Moderates United

The more I grow, the more I realize the value of curiosity.  I truly think, in the end, this is the most important virtue.  It is the virtue which connects you with life. Love, in my view, flows from curiosity, which is the first step in an affirmative life path.

Specifically, what I am realizing is that every grain of our bodies is suffused with experience, some of it good, and some of it what we label bad.  And what I am realizing, in my own healing, is that my task it not just to accept the bad, but to enter into it with curiosity, which, again, is the opposite of trauma.

You have to be able to explore a house of horrors–something from a Saw movie–with openness and curiosity.  It is all gone now.  The terror is gone.  The novelty and newness and unexpectedness is gone.  But it is still there. The memories are still there.  There is a gallery in my consciousness that welcomes me, that welcomes my visiting, that wants to make my acquaintance, that wants to tell me its story openly, rather than through symptoms it is forced to use to capture my attention and maintain its own sense of existence.

The task is to do this exploration, not with fascination or repulsion, but with curiosity and interest.  To CONNECT with it in a relaxed, perambulating way.

My shaking is not going to kill me.  Accepted, it is not that unpleasant.  My task is to “massage” it–to take a term directly from Kum Nye, where mNye means “massage”: to loosen it up, to give it space, to let it breathe, to give it life and wings and release it.

I get glimpses of light sometimes.  I felt a powerful rainbow last night, and it made me very sad.  That was a small blink of the home we all come from, and are destined to return to.  It is so hard to remember light, living in such a dark place.

A free society is one in which people are free to speak their mind without fear.  It may and should be the case that for every one viewpoint there is a vigorous counter-point. If I question whether or not homosexual marriages are intrinsically and qualitatively no different from two parent heterosexual homes–and of course I’m leaving aside the fact that homosexual marriages can and do break apart as well (I have no idea what the rate is, or if anyone does)–then I accept, absolutely and with an absolute sense of duty, that someone may dispute this.  All I ask is that reason be used.

Researching this, it appears most studies that Google links to show that the parenting outcomes are equivalent: http://www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspx 

And here: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

Here is a different angle: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.html

Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rejects the right of any legal authority anywhere in the United States to treat other-than-heterosexual couplings differently in any respect.  Gay and transgender, and cross-dressing and all other couples have the same rights to adopt and raise kids, and nobody can say otherwise without an expensive lawsuit they will lose.

Let us say 20 years go by, and sufficient freedom still exists for someone to survey the children of these groupings, and they find that there are consistent, negative outcomes associated with being raised in an other-than-heterosexual home.  Let us say there are higher rates of alcoholism and drug abuse.  Since homosexuals are alcoholics and drug abusers at higher rates, this seems not unreasonable.  Higher suicide rates.  Higher rates of depression, both of which already are more common among homosexuals, and in my view not primarily because of alleged “homophobia”.

Does the Left take account of these facts and reconsider?  When does it EVER reconsider?

Over 100 years ago, John Ruskin, in his essay “Unto This Last”, argued that a minimum wage should be paid to people–a high minimum wage at that–EVEN IF this caused increases in unemployment.  His reasoning: we can only be held accountable for the principle upon which we act, not for outcomes.  He actually said this.

As I say over and over and over, though, Goodness is wisdom, and wisdom seeks the best possible outcome for all involved.  It does not privilege one group and ignore the rest. This is the very dynamic it theoretically opposes, not what it supports (although of course in practice it is quite anti-egalitarian, and quite elitist).

As a society, I feel it is incumbent upon us to give children the very best possible chance of thriving.  This experiment, of course, has not been done, and I cannot speak to its results.

But ask yourself, if you have seen the movie Bird Cage, if that was a healthy family?  Ask yourself if this young man is not wanting to get married in no small measure to establish his own masculinity and heterosexuality in a home dominated by a neurotic cross-dressing homosexual?

These can be asked.  They SHOULD be asked.  This is not unreasonable, and it is not hate.   Hate is making of people objects.  That is not my task here. That is never my task.

There are two things that bother me, not about the outcome of allowing gay marriage, but the process used to make it happen.  As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m not gay, so I don’t care.  Like exactly what heterosexual couples do behind closed doors–and that can get quite weird, too, as we continue to see from the popularity of 50 Shades–it doesn’t affect me.

I do care about the future of children, though, who in theory are under the protection of “society”, of which I am a member.

Here are my two issues:

1) The debate is not a debate, in the sense that both sides treat the other with civility and respect.  What has happened is that one side–well organized, and well funded, presumably by radicals–has initiated and sustained a campaign of relentless attack against anyone who still believes, now, what nearly everyone believed 15-20 years ago.  We are called bigots if we even question the idea that homosexual couples are in EVERY respect identical to heterosexual couples.  We are called hateful.

We can legitimately question any popular narrative which uses the category “thought crime”, which this movement clearly does.  They don’t have the power, yet, to arrest and “educate” people who disagree with them, but I get the clear sense that if they did, they would do it.  That is the level of hatred, and narrow self righteousness, and intolerance.

And I was thinking the other day that all you need to indoctrinate/propagandize a population are two things: an Other-Directed populace, and control of the information sources, which in this and most countries would be the universities and mass media.  The churches would be nice, but they aren’t there yet, although the current Pope seems willing to play ball on some issues.

How do you create Other Directed people?  Eliminate moral principle.  Moral Relativism is both necessary and sufficient for this purpose.  Once you cannot reason your way to a moral conclusion based on basic principles which are unquestionable, then you are cut adrift.  The only principle, really, that remains in play for these people is conformity.  I have said this often.  They claim to hate hate, but if they use the vehicle of hate–which they plainly do, as you can see in less than a minute if you visit any hard core left wing website–then hate, per se, is clearly not something they reject, or really even have the psychological sophistication to recognize. If somebody tells them to shout because someone is being “oppressed”–even if that alleged oppression is actually the long term outcome of policies they are touting on other days–then they do it.

This is an ugly dynamic, and should be opposed for that reason alone.  I say this based upon the principle that mutual respect and toleration and peaceful dialogue are essential elements in a truly Liberal order, and are necessary for the maintenance of personal and political freedoms.  I can derive this principle from observation.  I need appeal to no immanent element in Reality.  I need appeal to no God.  Simple contemplation and reflection offers this up readily.

And we need to be clear that on the reading of nearly all Christians homosexuality is wrong.  Historically, the wickedness of sodomy was understood clearly.  This makes homosexuality very different from racism.  There is nothing in the Bible that says black people need to be persecuted.  It does reference slavery in the Old Testament, but in those days most of the slaves would have been Semitic, and even those were to be released into freedom every 50 years.  You cannot reference a Bible verse saying a black man cannot marry a white woman, or vice versa.

Thus, the entire enterprise RESTS on an assumption that Christians have NO RIGHT to practice their religion as they see fit. It seems obvious that some of these gays SEEK OUT Christians–PERSECUTE Christians–not because no one else has an interest in practicing their business and making the money their business was set up to make by baking them wedding cakes.  Making the cake is the most obvious thing.  Like every other small business in the Obama Economy, I would assume cake decorators are facing tough times.  The overwhelming presumption is that absent STRONG objections, they will take gay cash as equal in every way to any other cash.

But you really can’t compare this issue to the civil rights movement, for these reasons.  This entire issue is very plainly a wholesale and State-sponsored assault both on religion, and the right to freedom of speech and conscience.

2) The violence of this non-debate prevents the very important discussion of whether or not gay-ness tends to be a function of sexual or other trauma. I personally think it does, in a very high percentage of cases.  This does not make it wrong or right, but it makes it a symptom of something which, in itself, creates unresolved unhappiness.  If you take some other symptom, say cutting, there is no moral content to it.  It is a reaction to something that person cannot process.  This does not make it healthy.  It is unhealthy, not in the sense that it does not provide relief to that person, not in the sense that it is not in some respects a healthy reaction to the situation, but in the sense that it indicates something deeper is not right.

I read this study, which could only be published somewhere like this: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/06/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

Identical twin studies, in my understanding, are pretty much the gold standard for teasing out genetics versus non-genetic correlations.  You can compare it with, say, this study which no doubt sought to address it: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes.html#.VWBuQ9JViko

But brothers have different DNA.  Non-identical twins have different DNA.  The New Scientist has a clearly left-wing bias.  They still believe in global warming, which in this day and age is farcical, in my view.  The SCIENCE does not support it.

So our best evidence, in clinical work done in the face of an enormous lobbying and bullying machine which no doubt opposed it, seems to be that homosexuality is the result of ENVIRONMENTAL factors.  Given that, as I have chronicled, homosexuals are prey to nearly every negative more than heterosexuals–emotional problems, substance abuse problems–is it not reasonable to at least SUPPOSE that we are dealing with the after-math of some traumatizing event?

And I will speculate what it is: a young 12-14 year old kid, alienated from family and friends, is seduced by an older gay man.  I have read articles by gays–current and former–who have said this was the mechanism of their own sexual imprinting.

Self evidently, child abuse can cause this.

Overall, what I want to say is that no good ever comes from suppressing ANY truth, no matter how painful or difficult, because in the end YOU CAN’T.  Truth always outs, even if in distorted, weird ways.  It can out through pervasive violence against those who disagree with the idea of gay marriage.  This is a psychological defense mechanism: violent suppression of difference.

Goodness is being able to live happily on your own, and taking genuine pleasure in the happiness of others.  What it is not is angry screaming, shaming, threatening, and suppression of honest dialogue.

I think it could be said that dissociated parts of ourselves are like ghosts trying to get our attention.  It is like they are trapped on the other side of a door, but they can pound on the door, whistle, and otherwise make noise.  This is what creates outwardly irrational behavior.  It is perhaps like they briefly take control of our bodies and make us do and say things we otherwise would not have.

The ONLY way to deal with this is to establish contact with them, through deep silence, and by making the effort to open communications.  I think most people have aspects like this, although it may be limited to trauma endurers.

I just made contact with some part of myself which got over the fence, and is back in-house.  It is like an old and wanted family member.

This all sounds crazy, but the fact is most of us ARE crazy but don’t know it, and the only way to go from being crazy while pretending to be sane is to pretend to be crazy while being sane. I believe I am well justified in my view that my reality testing is significantly better than most.

With an actual sense of responsibility comes thoughtfulness.

If there is no thoughtfulness, there is no sense of responsibility.  And with no responsibility there is no caring.

I think one could generalize and say that no thoughtless person can be said to be a good person.  Each will think according to their ability, of course, but it is the effort here which I have in mind.

But I will add this: in the latest Avengers, Captain America tells Iron Man that “every time somebody tries to win a war before it happens, innocent people die.  Every time.”


We need to look at the environmental nuts as trying to win a war against a disaster before it has even BEGUN to manifest.  The Earth is as likely to be cooling as warming, but the point is that they have revived the same arguments Malthus made over a hundred years ago, and that Paul Ehrlich and others made in the 1970’s.  Even though there is no sign of disaster, the solution must be the same, even if past solutions have already caused mass death and suffering.  The elites, self evidently, need fear none of the results of the policies they want to foist on the rest of us.


And self evidently there are always people in every time and place who crave power for the sake of power, and they are quite willing to ride the coattails of anyone who can hand them a throne and scepter.

I have spent more time than I care to contemplate debating global warming, and as far as I can tell, the only two GOOD data points for being able to tell if any of these computer models are even remotely correct are the maximum and minimum ice extents on each pole, and temperature readings in the upper atmosphere, where CO2 is the predominant forcing agent. Ground based temperature readings are a methodological nightmare, and seem in fact to have been deliberately skewed to yield the results wanted, which is the opposite of science.  

But we can take good pictures from space of both poles, and we can get good, real-time readings of temperatures in the stratosphere without any issues with things like “heat islands”, or lack of sensors. By BOTH measures, there is ZERO evidence that accumulating CO2 is causing warming. On the contrary, CO2 EMISSIONS have gone up a LOT since 1979, but the ice has not budged, and we are not seeing anything even close to what would be needed in the stratosphere. 

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a falsified hypothesis. I see no other credible way of looking at it, and my near certainty is that everyone at the core of the thing knows it. Their agenda is other than truth, or saving us from at least this species of environmental catastrophe.

I reflected the Autumn,
Mirrored the Summer.
I witnessed winter,
and saw the Spring.

I felt the dryness in the leaves,
and the wet of the rain.

I wandered the Earths winds
an infant Zephyr,
neither going nor coming,
never resting because I never
worked.

Not seeking, not finding, until
I realized my home was Change,
and it was the only home I would ever
know.

I woke up wondering this morning what would happen to our civilization (by the way, I looked up the etymology of this, and it amounts to “citizenification”, or making into citizens, which would bear some interesting observations I don’t have time for at the moment; my thought was that it came from city-fication, making into cities) if I could wave a magic wand and eliminate fear everywhere.

Why do people go to work?  In a great many cases, because they fear getting fired.  They fear not having money and shelter.  The gears of our mechanical order would stop working smoothly.  It depends on fear.  Much of what you see built depended in part on fear.  Not all of it: much work happens through creative engagement and interest. This is good.

What would happen in the Middle East?  I suppose the descendants of those who lived in the Ottoman Empire and British Protectorate, and were displaced by a war they supported but lost, would still hate the Jews, because that conflict is about vanity, greed, and hatred, but I wonder if people like those who populate ISIS would not evaporate.  Their whole creed depends on fear.  The entire Koran consists in little but operant conditioning, little but offering rewards to the pious and infinite pain on those who fail to submit to the Islamic structure of behavior and belief.

What would happen in totalitarian states?  Cuba?  What if everyone stopped fearing the government en masse and at once?  What would happen in Cuba, if the massive forces responsible for repressing the many thousands of very justified riots they see–because their system is fundamentally inhumane and injust, and vastly inferior in every respect to our own, as imperfect as it is–stopped fearing losing their jobs and being themselves repressed?  What if everybody rose up against the creatures who enrich themselves by enslaving the masses in the name of democracy, freedom and equality?

What if I had no fear?  What if you had no fear?

Reality would be no different, but our relationship to it would be more honest, and our perception of our actual options broader and deeper.

What does it mean to accept yourself?  Does it not mean to stop attacking yourself?  And why do we attack ourselves? Is it not a relic of operant conditioning, in which we are (sometimes) rewarded for good behavior, but always punished for bad behavior? You associate pain with failure, with failing to meet some standard.