to be gay.
– A number would like not to be, I’m sure, but usually from societal pressure. Much like you can’t force yourself to be attracted to a man, homosexuals cannot force themselves to be “normal” and be attracted to a woman. I challenge you to find me evidence to the contrary, and the Cato Institute and National Review don’t count. I’ve read accounts of the anguish faced by homosexuals who are attempting to “normalize” themselves, whether through counseling or faith. The Mormons will even find you a wife to help you get back to being “normal.” A fair number of these accounts end with suicide. Homosexuality is not a choice. The anguish caused by homosexuality is the fault of intolerant society. Substitute “black” or “mentally disabled” or “short” into your arguments and hear how disgusting you sound.

I agree that few males have chosen to be homosexual. As far as I know National Review has never published an articles to the contrary, and CATO’s socially libertarianism would make them unlikely to pursue one. Likewise, few people have chosen not to be homosexual.

Homosexual anguish has several causes. Social incompatibility is not the least among them, but others are clear too. All-male circles have less impulse-control than all-female or mixed circles. So male homosexuals can be expected to engage in more actions with less forethought than others. Related to this is their status as disease vectors. In other words, dumb decisions makes death makes people sad.

“Black” cannot be substituted because blackness does not determine behavior.

“Mentally disabled” is a status of injury. Mental disability overwhelmingly affects behavior. It is an extremely wide category, but its fair to say that a good portion of the anguish the mentally disabled, or any disabled, feel is because they are disabled. That is, because of real concrete disabilities that prevent them from pursuing their dreams.

“Short” is ambiguous. Midgets clearly are physically disabled, while the shorter-than-average or just shorter-than-average.

So to substitute with the sentence, “Homosexuality shall be eliminated”

Substituting “blacks” makes the sentence bizarre and implies genocide or at the very least vast biological interference. Substituting “mentally disability” makes the sentence hopeful — if all the sick were cured, and illness became preventable, we would live in a happier world. Substituting “shortness” is just weird.

2. Homosexuality is optional for a society.
– For a society perhaps, but not for an individual. However, there are other entirely optional things to society that I don’t see you rallying against. Let me list them:
– Biased news.
– Alcohol.
– Faith (even if it’s only for the trivia).

I agree that a homosexual individual would be hard-pressed to call his status “optional.” But more importantly…

Biased news and propoganda have existed in every society ever. Even if objectivity were possible, there are real society forces that warp news to make it pleasing to certain powers. No society has ever escaped this. This is as good as “proof” that biased news will always exist as is possible.

Alcohol is one of many drugs. Perhaps knowledge of fermentation can be supressed. But what society has been free of artificial stimulation? From alcohol to tobacco to marijuana to opium to incense stimulants worm there way in.

Faith comes from a Greek word that means “trust.” In Modern English it means “Faith in a higher order.” Whether God, the laws of nature, or History, faith seems inescapable.

When I say “homosexuality is optional” I do not mean “homosexuality can be expunged to create a virtuous society.” I mean “homosexuality has not existed in the vast majority of societies in human history.” Which leads to…

3. Gays have been persecuted a great deal throughout history. It’s not passed on as a genetic trait (that I’ve seen proven, anywhere). Natural selection should have taken care of it by now if it were. Again, few people have chosen to be gay and a large number would rather they weren’t.

It seems likely that some combination of genetics and socialization leads to homosexuality. I have no evidence — it just sounds right. But more substantively…

Gays have not been persecuted a great deal throughout history. If they were, we would see the ordinances of persecution. We would see somewhere the prohibitions. We would see something better than the weird, oddly-worded, and shellfish-strewn wreckages in Leviticus.

This is what I meant by “homosexuality is optional.” That it mostly does not exist.

Later, abbreviating some…

Heterosexuals spread disease as easily as homosexuals. The stigma that they’re carriers for HIV/AIDs is a holdover from the 80s, when the disease was misunderstood. The same measure of protection a heterosexual takes can prevent a homosexual from catching / spreading disease. Statistics might support your arguments,

Ok. So what I write is not a relic from the 1980s. Its statistics. The better AIDS is understood, the more the impact of homosexuals as vectors is known. One can argue that this classification is unfair, but its a conclusion that comes from the facts.

but they’d also support the following statements: blacks are criminals, young people are bad drivers, the Pope is Catholic.

If you correct for income, population size, and single-parenting, do you see more black criminals than white criminals? No. Because race does not change behavior.

If you correct for income, population size, and single-parenting, do you see more young bad drivers than middle aged bad drivers? Of course. Because young people have less impulse control and less fear than middle aged drivers. Youth is always everywhere a time of less control.

Statistics show post-correction differences between youth and non-youth and homosexuals and non-homosexuals because those categories matter. Such differences dissappear for blacks because race does not.

There are those that glorify the lifestyle and seek attention and perhaps some are driven to it by an out of control libido. For them, homosexuality may be a choice. But for the young man who hides something he cannot control, who fears persecution from an intolerant family and society, who tries to find solace in therapy or faith, only to be let down, I think the “opportunity cost” of homosexuality should have driven him to normalcy by now. So why did he kill himself rather than get married, raise 2.5 children, and buy a little white house out in the suburbs?”

Homosexuality, like first language, seems to be determined in childhood. The purpose of denormalization is prevention, not cure.


!!?,” by “Aaron,” tdaxp,, 10 January 2005.

With incredulity, and without knowing that he would incite a rant, Aaron writes


So you’re applauding that they have no resources to counsel victims of anti-homosexual harassment

Yes, to precisely the same extent that I am happy we have no resources to counsel victims of anti-racist harassment.

Homosexuality, like feminism and racism, is invented. It doesn’t exist historically — most humans have lived and died without its existence, and after it dies humanity will continue on.

Like a great disaster, these calamnities have struck with total disregard for their victims. The shortened and isolated lives of male homosexuals is heartbreaking. Even if your heart is callous, they act as super-spreaders enabling viri to lay waste to great nations.

Fortunately, we live in a world that naturally destroys artificial forces. In human societies “normal” is a very powerful force. Twisted regimes like Imperial Japan or Ba’athi Iraq can teach young men that admiring suicide-kilers is “normal.” If a society wishes to encourage an action, it makes it normal. It normalizes that action. Conversely, a society makes abnormal or denormalizes anything it wishes to destroy.

In New York City, Mayor Guiliani significantly reduced violent crime by persecuting petty offenders. Because the consequences of any run-in with the law were so severe, less people committed petty crimes and so law-abiding became “normal.” In New York State, Attorney General Spitzer is trying much the same with white-collar crime.

Counseling for homosexuals as homosexuals would normalize male homosexuality. The absense of such support denormalizes it. Do I think any significant number of current homosexuals will change, or that their anguish will be lightened by such a denormalization? No, and for the sake of the future, that’s not too relevant, either.

In the parlance of swaydo logic


1. Male homosexuality causes anguish
2. Male homosexuality is optional for a society
3. Denormalization can be used to end any behavior
4. It is right to end behavior that causes anguish


Male homosexuality should be denormalized to end it and lessen anguish



Gay Students Being Left Behind Study Shows ,” by Doreen Brandt,, Washington Bureau,, 6 January 2005 (from Democratic Underground).

Sometimes, a post should be written specifically to irritate Rob.

Good news

(Washington) A national study of schools shows that 95 percent have little or no gay, lesbian or bisexual resources in their counseling services and only one percent have transgender resource.

Better news

The results, released Thursday, show schools are not responding to the needs of gay students.

Best news

Seventy percent of the school had no training for educators/staff on how to stop GLBT bullying and 92 percent had no programs to train students how to stop GLBT bullying.

Nearly two thirds of the schools did not include gay, lesbian or bisexual students in their harassment/non-discrimination policies, and 84 percent had little or no resources for parents about GLBT issues.

“Natural” human behavior covers a wide range of activities. Certainly more than are appropriate for polite conversation. But not every “natural” act is naturally tolerated, or naturally normal. If homosexualists argue that their behavior is natural, then so is the deviation and stigmatization that behavior implies.

Homosexual Kidnap Plot Foiled

Two women, two states, one child,” by Chrstina Nuckols, The Virginian-Pilot,, 13 December 2004.

For some reason I’m on a roll today. Synopsis: Blue-state Basic synposis: lesbian couple decide to entangle children in their relationship. One thinks better of it, moves to a Red-state. Spurned lesbian attempts to use Red-state court to kidnap child back. Red-state court refuses.

Vermont Renewal, an organization that opposes that state’s civil union law, has mailed fund-raising letters to its supporters in an effort to help Lisa raise money for her legal costs.

“Lisa is now a former lesbian,” the letter states. “With the help of counselors, church and caring Christian brother she has begun to turn her life around.”

The letter said Lisa wants full custody of Isabella because she “doesn’t want her child to be raised in a harmful, confusing, tormenting and psychologically damaging environment.”

But it gets better!

Leaders of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have urged caution in filing court challenges against state laws banning gay marriage. They are warning activists that more work needs to be done to build political and public support. However, Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the group, said child custody cases can’t be put on ice while that grassroots work is occurring.

As young Billy Cheney might text message: “101 0mg, 50 g4y, r07f1!!!111”

On Homosexuality

This is Not a Defense,” by “Aaron,” tdaxp,, 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.”

Derbyshire’s Homophobia

A Dance to the (Disco) Music of Time: A review of Homosexuality and Civilization, by Louis Crompton,” by John Derbyshire, The Claremont Institute,, 6 April 2004.

An interview with John Derbyshire,” Collected Miscellany,, 11 November 2003.

Derbyshire Interview Follow-Up,” Collected Miscellany,, 11 November 2003.

Here to Stay: We’re here, we’re mildly and tolerantly homophobic, get used to it!” by John Derbyshire, National Review Online,, 14 May 2004

In the middle of a fascinating interview on Wall Street, novel writing, and mathematics, a fascinating prediction and statement

This is probably going to happen to me sooner or later, actually. I am not very careful about what I say, having grown up in the era before Political Correctness, and never having internalized the necessary restraints. I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one…

Defending his views in a follow-on essay

I described myself as “a mild, tolerant homophobe.” This means that I do not like homosexuality, and I think it is a net negative for society. As a conservative, inclined to give the benefit of the doubt (when there is doubt) to long-established practices, I cannot help note that there has never been a human society, at any level of civilization, that has approved egalitarian (that is, adult-adult) homosexuality. Male-male buggery has been proscribed in every society that ever existed. I am inclined to think that there are good reasons for these universal prohibitions. To say the least of it, male homosexuality is very unhealthy–much more so than, for example, cigarette smoking. A lot of the people who howl “Homophobe!” at me whenever I write anything about this topic are people who have to swallow a bucket of pills eight times a day just to stay alive. Is it any wonder I have trouble taking them seriously?

Earlier in a book review, Derbyshire questions the meaning of homosexuality

His topic is, of course, homosexuality, and this raises a number of problems right away. What is homosexuality? The term is currently used in reference to those who find erotic fulfillment only with coevals of their own sex. A great deal of Crompton’s book, however, deals with different matters. Much of it is about ephebophilia, or boy-love, a phenomenon whose connection to homosexuality is unclear. Indeed, many present-day homosexualist propagandists insist hotly that there is no connection at all.

And Derbyshire quotes Sir Kenneth Dover as writing

If Spartans in the fourth century B.C. unanimously and firmly denied that their erastai and eromenoi [i.e., senior and junior partners in an ephebophilic bond] ever had any bodily contact beyond a clasping of right hands, it was not easy for an outsider even at the time to produce evidence to the contrary, and for us it is impossible.

Further in the review, he breaks the situation down into four kinds

Reading Professor Crompton’s book, I found that the most useful way of thinking about his topic was as a sort of dance—a “dance to the music of time,” as it were. (Apologies to the late Anthony Powell.) The participants in this dance are not individual human beings but invariant components of the human personality, found in all times and places. Principal among those components I would list the following:

* Homosexual orientation. Some small proportion of people find erotic fulfillment only with members of their own sex.

* Ephebophilia. Some much larger proportion of adult men can be sexually aroused by contemplating the bodies of well-formed adolescent boys. Overt expression of this attraction has been approved in some societies (or among some social strata in some societies—this seems to be controversial), where it has led to open romantic bonding between adult men and boys. Some similar, but much less historically significant, phenomenon is found among women.

* Faute de mieux homosexuality. In societies, or institutions in societies—monasteries, prisons, etc. —where social custom or institutional imperative severely constrains access to the opposite sex, some large proportion of adults, perhaps a majority, will find erotic satisfaction, or at least release, with members of their own sex, when there are not strong institutional prejudices against this (as there are, for instance, in elite combat units of the U.S. military).

* Homophobia. (Note: This ugly and etymologically stupid word has entered general currency, so I use it here for convenience, though under protest.) The contemplation of homosexuality induces negative emotions—disgust and contempt, mostly, but also sometimes indignation, anger, and hatred—in many people.

The story told in Homosexuality and Civilization is in large part the story of a long dance among these four partners, with sometimes this one, sometimes that one taking the lead. The well-known proclivities of the ancient Greeks, for example, arose mainly from the union of the second and third of the factors I have listed.

But perhaps this is fiddling while Rome burns

My personal bet is that homosexuality will disappear before homophobia does — possibly quite soon, in a generation or so. Here’s my logic: One of the least controversial things you can say about homosexuality is this: Practically nobody wants his kids to grow up homosexual. Some people mind the prospect more than others, but practically nobody welcomes it — not even, I should think, homosexuals. (One of the rare exceptions is Sharon Osbourne, who recently remarked: “My only regret in life is that none of my children are gay.” I doubt any very large number of Americans take Mrs. Osbourne as a parenting role model, though.)

Now, the trend in current research on homosexuality, if I have understood it correctly, suggests that the homosexual orientation is indeed mostly congenital — the result of events in the mother’s womb, or in early infancy, with perhaps some slight genetic predisposition. The thing is, in short, mainly biochemical — part of a person’s physical make-up.

Supposing this is true, let us conduct a wee thought experiment — admittedly a fanciful one. A young woman in the late stages of pregnancy, or carrying a small infant, shows up at her doctor’s office. “Doctor,” she asks, “is there some kind of test you can do to tell me if my child is likely to become a homosexual adult?” The doctor says yes, there is. “And,” the woman continues, “suppose the test is positive — would that be something we can fix? I mean, is there some sort of medical, or genetic, or biochemical intervention we can do at this stage, to prevent that happening?” The doctor says yes, there is. “How much does the test cost? And supposing it’s positive, how much does the fix cost?” The doctor says $50, and $500. The woman takes out her checkbook.

Of course this is not happening anywhere in the U.S.A. right now. If my understanding of the state of current research is correct, however, it might very well be happening on a daily basis ten years from now.

Thus ending the first well-written defenses of homophobia I have read.