Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Awful lot o' protest there.

Say, you don't think....Naahhhh.

Posted by Stephen at July 15, 2003 04:16 PM

Is that really what he's saying, and does he think it realistic advice?

It is precisely what he is saying, and is, in fact, the standard Catholic position on the issue. It's OK to be gay, but you cannot act on the disorder inherent in you, without jeopardizing your moral soul. The issue is further compounded by the position that you can't marry a person of the opposite sex, either, since you would then not have committed wholly to the union. Admitting to homosexuality is a cut and dried way to get an annulment under Canon Law.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm

And folks wonder why the Catholic priesthood has a preponderance of gay men?

As for realistic - my rejoinder to any who'd suggest that as an option for me: You go first.

Posted by Ray Eckhart at July 15, 2003 05:36 PM

Not only is Senator Santorum serious, his advice is echoed by THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, which states:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from " [Sec. 2357-2358]

While one may or may not agree with the above teaching of the Church, the fact remains that many people can and do live happily chaste lives.

Posted by B-chan at July 15, 2003 08:39 PM

the fact remains that many people can and do live happily chaste lives

OK, Bruce, let's accept for the moment that this is indeed a fact (though I don't know the source of the data for it).

What about the people who cannot? Are they to be condemned to unhappily chaste lives, to suit your church's notion of morality?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2003 09:10 PM

"What about the people who cannot? Are they to be condemned to unhappily chaste lives, to suit your church's notion of morality?"

Well, perhaps. It's called "bearing one's cross." Look no one says you have to sign up for the program, but based on millenia of moral tradition, the Catholic church believes that everyone has to be chaste. Married folk got to be faithful. Divorced folk got to be chaste. Single folk got to be chaste.

As for the buried notion that this view is somehow odd or unmanagable, this is the view that preponderated until about twenty-five years ago. Prior to the 70's it was generally assumed that well brought up folk could control themselves and that this somehow separated rational humans from irrational animals.

As I said, you don't have to buy into the program. But if you look at the evidence and conclude that God was incarnated as a man and that that incarnation gave another man the keys to the Kingdom and that those keys were passed down to his successors, well, then, those facts might be a bit more important ultimately than the impulse to have sex whenever convenient with whatever's convenient.

Posted by Peter Sean Bradley at July 15, 2003 10:07 PM

You don't like his stance? You're entitled to your opinion. Seems to me he's entitled to his. And, unless you're registered to vote in PA, it also seems to me that your opinion doesn't count for shit as far as he's concerned.

Posted by Dave at July 15, 2003 10:13 PM

Yes, I don't like his stance. I think that, on at least this subject, he's an idiot. There's this little thing called the First Amendment that allows me to express that opinion.

I've no expectation that my opinion will have any effect, except to the degree that Pennsylvania residents read my blog and are influenced by it, and to the degree that people are put off by Republicans in general because of such statements, particularly when they receive no criticism from other Republicans.

What's your point?

And to the other poster, who wrote:

...you don't have to buy into the program...

That's right. I don't. Nor do millions of other people, many of whom are voters. I didn't realize that being Catholic was a requirement. There's another aspect to that pesky First Amendment about no establishment of a state church.

I don't know for sure whether or not this is a winning electoral strategy and philosophy, but I suspect that it's a major reason that the Republicans don't make more political headway.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2003 10:23 PM

Actually, here I'm on the side of the other commenters. No one is saying you have to be Catholic; you asked if Santorum believed that he was giving serious advice, and they told you why he might think he was doing so. It has nothing to do with whether he is right or wrong -- I don't see here that anyone here has argued either for or against his position; they merely explained to you where he seemed to be coming from.

I don't actually know if Santorum is Catholic or Lutheran or Wiccan. I don't agree with his position either. But I think that it's too late to be shocked that there are people in the world who think that there are certain sexual proclivities that should be repressed instead of indulged in. We know that these people exist, they aren't going to change their minds just to please us, some of them -- like Santorum -- are in positions of power; how are we going to deal with them?

Posted by Andrea Harris at July 15, 2003 10:54 PM

Andrea, I'm certainly not "shocked" at Santorum's position. He's certainly entitled to it. I'm just appalled that he thinks that it's a legitimate basis for public policy, and I'm saddened that he's in a position to make it so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2003 11:51 PM

Let me get this straight - your saddened that Santorum is a Senator because of his child-rearing philosophy is informed by a two-thousand year old moral tradition? OK. Vote against him. But you really overstate your position in a way that, frankly, doesn't reflect well on the theme of openness and tolerance that I think is the subtext of your posts.

I don't hear Santorum says you have to be a Catholic to be a voter. That was just hyperbole on your part, I suspect. I also have never heard Santorum call for whatever extremely scary position you seem to fear. His discussions to date have focused on the difficulty of drawing a line between behaviors that people with your apparent attitude find acceptable and those which even the gay rights lobby find problematic.

On the other hand, I do hear Santorum arguing for a particular view of human nature which wasn't exceptional twenty-five years ago and which is still found in Catholic moral writings. Let me say this for you to contemplate; bigotry is a two way street and your argument that Santorum should be disqualified from public office because of his deeply held, privately formed beliefs - which have not been translated into public action - suggests bigotry. If you want to oppose the man, it's fair to argue about the public policies he's supported. Arguing about his Catholic belief in the context of an insinuation that his occupancy of public office violates the First Amendment resonates with that portion of American history that runs through the Know-Nothing, the Klan and Bob Jones University.

Posted by Peter Sean Bradley at July 16, 2003 08:34 AM

I must have missed the part where I said that Santorum should be disqualified for public office, or in which I said any of the other nonsense that you falsely attribute to me. Can you point it out?

Sorry, Peter, but slmost your entire post is one huge man full of straw.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 16, 2003 09:31 AM

OK, just to run up and smack the hornets' nest a bit...

In all the above discussion, substitute "alcoholism" (another aspect of the human condition that appears to have a genetic predisposition and can have various unfortunate social consequences) for "homosexuality". No further comment on my part, just make the substitution and reevaluate (if necessary) your position. Just thinkin' this might throw the discussion into a different light.

Posted by Eric S. at July 16, 2003 10:12 AM

Does not compute.

Alcoholism is an addiction to alcohol. I've no idea whether or not the tendency toward it is innate, but given the primacy of sex and companionship (fundamental to our very nature as human beings), I think that to compare lifelong celibacy to teetotaling profoundly denigrates the significance of the former.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 16, 2003 10:26 AM

In taditional Western moral thought, homosexuality represents an intrinsically disordered relationship to natural human sexuality, just as alcoholism represents an intrinsically disordered relationship to the natural human act of drinking. In both cases, the person suffering the disorder must choose a lifestyle that reflects an ordered relationship to the object in question: chastity in the case of disordered sexuality, abstinence in the case of alcoholism. In neither case is a given person deemed immoral for merely suffering from the intrinsically disordered desire; they can and are deemed immoral only from acting upon those desires.

Whether or not such intrinsically disordered desires are congenital or learned is irrelevant. Some people may in fact be "just born that way" -- but such an excuse is hardly grounds for tolerance. No doubt a great many people are "just born with" the desire for sexual relations with children; nevertheless, we do not (and should not) condone such relations.

A human being is more than the sum of his desires. Man, the rational animal, possesss the ability to choose his actions -- determining what he will and will not do based upon right reason. By encouraging people to think of all actions as morally neutral (and thus not subject to reason) we make men less than human. I fail to see the advantage in this.

Posted by bchan at July 16, 2003 11:04 AM

Not that I want to speak for him, but it seems to me that Eric S.'s point was that society is generally more tolerant of alchoholism than homosexuality despite the fact that the tendency towards being sexual is far more primal and profound than the tendency towards imbibing.

Posted by Erann Gat at July 16, 2003 11:10 AM

BTW, I am solidly against Santorum on this issue. The prohibition against gay marriage seems to me no different than earlier prohibitions against inter-racial marriage. But I want to say how impressed I am by the arguments presented on the other side in this discussion. They are (in stark contrast to what one usually hears) sober and rational, and deserve respectful consideration IMHO.

Posted by Erann Gat at July 16, 2003 11:20 AM

No doubt a great many people are "just born with" the desire for sexual relations with children; nevertheless, we do not (and should not) condone such relations.

Au contraire, what we should not condone is declaring consensual sexual activity between two adults morally equivalent to pederasty.

And I fail to see any part of anything that I've written that indicates that we should "think of all actions as morally neutral (and thus not subject to reason)."

Strawmen would seem to abound here today.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 16, 2003 11:24 AM

"As for the buried notion that this view is somehow odd or unmanagable, this is the view that preponderated until about twenty-five years ago. Prior to the 70's it was generally assumed that well brought up folk could control themselves and that this somehow separated rational humans from irrational animals."

And prior to the 70's, those well brought up folk tended to marry much earlier. I don't think there was ever a time when the majority of the population remained celibate into their mid 20's.

Posted by Ken at July 16, 2003 01:55 PM

It's time to take the gloves off.

First, just so no one misunderstands me: Homosexuals are people, possess every right any other human being else possesses, and ought not to be subject to legal penalty for any consensual act performed in private. Okay? Got that?

Now for the important part, the part that bears on life itself, rather than politics.

Homosexuality is a disorder, a serious one that shortens one's life, sharply reduces one's prospects of happiness, and makes it difficult to produce children. Among male homosexuals, it exposes one to some of the most loathsome and deadly diseases in the medical repertoire. None of this is disputed by reasonable authorities.

If those characteristics attached to any syndrome other than homosexuality, there would be near unanimity that we should counsel our young folks to avoid it no matter what urges they must suffer to go unfulfilled -- even while we urged them to tolerate those who'd failed to resist the condition.

Get your heads on straight. The consequences of homosexual practice are not open to dispute. In what other identifiable community do we find so much disease, despair, and irrationality? In what other community do we find persons actively trying to catch the AIDS virus?

Tolerate homosexuality, by all means. That's demanded of us as people who hold freedom as the highest political end. But do not bless it!

Posted by Francis W. Porretto at July 16, 2003 02:38 PM

Francis, there are certain homosexual practices (unprotected @n@l sex, plethora of partners) that cause the spread of AIDS, but it isn't intrinsically spread by homosexual activity in and of itself, particularly if it's monogamous.

I don't think that it's unrealistic to counsel, or expect someone to avoid specific activities that will result in the spread of the disease, and if I were unfortunate enough to have a homosexual child, I would do so (e.g., "Life is going to be rougher for you because of your sexual orientation, but I love you, and I hope that you'll respect yourself enough to find a single loving partner, and avoid the 'gay lifestyle.'")

I certainly wouldn't counsel lifelong abstinence from sex or physical expression of love.

And yet another strawman. I missed the part where I "blessed" it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 16, 2003 03:24 PM

Santorum is an asshat... He is an affront to all that is decent and nationally hurts the Republican Party every time he opens his festering gob.

The Catholic Church in the US has not right to lecture anyone on anything after its attitude towards pederasty amoungst its priests. What adults do between themselves is no ones business. What certain Priests did was criminal and loathsome, what the Church did to cover it up was almost as despicable.

As far as Francis' comments. Um, have you looked at Africa? AIDS worldwide is an overwelmingly hetero disease.

I don't believe that gay men are necessarily more miserable that anyone else. The longevity argument is bogus too, merely based on the rash of AIDS related gays death as a result of behaviour in the 70s & 80s. There quite a few "old queens" kicking to put paid to your life expentancy bollocks.

Attraction to one's own sex is not an afflication or syndrome, you are or you aren't. Its not like this is a new thing in the human experience. We as a species have gone through periods of tolerance and intolerance. It is part of the human condition.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at July 16, 2003 06:29 PM

Rand, I have personally known a guy who was homosexual (not just bisexual, he wasn't attracted to women)at one time and now is not. He is well adjusted and happy. No internal torment, self-loathing, etc. that is often attributed to people who "change" their sexuality. Someday he will marry and have family and live a healthy life. His only option is not "life-long celibacy". This change came about via Christian counseling. I think this is much closer to what Rick Santorum is advocating.

He (like me) believes homosexuality is wrong. Just like lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, pederastry or any other sin. They are all wrong. This does not necessarily mean these things must be illegal but it does mean (to us) that they should not be done. In the case of homosexuality, we both believe that it is something that can be overcome, so to speak. And that one can live a fulfilled life in so doing.

I personally don't believe that the sodomy law in Lawrence should have remained but I think this was the wrong way to get rid of it because it leaves the door open for challenges that would allow consensual incest and remove statutory rape laws (possibly). Some have argued, such as NAMBLA, that Lawrence can even apply to the legalization of pedophilia. This is something I abhor and I believe you do too.

Posted by Matthew at July 16, 2003 10:01 PM

Sorry, I have trouble buying that. He may have at one time thought he wasn't attracted to women, for whatever perverse environmental reasons, but if he's capable of it now, he was never truly homosexual, by definition--he was always bi.

I certainly can't imagine deciding to be attracted to men via "Christian" or any other counseling. Not gonna happen...

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 16, 2003 10:15 PM

Well, thank you Rand for pointing out all the things I never knew about this guy. Gosh come to think of it you seem to know more about him than he know himself.

I present evidence that disproves (or at least presents an alternate explanation) and you decide to ignore it because it does not fit into your worldview. Who's narrowminded now?

Posted by Matthew at July 17, 2003 10:52 AM

It's not a question of "world view." It's one of logic and definition.

Homosexuals are attracted to same sex. Heterosexuals are attracted to opposite sex. Bisexuals can go either way. These aren't my opinions, they are objective definitions.

If someone is at one point "homosexual" and at another point "heterosexual," it implies that he was always really bisexual, again by definition. My point is that just because your friend was "converted," doesn't mean that true homosexuals (or heterosexuals) can be.

Are you heterosexual? Do you believe that given sufficient "counseling" you could "switch" and become sexually attracted to the same sex? I know I couldn't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2003 11:34 AM

Rand, I don't think some here are getting the message.

From: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

Posted by Stephen at July 17, 2003 12:43 PM

"It's not a question of "world view." It's one of logic and definition.

Homosexuals are attracted to same sex. Heterosexuals are attracted to opposite sex. Bisexuals can go either way. These aren't my opinions, they are objective definitions."

Yes and no. By your definition of what constitutes homosexuality, you are exactly right. But I and others believe this definition to be wrong, or at least skewed. I define a homosexual the same way I might define an alcoholic. A homosexual, to me, is a person who has desires for sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex and/or acts on those desires. Likewise, an alcoholic is someone who has overly strong desires to abuse alcohol and/or acts on those desires. To me they are parallel cases and with the evidence I have seen, it is just as possible to not be a homosexual as it is to not be an alcoholic. As you can see, most of the time our definitions would parallel each other but there are certain cases, like the one I cited, in which we would differ. Earlier, you accused another poster of putting up a straw man by advancing the idea that alcoholism was similar to homosexuality. Under your definitions, formed by your worldview, it is a straw man. But as I hope I've pointed out, under other "objective" definitions/views it is not a straw man but a reasonable argument.

As far as your final point that you don't believe you could be "counseled" into homosexuality: remember that counseling is only way of behavior modification. Take a look at prisons. The percentage of men in prison who are homosexual or bisexual is much higher than in the general population. From that you can either conclude that homosexuals are more likely to commit crimes (unlikely), that this behavior is much more widespread than any study has concluded (unlikely), or that their behavior has been modified by prison life (likely). Quite a few heterosexual males go in there and then come out homosexual/bisexual. They have not been "counseled" into it, it has occurred because of the conditions inmates undergo. You insist that you could never become homosexual but who's to say what might happen to your behavior in a prison?

Posted by Matthew at July 17, 2003 02:07 PM

Well, I see the religious nuts are out in force, and still toddling out variations of the same 3 tired old arguments.

A) My imaginary god says this is wrong, therefore I believe it's wrong.
B) It's against "nature."
C) It's a mental disorder.

You would think they would get some new material, but you know they're not the most imaginative bunch. I mean if they could think for themselves they wouldn't be religious nutjobs. Regarding their arguments:

A) So what? I've yet to understand why belief in some fairy tale invisible man in the sky is considered respectable while belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is considered laughable. Thus far the only people with severe mental disorders (a severe delusion about the existence of an all-powerful imaginary being) that I can see are these nuts.

B)
1 - Tell that to all the gay animals in "nature."
2 - Humans are a part of "nature" which makes this argument pretty ridiculous at the slightest examination of it.
3 - "Nature" is just an abstract concept anyway, so this argument translates to "It's against an abstract concept", to which I say again - "So what?"

C) Exactly where are they getting this idea from? I don't know of any psychological/psychiatric association that clings to that view. The only exceptions being organizations that are (coincidentally!) christian-funded. Funny how that works out.

In short, get some new material guys, this is just pathetic.

Posted by Janessa Ravenwood at July 17, 2003 02:20 PM

The percentage of men in prison who are homosexual or bisexual is much higher than in the general population. From that you can either conclude that homosexuals are more likely to commit crimes (unlikely), that this behavior is much more widespread than any study has concluded (unlikely), or that their behavior has been modified by prison life (likely).

Or that a large number of men are bisexual, most of whom don't normally engage in homosexual activity for social, moral and other reasons, except if there's no alternative.

Quite a few heterosexual males go in there and then come out homosexual/bisexual.

Sorry, still not buying. They went in bi, they came out bi (along with new experiences, so they continue the newfound homosexual lifestyle).

They have not been "counseled" into it, it has occurred because of the conditions inmates undergo. You insist that you could never become homosexual but who's to say what might happen to your behavior in a prison?

I am. I've gone through long periods of celibacy in my life because I had no female partner. It never occurred to me to do it with a guy, which would have been trivially easy, and not because I think that it would have been morally wrong--I simply never had any such desire. It wouldn't happen in prison either. Rosie Palms would have to be satisfactory.

I'm irredeemably heterosexual. The people you're describing are clearly not. You continue to refuse to answer my question. Are you saying that you can imagine circumstances in which you would willingly, even eagerly, engage in homosexual activity? If not, why not, and why do you think I would?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2003 02:30 PM

A) OK, fine, we'll agree to disagree.
B) Ok, we're part of nature. Sounds good. I'll just start doing everything my dog does because its "natural". I'll start rolling around in my feces, eating my vomit, licking my balls and humping the legs of people in my house. Sounds good to me. Saying something is natural and found in nature is no more a justification for an action than saying it's not found in nature (unnatural) is justification for banning a practice (dogs don't blog but that hasn't stopped any of us).
C) Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder. It wasn't until relatively recently that it was declassified as such. Personally I don't believe it is a mental disorder any more than stealing or lying is. My opposition to its practice is based on A, but since you disagree...
D) You forgot "It's just icky!". But that's not a particularly common attack anymore.

And now I'll get back to my "opiate of the masses", just as soon as I turn off my brain.

Posted by Matthew at July 17, 2003 02:40 PM

Rand,
I can see that you and I simply do not agree. You look at homosexual activity in the prisons and see it as evidence of repressed sexuality. I look at it and see it as a behavior caused by the conditions.

To answer your question, I don't foresee any reasonably "normal" circumstances under which I would engage in homosexual activity. I would like to think I wouldn't even in outrageous circumstances like those in prison because of my faith. However, that said, I also would say that I would never commit murder. Yet given the right circumstances, I think there are many rational people, like myself, who would. To me, homosexuality and other assorted sins are not mere matters of genetics but more of environment. I don't believe anyone is born a killer any more than they are born gay. I think there are genetic factors that may predispose you to these things but they are more often than not highly influenced by your environment.

So I believe you when you say you are irredeemably heterosexual. I think because of your upbringing and your natural genetic disposition that you probably have not had these desires. Neither have I. But I do believe that human sexuality is mutable and that under the right conditions it can be changed.

You will probably disagree with me again because we look at this isse from two very different worldviews, but I've tried.

Posted by Matthew at July 17, 2003 03:01 PM

A) Interesting how this is glossed-over? That?s one thing I?ve noticed about the religiosos ? call them on this one and they change the subject real quick or just won?t discuss it. Hmmm?no logical arguments to present against it, perhaps? Nah, couldn?t be.

B) You people are so much fun to rile! Poke you with a stick and you go right off! You state ? quite correctly ? that just because something ISN?T found in nature is no reason to prohibit it (not that in this case, it isn?t). Glad to see a few neurons are still functioning independent of biblical indoctrination.

C) If you consider a few decades (1973) to be ?relatively recently?; we must have different definitions for the term. At least you?re honest that it?s YOUR mental delusion that causes you oppose their supposed one.

D) Quite right, my mistake. It?s just that people usually cloak this under Argument A these days as their ?publicly stated? reason to oppose it, so I didn?t list it. Now that just COULDN?T be the case with you?could it? Nah, nothing in any of arguments above that leans in this direction in the slightest.

E) I wasn?t aware that was actually ON in the first place with the arguments you?ve been making. Indeed, if it were functioning you wouldn?t be a fundie. Don?t forget to tap that vein for your next opiate injection at the designated sanitarium (I think they call them ?churches?).

Posted by Janessa Ravenwood at July 17, 2003 03:12 PM

Yes, we'll continue to disagree. But my worldview (in my opinion) is based on observable behavior and science (including separated twin studies), while yours seems to be coming from, well, somewhere else.

You don't want to accept that sexual orientation (and no, it's not a preference--I don't "prefer" women, I absolutely insist on them) may be innate, because if true, that has unpleasant (to you) moral consequences. There's nothing wrong with that viewpoint in any absolute sense, but I'd hate to see public policy made on such a basis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2003 03:15 PM

Janessa, I have no interest in "riling" people in my forum here. I just want to discuss things.

If you can't have some minimal respect for others' opinions (which is not the same thing as agreeing with them), please go to one of the endless threads on this subject at Free Republic, where you can flame and get flamed back to your heart's delight.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2003 03:19 PM

I don't believe that people who would (make that DO) so harshly and viciously condemn me for my sexual orientation DESERVE any respect in return. But fine, see ya 'round, have fun with the gay-bashers. Substitute "homosexual" with "former aerospace engineer" in the above posts and see how friendly a mood you're in.

Posted by Janessa Ravenwood at July 17, 2003 03:33 PM

Well, Andrew Sullivan manages to keep it civil. You might want to try to take the high road--you'll make better headway.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2003 03:39 PM

And by the way, Matthew is one who mentions "rolling around in my feces, eating my vomit, licking my balls and humping the legs of people in my house"

Does he get a reprimand, or just me?

Just curious as it seems your monitoring is a bit...SELECTIVE.

Posted by Janessa Ravenwood at July 17, 2003 03:43 PM

You're certainly entitled to take umbrage at that, and say so. I just think that we can all be spared the name calling.

Anyway, his comment was at least on topic. When you start attacking religious people in general simply because they're religious (sanitariums, opiates, etc.), it's not. Not to mention that it's a least as, if not more, intolerant than what they're doing. I suppose that's where my "selectivity" comes from.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2003 04:05 PM

Rand,

Thank you for defending me but I don't really mind the attacks that much. (Oh and too be fair, I brought up the "opiate of the masses" thing, she didn't start that). I apologize if my remarks were a little crude but I was trying to make a point about what is considered "natural".

I must admit though, that this is the first time I have seen someone defend homosexuals by comparing them to aerospace engineers. :)

As far as the source of my beliefs on this subject, I will acknowledge that they primarily do come from a faith in the God of the Bible. I believe what it says in there and I try to live my life accordingly. That said, I think that there is some scientific basis for my claims.

I'm not familiar with the particular separated twin studies you are referring to. The last study o homosexuality I recall reading said that there was a significant part that environment played in the development of sexuality. I also recall reading at one point of a study where children who were abused were more likely to be homosexual. I'd have to do some looking to pull these studies up again but I do feel that the claim that homosexuality is solely genetic have not been proven conclusively.

As far as your last point, I do believe that there is something innate about homosexuality. I just do not believe it is the sole determinant of one's sexuality. This conclusion does not have any unpleasant moral consequences for me. Nor, for that matter, would a conclusion that homosexuality is entirely innate be morally unpleasant. In fact, many Catholics (and quite a few Protestants) do believe this to be the case. Their answer for it is celibacy. It won't have been the first time someone was celibate for their lifetime. Jesus, Paul and Peter were all celibates and it didn't seem to be that terrrible for them.

Miss Ravenwood,

I apologize to you if my my comments came across as vicious. I assure you I did not intend them that way. I simply disagree with your lifestyle/orientation and happen to believe it is wrong. If that is vicious, well then your comments (such as the ones about my imaginary god) might be construed that way also.

Posted by Matthew at July 17, 2003 05:11 PM

Jesus, Paul and Peter were all celibates and it didn't seem to be that terrible for them.

We can't all be (nor do all of us, or even many of us even want to be) Jesus, Peter or Paul (in many senses of that phrase). It's not reasonable to expect us to, which gets back to the original point of my post. What was (perhaps) not terrible for them might indeed be terrible for us. And of course, if everyone emulated them, the human race would come to an end. Is that a useful outcome to you?

We just want to live happy lives, which believe me, is quite possible without being Catholic, or even Christian--millions do it every day. And none of us will know about the afterlife until after, so I guess we'll just take our chances.

I think I'm going to open up another thread for this a little later, because this one's too far down, and there are some other points that I think it's useful to address.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2003 05:42 PM

We can't all be (nor do all of us, or even many of us even want to be) Jesus, Peter or Paul (in many senses of that phrase). It's not reasonable to expect us to, which gets back to the original point of my post. What was (perhaps) not terrible for them might indeed be terrible for us. And of course, if everyone emulated them, the human race would come to an end. Is that a useful outcome to you?

No, it isn't but I was just trying to point out that it is possible and even advisable (Paul at one point suggests that everyone should be celibate, regardless of orientation) that some should be celibate. This is what Santorum and I believe, but I would agree with you that it should NOT be a basis for public policy. I do not support sodomy laws and I definitely do not advocate celibacy laws but under the Christian tradition and thought which Santorum and I adhere to, it is a viable option.

I also concede your point that it is possible to live a happy life without Christ. I have no doubt of it.

Thank you for being patient with me and responding to all of my posts.

Posted by Matthew at July 17, 2003 06:59 PM

OK, as threatened, I've started a new post and thread on this topic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 17, 2003 11:25 PM

> In taditional Western moral thought,
> homosexuality represents an intrinsically
> disordered relationship to natural human
> sexuality, just as alcoholism represents an
> intrinsically disordered relationship to the
> natural human act of drinking.

"Western moral thought" keeps evolving, though. Weren't blacks considered morally and intellectually inferior in all of America and Europe only three centuries ago? Didn't one of the Supreme Court judges recently refer to current European customs and practices re. homosexuality as a reason for striking down some discriminatory anti-sodomy laws in Texas...? Surely "Bchan" does not think gay Texans should be sent to jail if they are caught in the act of having sex with each other?!
---
Apart from the (somewhat greater-) risk of AIDS, I don't see any obvious reasons why homosexual behavior would be "harmful" in any way. Particularly not if it's part of a stable, caring relationship. Deeply religious persons are of course free to disagree with all of it, but I fail see why they should be allowed to impose their views on "morality" on homosexual, consenting adults.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at July 18, 2003 03:11 AM

> Homosexuality is a disorder, a serious one that
> shortens one's life, sharply reduces one's
> prospects of happiness, and makes it difficult
> to produce children.

I bet heterosexual singles have the same problems, though.

> Among male homosexuals, it
> exposes one to some of the most loathsome and
> deadly diseases in the medical repertoire.

Um, why is vaginal sex considered less dangerous in that case? AFAIK, AIDS can be transmitted via heterosexual contact as well.

> In what other community do we find persons
> actively trying to catch the AIDS virus?

How about heterosexuals...? Here in Finland, we have had cases of infected heterosexual men deliberately having unprotected sex -- in some cases involving rape. This is a criminal offense, of course.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at July 18, 2003 03:21 AM

It turns out that while AIDS can be transmitted vaginally, it's far less commonly done so. In general, men transmit AIDS to women through vaginal sex more easily than the opposite direction, and even then, it seems as though most transmissions even during vaginal sex involve at least one partner having an open sore. Oral sex, even when it's homosexual, is much less effective at transmitting AIDS than anal sex. A fair amount of the heterosexual transmission in Africa is associated with existing STDs (which often leave open sores and compromised immune systems), and a fairly widespread practice of heterosexual anal sex (to keep oneself a virgin for marriage).

On my blog, I keep posting little details about these issues. One recent survey of AIDS cases found that lesbian women were 20-30% of IV drug abusers. Remember that lesbians are about 1-2% of the female population. Why are they so grossly overrepresented among IV drug abusers? Probably for the same reason that substance abuse is disproportionate among homosexuals, and child sexual abuse survivors are disproportionate among homsoexuals (48% of women and 30% of men in a 1991 S.F. Dept. of Public Health study).

Childhood sexual abuse screws people up really, really thoroughly. Many repress these memories because they are so painful. (I know several such victims who have recovered these memories as adults--and been able to independently verify that the memories are real.) It is well established that childhood sexual abuse survivors have high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, often have severe sexual problems (both frigidity and promiscuity in women, and for some fraction of men, pederasty) as well as many other paraphiliac behaviors (sadomasochism, bestiality, self-infliction of pain). The odd little pieces of evidence aren't proof, but they are rather odd coincidences.

Unfortunately, because the psychiatric profession couldn't figure out how to cure homosexuality (too much focus on single factor explanations, and not, apparently ever this one), they decided to declare victory in 1973, and go home. But the doctor that led the removal of homosexuality from DSM-III has published a study in the last couple of years showing that a sizeable fraction of homosexuals can change not just behavior, but orientation. Some did so through faith-based counselling; many others through very secular methods.

Posted by Clayton E. Cramer at July 19, 2003 06:42 PM

Thanks for your reply Clayton...very interesting. I personally know only one homosexual person so I cannot really comment on the validity of your claims. Let's see what Andrew Sullivan has to say, though!

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at July 20, 2003 05:23 AM

...returning to Clayton E. Cramer's comments, I can only extrapolate my impressions from the only homosexual I know. He is a childhood friend of mine. His story seems to contradict Clayton's "gays are often traumatized victims of abuse, or drug abusers" allegation. Like his heterosexual brothers, my friend has no problems with his parents, he has been very successful in life and is well liked by women. The fact that he is gay and living in a stable monogamous relationship with another man, while his brothers are married, suggests homosexuality is primarily an inherited trait (DNA, genes or whatever) rather than the result of an unhappy childhood etc..

Clayton refers to studies implying gays and lesbians are much more likely to be drug abusers, have mental problems etc.. I am sure each case is different and depends on the individual in question, but isn't it quite possible that part of this "unhappiness" results from conflicts with a majority culture which (even here in liberal Finland) tends to be somewhat homophobic...? It seems "coming out of the closet" can be a very difficult decision, particularly to people from culturally conservative homes. I am not saying this explains EVERYTHING, mind you, but surely it has an impact on the overall happiness of gay people as well?

The bottom line is, I suspect probably almost *any* theory trying to explain homosexuality is "correct" as far as some gay individuals are concerned. As Rand pointed out in another message, sexual orientation is probably like a vast grayscale (heteros, bisexuals, gays, other sexual minorities). But I am not sure why any of this is very important. What matters is my friend lives happily with his boyfriend (who also happens to be the kind of guy you'd wish your daughter would marry) and I fail to see how their stable, lasting relationship somehow detracts from or somehow undermines what heterosexuals are doing!!

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at July 21, 2003 06:38 AM

Post a comment