Moral squalor, or worse
Feb. 18th, 2005 08:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumJohn Derbyshire is an ass.
Not surprising, he writes for the NRO.
My own inclination, therefore, is to believe that most homosexuality is inborn, or acquired early in life, possibly by infection, or by biochemical imbalances in the womb, perhaps helped along by some genetic predisposition. As I have said, the human personality is a thing of fantastic complexity and mystery, and I am sure there are cases of socialization, "imprinting," and conversion (in both directions), too. These are, however, fringe phenomena, occurring in small numbers. Most homosexuality is, I believe, inborn, or acquired very early in life...
I can't even agree with the Roman Catholic church that homosexuals are "called to chastity." While I have nothing against chastity per se — I think it can be an honorable choice for a person to make in some circumstances, and would even go so far as to say that I believe the very low status of chastity in popular culture is regrettable — it seems to me arrogant and unkind to tell people that they are "called to chastity" if they do not hear the call themselves.
So far so good. Homsexuals are what they are. (I disagree that it makes any difference whether it's a choice or not. So long as it doesn't harm others I think you should be allowed free reign. Polygamy, polyandry, live in a commune and threaten to overthrow the gov't, veganism, choose to make a living with a banjo in the street; no skin off my nose. Start marrying 12 year olds, or actually try to overthrow the gov't [and, depending on circumstance, I might be willing to go along with you] and things are different).
But he goes on (you knew he would, or 1: the NRO wouldn't be likely to publish it, and 2: I'd not be venting)Homosexual behavior is a social negative, suggesting as it does that normal heterosexual pairing, the bedrock institution of all societies, is merely one of a number of possible, and equally moral, "lifestyles," and thereby devaluing that pairing — perhaps, on the evidence from Scandinavia presented by our own Stanley Kurtz on this site, fatally. Male homosexuality is also the source of public-health problems (and was so even before the rise of AIDS).
Forget the unsustantied allegation in the last sentence, look at the middle bit, the bit about heterosexual unions being devauled if any other lifestyle is seen as equal, because that will come up later. How does it follow? Everytime this general argument (that homosexuals being more than just quietly tolerated) comes up there is the vaguely worded, never clarified, threat to the straights. What is the that threat? That someone elses love diminishes mine?
Or is it that there is something wrong with homsexuality? And that wrong being allowed to survive in the open really does cause a harm, because it lets that wrong set an example. If that's the case abusive spouses, philandering husbands (Gingrich comes to mind, as he dumped not one, but two wives when they were mortally ill) the sexual harrasser; who doesn't get fired, but rather sees the victim off and then gets promoted, the disparity between the pay of men and women; and the glass ceiling, and a raft of other social ills which straights perform, and are not condemned with anywhere near the vigor (and by some of those who are anti-gay, some of those are not sins, and certainly not crimes) reserved for homosexuals.
Back to Derbyshire, "Further, homosexuality is offensive to many believers in all three of the major Western religions, who form a large majority of the American population. I think that while minority rights ought to be respected, civic majorities ought not be asked to endure offense for the sake of abstract metaphysical or juridical theories, unless dire and dramatic injustices like slavery are in play. Majorities have rights too; and while I want to see minority rights respected, I don't think that every minor inconvenience consequent on being a member of a minority should be raised to the level of an intolerable injustice requiring drastic legislative or judicial remedy. We all have to put up with some inconveniences arising from our particular natures.
So there it is. Yep, they can't do anything about it, but unless, "dire and and dramatic injustices like slavery are in play," minorities just have to suck it up, and accept a second class status.
Because that is what he is saying. If it doesn't rise to slavery's level, it doesn't matter. This is the extension of that zero-sum value he puts on marriage (anything which isn't 1/1 male/female diminishes a 1/1 male/female pairing), because, since monogamous straight marriage is the majoritarian view, then they shouldn't have to be shocked to see a muslim with three wives, or a wiccan with two husbands, or a group marriage of three women and three men (with some non-straight subsets in the mix, and some straight).
Nope, that would make them feel they were lessened. Since they are the majority, and it isn't slavery, just love we get to trample their pursuit of happiness.
If we want to extend this thinking is could be used to justify the glass ceiling, lower pay for non-whites (though one wonders if his tune will change when whites are just a plurality... maybe being the larger plurality will be the equivalent of being a majority) and many other social ills I'm against.
Not surprising, he writes for the NRO.
My own inclination, therefore, is to believe that most homosexuality is inborn, or acquired early in life, possibly by infection, or by biochemical imbalances in the womb, perhaps helped along by some genetic predisposition. As I have said, the human personality is a thing of fantastic complexity and mystery, and I am sure there are cases of socialization, "imprinting," and conversion (in both directions), too. These are, however, fringe phenomena, occurring in small numbers. Most homosexuality is, I believe, inborn, or acquired very early in life...
I can't even agree with the Roman Catholic church that homosexuals are "called to chastity." While I have nothing against chastity per se — I think it can be an honorable choice for a person to make in some circumstances, and would even go so far as to say that I believe the very low status of chastity in popular culture is regrettable — it seems to me arrogant and unkind to tell people that they are "called to chastity" if they do not hear the call themselves.
So far so good. Homsexuals are what they are. (I disagree that it makes any difference whether it's a choice or not. So long as it doesn't harm others I think you should be allowed free reign. Polygamy, polyandry, live in a commune and threaten to overthrow the gov't, veganism, choose to make a living with a banjo in the street; no skin off my nose. Start marrying 12 year olds, or actually try to overthrow the gov't [and, depending on circumstance, I might be willing to go along with you] and things are different).
But he goes on (you knew he would, or 1: the NRO wouldn't be likely to publish it, and 2: I'd not be venting)Homosexual behavior is a social negative, suggesting as it does that normal heterosexual pairing, the bedrock institution of all societies, is merely one of a number of possible, and equally moral, "lifestyles," and thereby devaluing that pairing — perhaps, on the evidence from Scandinavia presented by our own Stanley Kurtz on this site, fatally. Male homosexuality is also the source of public-health problems (and was so even before the rise of AIDS).
Forget the unsustantied allegation in the last sentence, look at the middle bit, the bit about heterosexual unions being devauled if any other lifestyle is seen as equal, because that will come up later. How does it follow? Everytime this general argument (that homosexuals being more than just quietly tolerated) comes up there is the vaguely worded, never clarified, threat to the straights. What is the that threat? That someone elses love diminishes mine?
Or is it that there is something wrong with homsexuality? And that wrong being allowed to survive in the open really does cause a harm, because it lets that wrong set an example. If that's the case abusive spouses, philandering husbands (Gingrich comes to mind, as he dumped not one, but two wives when they were mortally ill) the sexual harrasser; who doesn't get fired, but rather sees the victim off and then gets promoted, the disparity between the pay of men and women; and the glass ceiling, and a raft of other social ills which straights perform, and are not condemned with anywhere near the vigor (and by some of those who are anti-gay, some of those are not sins, and certainly not crimes) reserved for homosexuals.
Back to Derbyshire, "Further, homosexuality is offensive to many believers in all three of the major Western religions, who form a large majority of the American population. I think that while minority rights ought to be respected, civic majorities ought not be asked to endure offense for the sake of abstract metaphysical or juridical theories, unless dire and dramatic injustices like slavery are in play. Majorities have rights too; and while I want to see minority rights respected, I don't think that every minor inconvenience consequent on being a member of a minority should be raised to the level of an intolerable injustice requiring drastic legislative or judicial remedy. We all have to put up with some inconveniences arising from our particular natures.
So there it is. Yep, they can't do anything about it, but unless, "dire and and dramatic injustices like slavery are in play," minorities just have to suck it up, and accept a second class status.
Because that is what he is saying. If it doesn't rise to slavery's level, it doesn't matter. This is the extension of that zero-sum value he puts on marriage (anything which isn't 1/1 male/female diminishes a 1/1 male/female pairing), because, since monogamous straight marriage is the majoritarian view, then they shouldn't have to be shocked to see a muslim with three wives, or a wiccan with two husbands, or a group marriage of three women and three men (with some non-straight subsets in the mix, and some straight).
Nope, that would make them feel they were lessened. Since they are the majority, and it isn't slavery, just love we get to trample their pursuit of happiness.
If we want to extend this thinking is could be used to justify the glass ceiling, lower pay for non-whites (though one wonders if his tune will change when whites are just a plurality... maybe being the larger plurality will be the equivalent of being a majority) and many other social ills I'm against.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 05:11 pm (UTC)The most rational argument I ever heard came from a Southern baptist minister whose line of thinking went as follows:
Men have man parts and know what feels good on man parts. Women might be familiar with man parts, but they will never be as familiar as men are with their own equipment. Therefore another man will always be able to give his male lover greater sexual satisfaction than a female lover due to this greater expertise. If homosexuality were ever on a completely level playing field with heterosexuality, no man would have any reason to pick a female lover over a male lover. That's why they call it 'defending marriage' - because the inferior thrill of heterosexual coupling would disappear if homosexuality were accepted. It is only our society's unflinching intolerance of homosexuality which stands between our species and extinction.
"Most rational argument" or "most closeted preacher"? I report, you decide.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 11:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-19 02:38 am (UTC)It's bullshit of course.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 05:42 pm (UTC)The same way that membership in a social organization is devalued when blacks, or Jews, or women are let in. It's a zero-sum game, as you said. If someone different from me gets what has been exclusive to my kind, of course it lessens the value for me. Perfectly obvious.
There you go. (Or, in Minnesotan, thuryago.)
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 08:00 pm (UTC)John Harrington may have been the first English-language thinker to express the idea that an ideal country would be populated only by free landowners and their servants. In North America, Thomas Jefferson was one of many who felt this way. And the Confederacy fought for this ideal (we will not discuss New Orleans and other disgraces).
I've spent most of my adult live living in cities. The urban lifestyle was praised by the Athenians and Romans, among others. It's a tradition nearly as old as the farming tradition.
Outlaw suburbs!!! I should not have to deal with people depraved enough to choose a suburban lifestyle!
New Orleans is *French*!!!
Date: 2005-02-19 12:14 am (UTC)(Down with the city-states! If there wasn't any Athens, Socrates wouldn't have been able to corrupt its youth...)
Of course, when you start thinking about those Georgian-era WASPS with their neoclassicism, and their latter-day worshippers, and the sexual purity thing, it all goes very...*strange.* At least if you know anything about Ancient Greece and Rome... (IIRC there's also a bit in the Anabasis where Gen. Xenophon confronts someone in the army who's been trash-talking him as a traitor and tries to find out what his grievance is, and says "did I take some boy or girl away from you?" The ancients were a) pretty zealous defenders of one man for one woman [of respectable family], domesticated female broodmare sort of thing, Schlafly couldn't disapprove of their going on about modesty and chastity and all - but b) boy howdy did they enjoy their recreational sex for males, with as many of either sex (or none, eunuchs had their value too) as a freeborn man could afford.
Didn't seem to stop them from reproducing, *or* winning wars, either...
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 09:52 pm (UTC)The argument that it is a zero-sub game, is, of course, seriously flawed. I leave it up to the reader to come up with counter arguments (as I must run and am too lazy to do so myself).
Dead on
Date: 2005-02-21 02:20 pm (UTC)