Skip to comments.Why gay rights activists need to straighten up
Posted on 02/19/2009 11:41:26 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
Warning: This article contains sexually explicit language.
Ive been a libertarian my entire adult life. Libertarianism, as Ive been an apologist for it, is a philosophy promoting individual rights, civil liberties, and the freedom to have manifest destiny over ones own life and property. I am opposed to the government telling people what they can do with their minds and bodies. I am consistent on this whether the issue is consensual intimate relations between adults, or the freedom to self-medicate and self-entertain oneself using the agricultural or pharmaceutical product of ones choice, or the responsibility of parents to choose what their children are taught about how the human race came to be, or whether its regarding the decision of a woman not to carry a fetus to term in her womb.
So when I have to explain to my daughter, who phone-banked in the November 2008 election against Californias Proposition 8 by which the California electorate voted to amend their Constitution restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, why Im opposed to California courts overturning the vote she lost, it requires an explanation of my grounding principles and my firmly grasping sharp ideological nettles.
Let there be no mistake. I favor absolute equality in law for adult individuals who prize the liberty to have intimate relations with, fall in love with, and make life commitments to other individuals of their own gender. I favor laws enabling institutions to grant equity to same-sex couples in matters of habitation, inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation and fiduciary decision-making. If there are to be civil rights laws forbidding discrimination in employment, housing, and use of common facilities, and laws forbidding hate crimes, on the basis of race, color, religion, or ethnic origin, then I see no reason why gender preference is worth either less or more than these other collective categories for receiving grants of legal protection.
But none of that means Im going to favor up-ending constitutional principles to favor a specific groups pleadings, nor do I think a struggle for civil rights entitles one to thuggery, nor am I willing to embrace hypocrisy, the destruction of language, rewriting history, and lies just because some people have justifiable grievances.
Lets start with the lies contained in the use of two common terms: homosexual and gay.
There is no such thing as homo sexuality, unless by that term you are referring to sexual relations between two members of the species homo sapiens.
Sexuality refers to the natural biological processes by which living organisms reproduce. In mammals, primates, and homo sapiens, this natural process requires gametes supplied by both males and females. Gametes supplied by two males will not cause reproduction. Gametes supplied by two females will not cause reproduction. Only gametes supplied by the copulation of males and females will cause reproduction and you can teach whatever propaganda you like in taxpayer-funded and politically decided sex education curricula and no children will result from the attempts of the students to copulate otherwise.
This is not to say that everything that heterosexuals do with each other is sex, either. It isnt. The term oral sex is also a misnomer, as Im sure former President William Jefferson Clinton would be happy to inform you. Neither is anal sex a biologically correct term. Despite parental or church propaganda, sticking a penis in either a mouth or an anus cannot lead to pregnancy. If Juno had given her boyfriend a blowjob there would have been an entirely different movie.
Non-progenitive behavior is sex play, power play, love play, or molestation, depending on the intents and consent of the participants. But inasmuch as no reproduction can result, these are not sex acts and those engaging in them are not defined by their acts as sexuals, homo, hetero, or else wise.
In my 1983 novel, The Rainbow Cadenza, I invented a neologism to describe men who were physically attracted only to other men. I called them andromen using the Greek root for male. Ill continue using my own term for the remainder of this screed. The term lesbian needs no redefinition and Ill continue using it as well.
From the standpoint of reproductive biology, andromen and lesbians are chaste. They may cohabitate, and love each other. They may pair-bond into brotherhoods, sisterhoods, or families. But unless they find a partner of the opposite sex to mix their gametes with, they are not sexually active. Any condoms they use are solely for the purpose of preventing the spread of diseases, which not only are sexually transmitted but also non-sexually transmitted through intimate encounters that exchange bodily fluids. But these condoms are irrelevant to preventing a pregnancy, which can not result from these intimacies.
So lets put another lie to bed. AIDS is not only a Sexually Transmitted Disease; it is also a Non-Sexually-Transmitted Disease. I would dare say that it would be hard to find a case where the HIV virus was ever transmitted through a sexual encounter in a San Francisco gay bath house -- unless one of the participants was a female pretending to be a male and the male partner was somehow manipulated into inserting his penis into her vagina and ejaculating therein.
Since males who are attracted only to other males are sexually abstinent, they are perfect candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood, which requires their priests to be celibate that is, to refrain from marriage. Likewise, lesbians being sexually abstinent are perfect candidates to be nuns, since their marriage to Christ need never be physically consummated. For some reason Ive never been able to fathom, neither the Roman Catholic hierarchy nor the activist movements for andromen and lesbians are comfortable with this obvious lifestyle perfection.
And, in my opinion, the unwillingness of gay organizations to stand up for Catholic priests when they are caught engaging in non-sexual acts with other males is the sheerest hypocrisy and poltroonery.
While were at it, lets dispose of the label gay. Its false-to-fact propaganda. Being physically attracted only to members of ones own sex does not make one happier than being physically attracted to members of the opposite sex. If anything, the social stigma has tended to cause a great deal of unhappiness. Being expressively flamboyant, liking Broadway show tunes, being artistically creative, and liking gourmet cooking may indeed make one gay. By those definitions I am gay. But Im not willing to stick my penis into another mans anus or mouth, or have another man stick his penis into mine, to complete my initiation.
I understand that scriptures deriving from the Hebrews Jewish, Christian, and Islamic have been interpreted as being harsh toward same-sex couplings. Ive read the Bible and I understand why ancient nomadic tribes, being low population and economically marginal, placed a high utility on reproductive behavior -- and why their cultures reflected an understandable hostility towards gangs of thugs sneaking into their camps and molesting their men. I just dont think Gods instructions to these ancients was specifically applicable to men who set up housekeeping in West Hollywood or the Castro.
But its offensive to me when a church service is invaded by something that looks like the cast of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Its offensive to me when an old lady holding a cross at an anti-Proposition 8 protest has the cross ripped from her hands and stomped on. I understand the long-standing provocations but this grudge match between Queers and Bible Thumpers has got to stop.
What also has to stop is the attempt by andromen and lesbians to norm social acceptance of their lifestyle preferences by pretending that marriage is a civil right they are being denied. Marriage has always required consummation and this they cannot do with each other.
Nor is it right that in their hunger for social acceptance they are willing to corrupt the judicial system such that a states attorney general and state judges sworn to uphold a states constitution and deriving whatever legitimate authority they have from that constitution -- are demanded to ignore a politys majority vote to enshrine a millennial-old custom in their states constitution, and stage a political coup to overturn it.
My darling daughter.
You want to disestablish marriage as a legally regulated institution entirely? As a libertarian, Im with you.
You want to amend the California constitution so that any two or more adults who want to get married including groups of men and women in any number and mixture may legally do so Ill cross the border from my home state of Nevada to help you campaign for it.
But dont tell me that gays have a greater right to marriage than Mormon-offshoot polygamists. That sort of special pleading that ignores the historical discrimination against others just revolts me. If you want your daddy to line up with you to defend someones civil rights, then theyre going to have to respect the civil rights of everyone else and not expect more political privileges than any other homo sapiens whether we homos arrived on this planet through the good graces of God or Charles Darwin.
J. Neil Schulman is a libertarian writer, activist, and filmmaker.
So far among other things you have called me evil, totalitarian, and theocrat, Taliban, too, as I recall.
Not exactly an argument for your position. Not to mention you are apparently completely unaware of what the Psalms have to say about when God knows the souls He creates. Hint: in the womb.
But let us not argue— May you be blessed by God in every way with His Presence, His Love, His Salvation, and His Joy. And may He teach you, quickly! what you do not know. I cede to you the rest of the discussion, as you have become, in my flawed opinion, boring.
Yo dumdum, you're the clown arguing that human beings are not human beings based on a theological perspective.
My argument is based on settled science. The unborn baby is a member of the species homo sapiens. This isn't arguable and it's entirely secular.
You, and your fellow pathetic pro abortion libertarians dehumanize unborn babies so you can look at yourself in the mirror and say 'oh what a good libertarian am I'.
You dole out rights like any good liberal. Rights for me but none for thee.
I know you won't take my advice but I'll offer it anyway. Crawl back in your pro abortion libertarian hidey hole and be content with writing verbose screeds about what a principled little libertarian you are.
It's better than making a fool out of yourself by making insane claims about human babies not being human until the cord is cut.
‘Yo dumdum, you’re the clown arguing that human beings are not human beings based on a theological perspective. My argument is based on settled science. The unborn baby is a member of the species homo sapiens. This isn’t arguable and it’s entirely secular.”
Glad you finally admitted your modernist atheistic perspective.
Judith Anne wrote:
“But let us not argue May you be blessed by God in every way with His Presence, His Love, His Salvation, and His Joy. And may He teach you, quickly! what you do not know.”
Beautifully said. I agree and pray the same for you.
You’ve distorted the Talmudic teachings to try to justify your amoral conclusion.
Pathetic, just like your defense of other immoral practices.
Did you watch the movie someone linked for you?
or are you too self-absorbed with your own propaganda to consider an opposing viewpoint.
“Pure garbage. Youve distorted the Talmudic teachings to try to justify your amoral conclusion.”
At no point did I quote from the Talmud. Could you tell me what Talmudic teachings you refer to, Rabbi?
Homosex is a sick and vile perversion, and it’s an utter shame that we are even having this national discussion.
It’s an even bigger shame that the courts are likely to overturn my vote banning this travesty.
I personally will never understand why you libertarians want to remove a beautiful institution like marriage from our national landscape. The legal rights connected to marriage make very little sense apart from the institution itself.
It is more than a merely religious issue, although it certainly has religious aspects to it. Fortunately, this is a Christian nation and I am okay with religious concepts within my government.
It will be an utter shame when liberals and libertarians remove all vestiges of Christ from our government
In your snarky, smirky manner you claimed that a “Hebrew” teaching as to the soul filling a person does not occur until they take their first breath, and that is hogwash.
Your intellectually perverse reasoning to support your maladjustment to conventional morality is a transparent attempt to justify barbaric and abominable behaviors.
Dont bother responding, because i have no further interest in reading your crap.
How droll. You make light of the Holy Spirit and expect me to believe He leads you in interpreting scripture. Sorry, but no.
“’Really? The Holy Spirit posted a reply to me in this discussion?’
“How droll. You make light of the Holy Spirit and expect me to believe He leads you in interpreting scripture. Sorry, but no.”
It wasn’t the Holy Spirit I was making light of in this discussion. It’s people like you who invoke the name of the Holy Spirit to spread their own poisonous bigotry.
“In your snarky, smirky manner you claimed that a Hebrew teaching as to the soul filling a person does not occur until they take their first breath, and that is hogwash.”
That was, in fact, the belief of the Biblical Hebrews, whether you choose to believe it or not.
“Your intellectually perverse reasoning to support your maladjustment to conventional morality is a transparent attempt to justify barbaric and abominable behaviors.”
MY maladjustment to conventional morality? I was married to a woman and procreated. You have a problem with that?
“Dont bother responding, because i have no further interest in reading your crap.”
I am not posting to you privately. You write to me in public I’ll respond to you in public. If you’re incapable of making a compelling argument I want others to be exposed to the inadequacy of your challenge.
So it is bigotry to you to challenge you who clearly said YOU can interpret the scriptures, when scripture itself says interpretation is of the Holy Spirit? Got it. Thanks for clearly illustrating my point.
MEGoody wrote in Message 65: “It isn’t me who is the ‘arbiter’ but the Holy Spirit, and he’s already shown you are out on a limb with your ‘interpretation.’”
You’re claiming you can tell me that I’m “out on a limb” with my interpretation of scripture because the Holy Spirit has shown you the true meaning.
OK, if that’s not a claim that MEGoody has a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit to understand the meaning of scripture then what is it?
OK, if thats not a claim that MEGoody has a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit to understand the meaning of scripture then what is it?
Well, of course it is. I never claimed otherwise. In fact, I've already said repeatedly the Holy Spirit is the only correct interpreter of scripture. I know who I've been receiving teaching from - Him. And you've told us that you are the one doing the interpreting for yourself.
MEGoody wrote:” I’ve already said repeatedly the Holy Spirit is the only correct interpreter of scripture. I know who I’ve been receiving teaching from - Him. And you’ve told us that you are the one doing the interpreting for yourself.”
Yes. I won’t blame the Holy Spirit for my own interpretations of scripture. I won’t claim infallability for myself, as you do.
I do, nonetheless, inform anyone who finds it relevant that I’ve been the object of divine guidance. But no one is required to believe me.
So what you are saying is that it upsets you that I know Who I am listening to and you don't. Got it.
I started to read your book, The Rainbow Cadenza, but couldn’t finish it. I can’t remember the specifics, but I cast it aside where the heroine watches a youngish woman being raped and sort of gets turned on by the act.
LOL Way to twist what I've said. Of course you know I've never said I was infallible. What I said was I know whom I am listening to. HE is the one who is infallible.
I do, nonetheless, inform anyone who finds it relevant that Ive been the object of divine guidance.
However, you are either not sure whether the Holy Spirit is guiding you in interpreting the scriptures, or you are certain He is not.
“’Yes. I wont blame the Holy Spirit for my own interpretations of scripture. I wont claim infallability for myself, as you do.’
“So what you are saying is that it upsets you that I know Who I am listening to and you don’t. Got it.”
You’ve got it wrong. I know I’ve been on touch with God. But I won’t demand others worship God through me, as does anyone who claims the authority of scripture or of the Holy Spirit to demand others regard what is their human — and therefore incomplete and error-prone perceptions and opinions — as divine.
“I started to read your book, The Rainbow Cadenza, but couldnt finish it. I cant remember the specifics, but I cast it aside where the heroine watches a youngish woman being raped and sort of gets turned on by the act.”
My heroine is not turned on and is in fact repelled by what she is forced to watch. You quit reading too soon. Here is dialogue from the following scene:
Later that night, after they returned to Charlotte Amalie, he took Joan into his house and stopped her. You didnt like the hunt, did you? he asked.
I thought it was reprehensible, she said.
Excellent, he said.
The point to the scene is one of the villain’s manipulations of the heroine to degrade her ... a degradation that she survives and triumphs over.
“’I wont claim infallability for myself, as you do.’
“LOL Way to twist what I’ve said. Of course you know I’ve never said I was infallible. What I said was I know whom I am listening to. HE is the one who is infallible.”
Then admit that you might have got it wrong and stop using the mantle of the Holy Spirit to in insist you can’t have a wrong interpretation of scripture.
Thank you for responding. Perhaps I will give it another try. I liked the concept.
Because we all know what happens when someone bends over around gay rights activists.
Once more, you haven't paid attention to what I've said. I'm not listening to myself as you do. I'm listening to the Holy Spirit and He is never wrong.
Since you readily admit you may be wrong and can't be sure of anything, then I have no idea why you are arguing with me. Except, perhaps, it bothers you when others have a confidence in the guidance of the Holy Spirit that you do not have.
What does that mean exactly? You certainly don't seem confident that the Holy Spirit is guiding you.
But I wont demand others worship God through me
:::rolls eyes::: What a non-sequiter. I claim the Holy Spirit is infallible, and that I know I've been listening to Him, and you make this type of wild claim.
My goodness, it really IS bothering you that someone is confident in the guidance of the Spirit and you are not.
“’I know Ive been on touch with God.’
“What does that mean exactly? You certainly don’t seem confident that the Holy Spirit is guiding you.”
I’ve already answered that question by offering you a free read of my book I MET GOD and you answered that you weren’t interested in reading it. So stop pretending that you have any interest in anything other than patting yourself on the back and claiming personal omniscience.
“My goodness, it really IS bothering you that someone is confident in the guidance of the Spirit and you are not.”
There’s a difference between confidence and hubris — and the difference is self honesty.
So I have to read a whole book to know what you've already shown in your posts to me - you are not confident that you know when the Holy Spirit is leading you. Right.
Theres a difference between confidence and hubris and the difference is self honesty.
And to you 'self-honesty' is being unsure as you are. Got it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.