Tuesday, January 18, 2005
From American Spectator
Homo Sullivan quote:
As I've said many times, homosexuality is very easy to understand. It is exactly the same as heterosexuality, with the gender reversed. Gays, however, cannot expect straights to understand this all by themselves. It's up to us to explain, and keep explaining.
This feels somewhat reductionist to me. It's one thing to say that homosexual attraction is more than mere sexual desire, and that it has an emotional component comparable to heterosexual ardor. But calling something "the same as heterosexuality, with the gender reversed" begs a very important question -- namely, what happens when you reverse the gender? Unless you think that men are the same as women, doesn't it stand to reason that male-female and male-male relationships are going to be very, very different? (And that the same will go for gay relationships versus lesbian relationships, for that matter?)
For that matter indeed. Heterosexuality is sacred. It is marvelous exactly because it is not a fanatical obsession with your own self/sex (coupled with a dysfunctional incapability of relating heterosexually to the opposite sex). We have two sexes and without the coming together of the two, we don´t have a human race.
From Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | May 16, 2004 - The end of the gay marriage debate?
Those of us who think this week's revolution is a terrible mistake need to do a much better job of explaining that the core question is not "Why shouldn't any couple in love be able to marry?" but something more essential: "What is marriage for?" We need to convey that the fundamental purpose of marriage is to unite men and women so that any children they may create or adopt will have a mom and a dad.
Marriage expresses a public judgment that every child deserves a mom and a dad. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, says that the sexual and emotional desires of adults count for more than the needs of children. Which message do we want the next generation to receive?
"Same-sex marriage, by contrast, says that the sexual and emotional desires of adults count for more than the needs of children."
Not of any adults, but of homosexuals. In this society, homosexuals are considered much more important than children.
I think the biggest problem with a lot of conservative thought on same-sex marriage is that it has already fallen for the liberal-version-of-reality. Namely, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same, and consequently, homosexuals deserve the same rights in every way. The root of the problem starts there, not with discrimination of rights. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, neither should it be undestood or legitimized as such. That´s why the rights don´t apply in the same way. Homosexuality is a state of developmental dysfunction. Instead of society bending backwards to submit to every homosexual dysfunctional demand, it needs to rethink the basis for these claims in the first place.
If you posit that "there is nothing wrong or dysfunctional with homosexuality and that it equals heterosexuality," you cannot coherently argue that homosexuals do not have a right to everything heterosexuals have. The problem is this is false. It is a legitimating and equalizing homosexist tenet, not reality.
It is the same with obesity. A lot of obese children and adults are bullied and demeaned because of their weight problem. This is not right. However, the minute you have fat activists, not only complaining about this bashing, but claiming that there is nothing wrong or unhealthy with being obese (even extreme obesity), but, on the contrary, that it should be upheld as an example of health, society has fallen prey to a lie. And the minute people who say being obese is patently unhealthy are sued for a hate speech/thought crime or are labeled "full of hate," then you know that things have really gone awry.
[end of update]
The problem with homosexism is that it attempts to erase from conscience even the most basic truths about life and human beings. If you have dysfunctional people who cannot have healthy heterosexual relationships and they start to justify their homosexuality as being healthy, the only way they can do this is to go into denial about 99% of reality. Not to mention reason and logic.
It is exactly the same with justifications of pedophilia. What is the first thing that a pedophile activist will say about pedophilia? "It is just a misunderstood form of love. And the pedophile attraction itself is healthy."
Instead of going to deal with all their problems, they just want to legalize and legitimize them. Anyone who questions the gay agenda is demonized with utmost hatred and violence.
We are seeing more and more examples of gay activists having turned into dogmatic control freaks – they will listen to no one. Most people who do not endorse homosexuality have no hate in their hearts. But society must bow down to every gay dogma or they will burn you at the “fake-hate” stake. Homos are manipulative peaceful. If you don´t submit to what they want, they turn ugly and vicious and bash people with other viewpoints to the point of destroying careers, lives, and reputations. This is something they “forget” to mention when playing the victim card.
Another related problem with legitimizing homo and bisexuality that is hardly ever mentioned, finally gets a bit of attention at the American Scene. Incidentally, I can remember having a conversation about this problem no less than 7-8 yrs ago:
There's an increasingly commonplace belief, at least in the circles where I move, that anything the least bit odd (or "queer," if you will) in a male personality is best explained as a function of repressed homosexuality. If someone's the least bit effeminate, they're definitely gay; if they're bookish and sensitive, they're probably a closet case; and if they have any moral hangups about sex, especially if they're religious (I'll admit this last hits close to home), they're probably just repressing their shameful urges toward man-on-man action.
Thanks to homo activists wanting to shove homosexuality down society´s throat, this has become an obsession not only for slandering men as homos, but women as dykes in similar fashion. And it causes serious distress and damage to the targeted people. Obviously, no one cares about this, and the notion of people having a right to be "safe" from this is inexistent.
But if someone like Douthat is addressing it, it´s because it has gotten really bad. People would rather run away from the problem and what it entails, in order to continue fanatically legitimizing homosexuality.
None of this kind of stereotyping is new, of course -- it's the stock-in-trade of the high school locker room, and a reason why growing up can be so miserable for non-jockish, sensitive boys (gay and straight alike). But it's disconcerting to see it crop up among educated, well-meaning, self-consciously tolerant people...
The problem is what Douthat calls "educated, well-meaning, self-consciously tolerant people" are really just very ignorant, irresponsible, malicious, and arrogant people with a bloated idea of themselves. Pro-homosexuals have in many, many ways an extremely locker-room mind towards sexuality. And they think themselves so "progressive" and "hip" for it. Not to mention the self-righteousness.
This is one of the most striking social engineering features that homo activism has achieved in society. Additionally, thanks to a mix of the women´s movement with a new very sexist liberal culture, this male homosexist locker-room mindset has shaped more and more women´s and girls attitudes. We see a lot of young women specially who are a photocopy of this guys locker room type, even if they are not jocks themselves.
What's being erased is any masculine middle ground -- the ground of sturdy, affectionate male friendships, of gentlemanly conduct toward women, of unapologetic intellectualism. Or maybe it already has been erased. None of this is the fault of homosexuality, exactly . . . and as I'm sure Andrew would point out, telling gays to stay in the closet so that heterosexual men can feel comfortable with themselves isn't really an appealing option. But it's a depressing trend nonetheless -- particularly, I suspect, for the hetero women stuck choosing between frat boys and emo boys.
One thing at a time:
"What's being erased is any masculine middle ground -- the ground of sturdy, affectionate male friendships,"
"sturdy, affectionate male friendships" is what you have in heterosexuality. And it was not only that this was being erased, it´s being destroyed by forcing homosexuality into society as norm. Same for heterosexual friendships and women.
"of gentlemanly conduct toward women," - I think this depends on what circles you move in. It´s too hard to generalize one way or another, but I don´t see how it relates to homosexual social engineering.
"unapologetic intellectualism" - I don´t know what he was referring to here, criminalization of thought because of hate crime legislation?
"as I'm sure Andrew would point out, telling gays to stay in the closet so that heterosexual men can feel comfortable with themselves isn't really an appealing option." - It´s not a question of lying about your problems (i.e., closeting them). You go deal with your dysfunctions and then you are no longer homosexual and you don´t blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable with problems that you have.
Very, very similar to the SM defenders in this discussion.
Update Feb 6-2005
From comment on thread regarding same-sex marriage in Scrappleface:
Since 1973 the issue of declaring homosexuality OK by the APA has never been fully discussed.
And the same man who was instrumental in doing that, Dr. Spitzer, later did a bunch of studies that show sexual orientation is not unchangeable, presented in 2001:
"Contrary to conventional wisdom," he says, "some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation, and achieve good heterosexual functioning."
He added that change from homosexual to heterosexual is not usually a matter of "either/or," but exists on a continuum--that is, a diminishing of homosexuality and an expansion of heterosexual potential that is exhibited in widely varying degrees.
But, Dr. Spitzer said, his findings suggest that complete change--cessation of all homosexual fantasies and attractions (which is generally considered an unrealistic goal in most therapies) is probably uncommon. Still, when subjects did not actually change sexual orientation--for example, their change had been one of behavioral control and self-identity, but no significant shift in attractions--they still reported an improvement in overall emotional health and functioning.
This study is believed to be the most detailed investigation of sexual orientation change to date, in that it assessed a variety of homosexual indicators. Previous studies have usually assessed only one or two dimensions of sexual orientation, such as behavior and attraction.
However the media and homo activists drum, shout, yell the first APA statement, and persecute, hush, censor the second.
Do the words intolerant and bigoted come to mind?
Also, the above parallels a lot of psychological reports of pedophiles, i.e. how much they can change.
I think psychology is what needs to evolve, if it is ever going to aid these people. And notice that motivation is key. And how many studies that add to the above have yet to be done?
from Narth (a really good organization, btw)