I was thinking about this yesterday: which is the greater sin–two men or two women having sex with one another; or a father siring a son them abandoning him? In one case, the consequences are consensual, and negotiable; in the latter, lifelong pain is the result, and entirely beyond the control of the child.
Which is worse: homosexuality; or being married and betraying your spouse with infidelity?
Many, of course, would balk at linking homosexuality with sin at all. In my view, such people are simply unlucky. They are either born that way, or made that way through sexual and/or emotional trauma.
For some women, particularly, I think it may well be more emotionally satisfying, but seems not to be for men, who seem to retain their promiscuity in all too many cases, along with dramatically elevated levels, as a population, of drug and alcohol abuse.
Personally, I don’t care either way. They do what they do, and I do what I do.
I just thought it worth comparing some of the ways in which people hurt one another. Homosexuality does it not at all, at least in its basis. No one is hurt, and in general people are happier (at least than the alternative, which would involve suppressing some basic part of your identity), since sexual expression is a natural urge.
Edit: I will add to that that emotional expression is a natural urge, too, and probably more important. This ties in with my notion of “qualitative repression”, defined in my glossary of neologisms (and new uses of old words, which I propose to call neoarchaologism.)
Perhaps for now obvious reasons, my sexual activities would be roughly the same as they are now if were gay.
I will say I do in general stick to my principles, even if I do question them at times.
11 replies on “Homosexuality”
So gay people are unlucky for being gay? How full of yourself are you that you feel you can generalize an entire group of people like that?
That is my opinion, based on having known many of them. When they are happy–and I have no doubt many are–it appears to usually be "in spite of", rather than "because."
Like all affairs of life, it can be turned into a positive, but I don't think many parents hope their children are gay; nor do most kids hope they turn out that way.
That is the way I see it, and if you disagree, you certainly have that right. This is a highly subjective judgement.
I will reiterate, too, that I am not calling it a sin. Perhaps the word challenge might be better. It is perhaps a type of social handicap.
Obviously, the gay rights movement is oriented around eliminating through social change the possibility that it could be viewed as a handicap.
Yet, gay squirrels, if they exist, don't reproduce, and I don't think anyone can argue it is a "natural" condition. I think all gay people know this, and work around it.
Keynes and his ilk–politically motivated and volitional homosexuals–like homosexuality precisely because it was unnatural, and thus worked to decrease a population whose explosion they feared, laboring as they did under Malthusian delusions.
The challenge for gay people is not 'being gay' it's the close minded bigots who drive them to suicide or kill them themselves. That encapsulates your 'in spite of'.
If parents should want anything, it should be for their children to be healthy and happy in life. What their sexual orientation should not factor into their thoughts, except to hope that the people around their children are not individuals who view homosexuality as a 'social handicap'.
The only reason it is a social handicap–which really isn't true anymore, except in certain areas of the world (and this country)–is because of other people.
I've of course heard that argument, but I simply disagree, and you may not realize this but I HAVE THAT RIGHT. I don't think men fucking each other up the ass is natural. It is not natural for heterosexuals either.
A penis fits into a vagina. It was intended to. The instincts of men and women are complementary. This is the natural order. Women cannot impregnate women, and men cannot impregnate men.
What pisses me off about this whole debate, as it stands, is that homosexuals are not clamoring for the legal benefits of civil unions. I support them fully in that, and they seem already to have them in most States.
I support them fully in their claims to all civil rights granted to all Americans.
Marriage, however, is not a civil union. It is a contract initiated in a CHURCH, and witnessed within that church by God and Man, according to the beliefs of those in the ceremony. It is done in conformity to the Bible, which is an important source of faith and strength for many.
The demand of homosexuals that they get the word marriage attached to the legal document binding them is not intended to elevate their union–it adds nothing, particularly since churches which are so inclined can even now grant the word marriage to any pair they want, and many do; on the contrary, what the intent plainly is is to denigrate religion. This political agitation is intended to tear down, not create; reduce not raise.
I spend no time thinking about homosexuals and what they do. Why do they spend so much time thinking about attacking heterosexual institutions? What do they gain?
They gain revenge, that is what. They achieve a sense of importance through violence. That is ignoble, and I refuse to call it meritory.
Our task is to live with one another in peace, not to force others to submit to our views. You, if you are gay, are and should be quite free to do whatever you want. So should I.
If my views offend you, stop reading them. They are not offered in a vacuum: I have been around the block many, many times.
Actually I do realize that you have the right to disagree–where did I say you didn't?
Simply because my point of view is different then yours does not imply I don't think you have the right to have a different point of view. But apparently you do.
I was simply stating my point of view which happens to be in opposition to yours.
And which argument are you referring to? The one where parents should want their children to be happy? Or that the challenges for gay people are external?
And saying homosexuals are not clamoring for the same legal rights as straight people is very closed minded of you. As you said many states offer equality in that right, but the fact that they all don't is the point.
Marriage is a legal description of a union. Marriage does occur in different religions (Jewish, Hindi, Muslim, etc). Are those unions not marriage because they are not conforming to the Bible?
Yes, all those heterosexual institutions that they should just leave alone. Which are those again?
What violence has the gay community committed in order to achieve their goals? What revenge are they seeking?
Your views do offend me, but I'm not going to stop reading them.
But of course, if you feel that the ability to have a civil discussion on the matter is beyond your abilities, well, feel free to stop posting.
Several questions:
Do you understand the difference between the legal aspect of marriage–which for everyone is registered at City Hall–and the sacrament of marriage, for example as administered by the Catholic Church?
Is it your contention that absent "prejudice" that homosexuals would be as well-adjusted as heterosexuals, and that whatever issues they may have relative to the "straight" population relate entirely and with no exceptions to the attitude with which others confront them?
That's a starting point. We can carry on from there. Please see my most recent post as well.
Yes, I do understand the difference.
What I'm saying that the legal definition of marriage should include homosexuals, without it being called a civil union.
Absent prejudice, yes, I think gay people would be as well adjusted as straight people. In what way wouldn't they be in your mind?
Can you give me an example of an issue you think they would still hold if they had no prejudices forced upon them?
I saw your post. It looks like your were sticking me into the latter category, but it wasn't clear. I don't see anywhere in my posts how I fall there, but then again, who knows.
Let's deal with each topic, one at a time. For now: how do you define "marriage", and what is its proper purpose? Is there a difference between moral, legal, and religious marriage?
Marriage is just a legal definition of two individuals who have chosen to be together. I don't think people need to be married for the classic emotional construct of marriage to exist, however, it is their right.
Yes, there is a difference among them. I'm only discussing legal marriage; what are you defining as moral marriage?
I'm not saying churches need to change their definition of marriage (I wish they would, but its not that important to me). What I'm saying, specifically, as I said before, is that the legal definition of marriage should include hetero and homosexual couples.
Same question to you.
I would define marriage as a religious sacrament, administered by a church, in which a man and a woman are joined in the name of God, and with the purpose of creating a family with children.
Plainly, the Catholics, as one example, would have no use in the word marriage as applied to a coupling which in its very nature cannot produce children, at least within the relationship.
Everywhere in history you see the word marriage, you see the hope of a family, children, and grandchildren, as an INTRINSIC element.
Many societies have openly embraced homosexuality, such as those of the Greeks, the Persians (as I understand it) and the later Romans. Nowhere, however, did they attempt to attach the word marriage.
What I would term a moral marriage would be a joining of minds, combined with a joining of bodies. Clearly, there are homosexual couples who love one another. At the same time, the inner reality is what it is. It need appeal to no external authority. And when it is gone, so is the marriage.
A legal marriage is a contract in which the two parties bind their property and legal interests together. It makes it easier to parcel out property if one dies; in our age it makes it easier to get car insurance, health insurance, and the like.
What I would categorically support for homosexuals is a legal marriage, which I think ought propertly to be called a civil union, because that is descriptive.
What needs no legal nor public sanction is the moral marriage.
What in my view should be reserved for relationships which are intended to produce families is the actual word "marriage".
No legal benefit accrues to couples who can obtain legally equal relationships called civil unions.
Yet, in making the claim they should be able to use the word marriage, what they are asking of Christians is that they abandon their understandings of what that means, an understanding which is universal, as far as I can tell, spreading across all cultures and times. Only in our own time are homosexuals demanding the right to call themselves married, and not simply joined, or lovers, or partners, or companions.
To demand of the religious that they abandon a fundamental part of their identity is to my mind a type of abuse, an abuse that is not necessary. This is what I term violence.
I would ask: what exactly is it that homosexuals want to be able to do that they can't do within a civil union? The legal terms are the same. Their actual relationship is the same. All that differs is that they have not been granted a word which in my view is unsuitable for a relationship of the sort they have.
As far as unhappiness, I have known many homosexuals, and particuarly for men I simply don't think it is as satisfying as a male/female relationship. Clearly, it is better than ignoring or suppressing their nature, but not optimal. This is my opinion.
Likewise, for women I think they are often happier with other women than they would be with the average superficial, emotionally detached man, but that they would be happier bearing the children of their lovers and husbands and being mothers.
I suppose I could dig up something to justify this, but the reality is this is my nakedly biased opinion, one based on having met a LOT of very different people in my life.
Again, I am not condemning the homosexual lifestyle. Most people are unhappy. For homosexuals, I think their sexual identity plays into it, absent social judgement, which anymore is as far as I can tell muted to absent for most people.
Other people invent other reasons to be unhappy. Somehow this idea entered the public consciousness that life is supposed to be happy. What seems to bother you is the suggestion that homosexuals are necessarily going to have to struggle more than others. My attitude is that is a good thing. There is no way to tell what good sufferings will bring, if they are endured with patience and dignity.
I am not someone who offers myself much pity, and see no reason to pity others overly much. The situation always is what it is, and I admire those who deal with it. Those who wallow in self pity I ignore.