RoR: Forum

Cameron, Logan,

Given my recent posts on this subject, I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

Then why do you do it?

Why are homosexuals so insecure? I would like to say heterosexuals do not feel it is necessary to convince homosexuals they are normal, which for obvious reasons (the fact most people are heterosexual for one thing) is not a good comparison. However, I suspect, in a world or society that was predominantly homosexual, this would still be the case.

A better example for me are Objectivists in a collectivist/altruist society. If you are the least bit vocal or active about your position regarding individual liberty and the oppression of the state (like stating flatly that public school teachers are essentially parasites and kidnappers) you receive plenty of abuse. I couldn't care less what people say about or to me. There is something essentially wrong with an Objectivist who claims what someone else says or thinks has anything to do with their own self-esteem. Since when are Objectivists second-handers basing their opinion of themselves on the views of others.

As I said in Post #11 What difference would it make, philosophically, if most of those who were Objectivists hated pistachio ice cream and thought there was something a bit odd about anyone who would actually prefer pistachio? I do not know about you, but I happen to like pistachio and I wouldn't care if the whole damn world called me queer (or anything else) for loving it.

I think the claim by homosexuals that their problems are the result of what other people say or think is a copout. It is the same claim of victimization all the other, "we have a claim on other's lives," looters make. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe everyone has a right say and promote whatever they like, and I will defend their right to claim their problems are somebody else's fault. What I cannot do is assure anyone else is going to swallow that line.

Look at what you say. How many young men and women have killed themselves because of that bigotry?

Neither suicide or any other action one chooses can be blamed on anyone else. This, "bigotry made me do," it is just another copout for irrational behavior.

How much carnage has it left in its wake, not just in terms of suicides but in people stricken by depression stemming from the self-hatred they have been *taught* to feel.

Yep. The homosexual's psychological problems are not their fault, its the fault of others who taught them what to feel. Here is an individual who has been taught all their life, "only this behavior is acceptable," which they have every right to reject and do, with total disregard to what they have been taught. They behave the way they choose to behave, and ought to. But, when it comes to their feelings, they immediately cave in and feel what they have been taught to feel. Nah. Not buying that.

Now I know you are likely to misjudge me. Personally, I don't care about that, but I would like to have the motives for what I say understood, if possible, so what I say can be understood.

There is one characteristic that is quite common to many homosexuals that I greatly admire and would like to see more of in the general community. It is a style, a flamboyance, a kind of defiance. It is an expression of, "it is my life and I don't have to explain or apologize for how I live it to anybody."

I think I know where it comes from. At some point, a homosexual realizes what he is, that he is not going to change and has no desire to, and "to hell with everyone else, that's the way it is." It is a kind of, "liberation," psychologically, that leads to the more public expression of it, called, "coming out."

I think homosexuality, the practice and ultimately the "life-style" is a chosen one, and I think it is a mistaken choice that harms the one that makes it. Nevertheless, I both appreciate and applaud those who make their choices boldly and in defiance of other's opinions, and take responsibility for their choices. The cry today that homosexuals are oppressed (because others do not like what they do and choose to express their opinions) and that all their problems are caused by someone else is shameful.

Regi

Post 21

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 10:00am

Hi, Regi.

You certainly have a way of putting a point on things that is on the mark.

>>I think the claim by homosexuals that their problems are the result of what other people say or think is a copout. It is the same claim of victimization all the other, "we have a claim on other's lives," looters make.<<

Bingo! It is this mantra of victimization that exhausts the goodwill of the vast majority of Americans. Hence, the utter stupidity of the "homophobia" charge.  A fella cannot repeatedly accuse us of doing him wrong, when we KNOW we haven't, before we become sick of him and his cause.

If that fella demands to be known as "gay" and thus reduce his identity to his lust for sodomy, sobeit. However, most of us are quite content to be oblivious about what others do in the bedroom.  We understand that sexual information is of an extremely private nature, therefore people who want to publicize such things about themselves are odd. So, he shouldn't blame the rest of us if we think his self-identification is a bit peculiar and provokes some disagreeability.

That said ...

>>There is one characteristic that is quite common to many homosexuals that I greatly admire and would like to see more of in the general community. It is a style, a flamboyance, a kind of defiance. It is an expression of, "it is my life and I don't have to explain or apologize for how I live it to anybody."<<

You know, Regi, I think there's something to this. My brother said to me the other day in the context of all this rabble-rousing for same-sex marriage, "Why can't gays be happy being gay?" What he meant by that was the enjoyment of the flamboyant lifestyle that thumbed its nose at social convention instead of the somewhat pathetic pursuit of a simulacrum of domesticity. You can admire the former for its gusto, but the latter makes for a heavy heart: The futile cry for approval when tolerance is the most that can be reasonably expected from the public at large.

That's what the demand for same-sex marriage is all about:  Society's approval. The charge of discrimination is phony. The institution of marriage is open to all. The government makes no inquiry into sexual preferences when a couple applies for a marriage license.  As for the benefits of marriage, most of them can be had by private contract between any two people, or group of people for that matter -- once again, without any inquiry into sexual preferences.

The fact is that in 21st century America, a gay couple can have most of what any married couple has WITHOUT the issue of private sexual behavior ever coming up. So, the only thing same-sex marriage accomplishes is PUBLIC blessing of homosexual conduct. Yet, why should the public's approval of his initimate behavior matter to any serious person -- let alone an Objectivist? Indeed, why would he even want the public to have any knowledge of such in the first place?

You know, Regi, the charming thing about the old-fashioned flamboyance of the gay lifestyle was its actual reticence about homosexuality. There was a certain sophistication to that, which was widely appreciated -- even by us whim-worshipping Bible-beating red-state hicks. I think we lost something worthwhile after we decided to "let it all hang out" with Sexual Revolution. We are no longer permitted the cultivated ignorance of things that don't matter in our normal interaction with each other, which is truly the most fertile soil for tolerance.

Regards,
Bill

Post 22

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 11:00am

Thanks for responding at length, Chris. I appreciate that immensely.

Regi, I think your last post was right on, with the exception of: and I think it is a mistaken choice that harms the one that makes it.

You'll have to prove that some aspect unique to homosexual behavior is immoral or physically harmful. Other than that, nicely said. And I know my approval means everything to you. : P

Bill, you're oversimplifying one issue. Homosexuality, as with heterosexuality, is not just whatever conduct takes place in the bedroom, i.e. sodomy. (Which just about every adult practices at one point or another. It does include oral sex, you know.) Public displays of affection, phone calls from work to check on your loved one, dining out, holding hands...these things are done to express feelings for your significant other, not to proclaim your sexuality to the world. If you condemn any expressions of love in public view, or any declarations of sexual proclivity, then do so for every form of sexuality, not just the one you happen to disapprove of. Love, and the expression thereof, is not limited to what occurs behind closed doors. And telling gays they should keep it in the closet is silly, unless you are willing to not give your wife a peck on the cheek after a walk on the beach. I can't imagine restraining or concealing my affection in such a way. (Ahem...with my woman, not yours. : P)

Post 23

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 1:17pm

Hi, Jeremy.

You say: >>Homosexuality, as with heterosexuality, is not just whatever conduct takes place in the bedroom, i.e. sodomy. (Which just about every adult practices at one point or another. It does include oral sex, you know.)<<

Well, I DON'T know, Jeremy. I have NO knowledge of what anyone does in the bedroom besides my wife and me. Understanding that fact is fundamental to the points I have made.

For example: A person kissing another in public are communicating with each other, not me. What do I know about them? Nothing. What business is it of mine? Nothing. If I need to take notice of every stranger's inoffensive conduct and draw conclusions about it, I'm the one with a problem. Besides being nosy, I'm assuming more knowledge than I properly have.

As for a person's homosexuality, how do I know about that unless that person tells me or engages in an homosexual act -- i.e., sodomy? Fortunately, I'm not likely to witness the latter, but the former is becoming quite common. In any event, the only thing I can judge are another man's words or deeds. The condition of homosexuality is nothing to judge; it simply is what a person is regarding what sexually excites him. However, I can rightly question the need for a person to inform me of this, especially if he goes so far as to announce his primary identity as "gay". What a fellow tells his intimates is one thing, but anyone who wants to make public his sexual preferences is probably a fool or possibly a nut. (I have to condition this statement, because I do recognize that some people share private burdens they have in order to help others understand how best to cope with them. Doing so sounds altruistic to me, but then I'm not an Objectivist, so I can see how making public such intimate information can be a good thing for others within a limited context.) Therefore, Jeremy, if a homosexual insists upon informing me of that, especially when I have no need to know it, he cannot complain if I respond that I think its queer of him to do so.

As for equating homosexual conduct to heterosexual conduct so that questioning the former in a given context means the same for the latter is to ignore what is normal. This is not, as you incorrectly accuse me of, to tell gays to stay in the closet. It is merely a matter that if a person conducts himself in an unusual manner, he cannot complain of the notice he attracts. Furthermore, he would be foolish to not expect disagreement with his abnormal behavior. The point Regi was making, and I assented to, was that it was at least admirable when a homosexual flouted normality without a care to what the world thought. He was going to be his own man, and that was that. Now many homosexuals want to flout normality BUT demand we approve of such as normal. This is to demand that we participate in a lie: That human nature has no norms (which is the effect of insisting that everything a human is capable of doing is normal).

The bottom line is that a fellow who wants to parade his homosexuality can do so. If he wants to pretend that being homosexual is the same as being heterosexual, as in contracting faux-marriage, who cares? If he doesn't want to conceal his sexual proclivities from the public, sobeit. What is unreasonable is any complaint from him if others, especially those who have absolutely no interest in his intimate affairs, do not approve of what he will not permit them to ignore.

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 6/02, 1:49pm)

Post 24

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 3:33pm

Bill,

I doubt that gay people are flocking to your door in droves and flouting their sexuality in your face. "Oh, hi Bill. I'm gay!" It is uncommon to be gay. So what? You want to be ignorant of it, then ignore it, whatever "it" is that puts you off about gay people. Don't go to gay parades. Don't watch Will and Grace. Don't watch that Queer Eye show. It is unreasonable for anyone to demand acceptance of any aspect of their lives from others. It is not required, it is not justified, to live a happy, rational life. But I don't believe gay people think their sexuality is something so abhorrent that it requires shrouds of secrecy and making sure no one sees a harmless display of affection--just like straight people. I imagine gay people think their sexuality is normal for them, knowing the percentage of gays compared to heteros. And most of them probably don't care if you accept their lifestyle or not. You're the one making that assumption, Queer Eye and rainbow parades notwithstanding. (gay people like to be famous as well. I agree though that it's the method and nature of their rise to fame that counts most--i.e. did they get famous because of being gay?)

So, I think your tactic of overall ignorance is a good idea, for both sides, whatever the sides are. And yes, anyone who identifies themselves perpetually by their sexuality is an idiot.

(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 6/02, 3:45pm)

Post 25

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 5:42pm

Bill,

You said: "... that was the enjoyment of the flamboyant lifestyle that thumbed its nose at social convention instead of the somewhat pathetic pursuit of a simulacrum of domesticity. You can admire the former for its gusto ...."

Flamboyance

Oscar Wilde was lying on his death bed drinking champagne when a friend asked him, "Oscar, what do you think you're doing?" To which Oscar replied, "Alas, I am dying beyond my means."

Regi

Post 26

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 7:11pm

Bill, Regi:

Do you regard anal copulation as non-objective sex? Are gay and/or straight sodomites immoral...or naughty...or merely abnormal?

Although many people outright choose to become homosexuals and others develop into homosexuals at some point in their lives for various potential reasons (perhaps subconscious), certainly others are born that way. So for those who are by nature attracted to the same sex, what should they do about it? Suppress their urges and deny themselves any sexual gratification? Or should they indulge only in non-anal intimacy? Or is the anus and its legitimate function not the issue at all? If not, then what is?

-Logan

Post 27

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 9:37pm

Regi,

To read a quip like that can't help but put a smile on one's face.

Thanks,
Bill

Post 28

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 9:43pm

Hi, Jeremy.

>>I doubt that gay people are flocking to your door in droves and flouting their sexuality in your face.<<

That's not exactly true when they are demanding that the state sanction their relationships, which I as an employer will be forced to accommodate. Nevertheless, I honestly don't care if I'm allowed to ignore what I have no desire to know. It seems we agree on that point.

Regards,
Bill

Post 29

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 9:48pm

Logan:

You ask: >>So for those who are by nature attracted to the same sex, what should they do about it?<<

You may as well ask me what geniuses should do with their gift or alcoholics with their penchant for liquor. It's not my business to tell others how to live their lives, especially if they have not consulted me on the subject.

Regards,
Bill

Post 30

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - 11:14pm

I wrote:

Given my recent posts on this subject, I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.

Reginald responded, asking:

"Then why do you do it?"

Because I want to live in a culture where flawed stereotypes are replaced with knowledge; and quite frankly, where homosexuality is not just tolerated, but accepted and celebrated. Why? Because culture influences politics. Because if the culture at large is anti-gay or grossly misunderstands the gay lifestyle, freedom for gays is shaky at best. Because nobody has ever been spat at, beaten up, imprisoned or murdered for liking pistachio ice cream. Because what others think very often *is* an issue of life or death importance, especially if the government denies you the same rights as straights or if you've just been beaten to a bloody pulp.

Of course it's true that none of us have to accept the guilt we've been taught. But to do so by oneself, without any help from a book, a friend, a philosophy, is a titanic task which few, I submit, have the psychological capacity to do especially when their psychology has already been so crippled. Don't underestimate the power of ideas, especially if the teaching begins early, and the power and force with which those ideas stick in the mind (asked anyone raised on religion). Yes, individuals can change their ideas but it's rationalism to suggest it can be done overnight or divorced from a context in which the individual finds support and recognition in their struggle. (I refer here to guilt, which I believe one can get rid of. I'm not talking here of homosexuality, which I don't believe it's possible to change. Those who bang on about changing the latter seem oblivious to the psychological power of the former, though no doubt in many cases they are themselves its victims.)

And I must ask this: why do * you* do it? Buckets of misinformation are thrown around about the gay lifestyle, and when gays dare respond we get asked: "why do you care what we say, don't you have any self-esteem?" Since when did self-esteem mean not fighting to espouse the truth about yourself and your loved ones against a culture of myth and fear?

Post 31

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 3:11am

Magnificent post, Cam. Don't worry about the wall. As we know, walls crumble ... sometimes when we least expect them to.

Linz

Post 32

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 3:59am

Look, you gents can't have it both ways: With one breath, you want gays to proclaim their flamboyance, on floats, and in parades---a clear indication, you think, of not giving a damn what others say; with the next breath, you think it is irritating when people who are gay are so in-your-face with their "lifestyle." With one breath, you want gays to act like everybody else; with the next breath, you think it is annoying when people who are gay want to marry, like everybody else.

In any event, I really wish you gents would stop talking about gays as "they" this, and "they" that. If my monograph shows anything, it's that being "gay" is no more monolithic than being "straight." Most people who are gay live "normal" lives: they go to work, they have families, they go away on vacation. And a sizable contingent of gay men and women has slowly taken shape, influenced by Rand and other great libertarian thinkers, challenging all the gay left orthodoxies you reject as well.

I agree fundamentally with Cameron on the issue of culture and politics, as I expressed in my very last message: Those of you who are influenced by Ayn Rand and who would not question for a moment what she says about "The Comprachicos" stunting the development of children, do not realize how the culture itself has "Comprachicos" who use the weapon of guilt to fight things with which they do not approve. You think it's easy to break that cycle of guilt? If it were so easy, why did Rand herself have to declare war against the culture of 2,500 years? That war is still being fought by every human being on this planet who would seek a life without pain, fear, shame, or guilt.

Gays are seeking the same thing, which is why Rand's message has resonated with so many. They have to fight all the "normal" pressures of coming to maturity, like everybody else. But their battle typically goes one step further, since their orientation requires them to "check their premises" if they wish to declare their spiritual independence and rescue their self-esteem from a deadening culture, one that bombards them with anti-gay messages, articulated and tacit, coming from billboards, from books, from movies, from religious institutions, from social organizations, from parents, from colleagues. The very act of "checking premises" liberates. I would think that is something that a Rand audience would welcome.

Post 33

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 5:39am

Cameron:

You wrote: >>Because I want to live in a culture where flawed stereotypes are replaced with knowledge; and quite frankly, where homosexuality is not just tolerated, but accepted and celebrated.<<

OK then. When does the gay community start celebrating my Catholicism? You see, I was born a Catholic and raised in a Catholic culture. It's not easy to change your stripes, you know. I tried, but failed. Now I'm more Catholic then ever. So when does the celebration begin?

By the way, will there be cake and ice cream?

Regards,
Bill

Post 34

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 5:53am

Linz:

You wrote to Cameron: >>Don't worry about the wall. As we know, walls crumble ... sometimes when we least expect them to.<<

Fortunately for the gay community the walls have already crumbled. Tolerance is the norm in American society and certainly in the rest of the Western world. (A good thing.) Indeed, among the younger generation, I dare say it even goes beyond tolerance. (Perhaps not such a good thing.)

Unfortunately, the gay community is infected with the leftist ideals of identity politics. What else explains the comfort with which Cameron, in an OBJECTIVIST forum of all places, can insist that everyone should "accept" and "celebrate" homosexuality? Since when does a fella have such a claim upon me? What entitles a homosexual to my approval? If he is an Objectivist, why on earth would he even care in the first place?

What does it matter what I think, so long as I leave the guy alone?

If you go along with Cameron on this, it sounds like special pleading to me. If so, then maybe Regi's concerns about the hijacking of Objectivism have validity.

Regards,
Bill

Post 35

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 6:19am

Hi, Chris.

You said to Regi and me: >>Look, you gents can't have it both ways ...<<

No, we can't, but then neither of us are trying to do what you say. Regi was making the same point he did when he said an Objectivist can properly recognize the fortitude of Mel Gibson in realizing his artistic vision, "The Passion of the Christ", even if you disapprove of the film. I agreed with him. I can admire principled defiance, even if I think what is being defied is a good thing.

All the rest boils down to something simple. A gay fella shouldn't care what I think. However, if he insists upon knowing by way of demanding my approval, he has no legitimate complaint if he then learns he doesn't have my approval.

Regi and I are proponents of live and let live. To make such a policy effective, I find that I'm quite good at ignoring that which I do not care for, especially when it is none of my business in the first place. Tolerance is wonderful virtue. It allows all of us to make our choices without the absurd pretense that we all think each choice is just as good as every other -- or worse, being dragooned into Cameron's celebration of homosexuality.

Tolerance is a swell thing, Chris. I'll settle for it every time.

Regards,
Bill

Post 36

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 7:50am

Bill, there is a lot of Catholic-bashing that goes on in American culture: Catholics get bashed by the secular leftists, for example. But Catholics fight back, whether it is with the St. Patrick's Day Parade (which, here in New York, disallows any gay groups from marching under that banner---and I believe it is the organizers' right to invite whomever they wish); or with Gibson's "Passion of The Christ" (which is one of the top money-makers of all time, and attracted even evangelicals); or with the moral suasion that is carried by the Vatican on issues as diverse as abortion, homosexuality, the death penalty, and the war in Iraq. Nobody stops Catholics from having their parades or making their movies or uttering their moral pronunciations, and nobody should stop them. Same with gays, blacks, women, the old, the short, the sick, the obese, and so forth. (There is a problem, of course, in a society where the mixed economy manufactures such groups as pressure groups: but the problem is not with gays, blacks, women, the old, the short, the sick, the obese. The problem is with the system that makes the group the fundamental unit of politics, and group-ism and tribal-ism the only ideology worth having if one wishes to advance politically.)

I too believe that tolerance is a liberal virtue in a multifaceted society, and, ultimately, laissez faire is the best policy: Leave all of us alone to pursue our own unique vision of happiness. It's just that in a social context, people will invariably speak their minds, show off their butts, and so forth: and you all have the right to approve or disapprove, agree or disagree. Thank goodness.

Indeed, as Rand said: "It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree..."---and that's why I think a society of privacy is the only truly civilized society.

Post 37

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 9:33am

Hi, Chris.

>>I too believe that tolerance is a liberal virtue in a multifaceted society, and, ultimately, laissez faire is the best policy: Leave all of us alone to pursue our own unique vision of happiness. It's just that in a social context, people will invariably speak their minds, show off their butts, and so forth: and you all have the right to approve or disapprove, agree or disagree. Thank goodness.<<

You're right. So I would amend my paean to tolerance a bit to make it clear that it includes tolerance of disagreement.

As for the Catholic-bashing. Yes, it is common, and it is mostly self-righteous stupidity that is best ignored. Unfortunately, too many of my co-religionists seize upon the antics of the bashers to don the envied mantle of victimhood. It's fine for Catholic polemicists to point out the falsehoods and foolishness of the bashers, but when they suggest that their tripe is oppressive they give the bashers too much credit. We're long past the days when my father couldn't get a job because of his religion.

Regards,
Bill

Post 38

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 10:08am

Hi, Chris.

>>Indeed, as Rand said: "It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree..."---and that's why I think a society of privacy is the only truly civilized society.<<

Thank you for the link to your article on the Lawrence decision.

I think you'll find that most conservatives, such as myself, oppose anti-sodomy laws. However, we hadn't got much bothered by their existence because they were mostly dead letters. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say the most conservatives who disagreed with the Lawrence decision did so, because they objected to yet another erosion of federalism in exchange for the elimination of laws that had, as a practical matter, almost no adverse impact upon anyone. Moreover many of them felt at the time it would give ammunition to an activist judiciary to implement same-sex marriage throughout country.

The conservative concern about the integrity of federalism is legitimate, though it may be a lost cause as the welfare state grinds forward. Whatever actual increase in our liberty provided by the Lawrence decision is trivial to the nullification of federalism, a critical structural guarantee of our liberty, in yet another area of the law and politics.

And the conservative concern about the mischief that could be made with the Lawrence decision was not misplaced: Massachusetts.

Regards,
Bill

Post 39

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 2:46pm