Is “Gay” Really the Same, Just Different?

by Brad Nelson   12/31/13

Mr. Kung had turned me on to an excellent article at an excellent web site (Taki’s Magazine). It’s a thoughtful article, somewhat pro and con, by Elizabeth McCaw: The Straight Dope on Homosexuality.

Here are a couple of terrific thoughts from Elizabeth:

How should we view homosexuality? It should be treated as a naturally occurring defect, much like deafness or diabetes or asthma. We don’t blame people for these conditions or persecute them, but we don’t treat them like heroes, either. City governments do not vote money for asthma pride day. It is strange and unhealthy to celebrate defects as if they were accomplishments.


The idea of homosexual marriage rewrites the idea of marriage. Societies give benefits to married couples because they are the people who bring the next generation into the world. We value marriage not because married people copulate—though of course they do—but because they produce children. Same-sex marriage ignores the whole question of children and defines marriage as nothing more than copulation. By that standard, if an animal fetishist keeps a mule, he should be able to declare a civil union, enroll the mule in the corporate health plan, and have the company pay the vet bills.

By the way. When I contacted this site to see if I could reprint this article, I was told the price was $250.00. So, Nik — and you other fine contributors here who have joined me in voluntarily trying to turn back the tide of the Left — you can start calculating what I owe you. I’ll keep a running tally. And if I ever hit the lottery, I’ll pay you back. 😉
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (3436 views)

Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Is “Gay” Really the Same, Just Different?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    This question for forced redefinition of marriage is one reason I oppose homosexual marriage (particular when mandated by judicial tyrants, which tends to remind me of the motto of my native state, Virginia). It’s much the same as why I don’t use “gay” for homosexual. Languages evolve, but that is hijacking, not evolution.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Thanks to Bruce Price, I’ve discovered a new blog called Invisible Serfs Collar. In the current blog post there is a quote from William Henry Chamberlin’s book, A False Utopia: Collectivism In Theory And Practice:

    “In the collectivist state, on the other hand, every influence within the control of an omnipotent government is mobilized for the purpose of creating a uniform type of personality, disciplined and regimented to the last degree, trained to regard anything ‘the leader’ advocates as right and to change its mind as quickly as the leader may change his. It is easy to imagine the kind of individual that is becoming a standardized product under the collectivist dictatorship; it is a sort of human gramophone which plays without a hitch whatever tune the official thought-controllers may call.”

    However one falls on the gay marriage issue, it should be noted (as I have often done myself) how suddenly the “correct” opinion changed. Yesterday we were at peace with Eastasia. Tomorrow it’s “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.” The change is not based upon reason but upon what Chamberlin calls people becoming “a sort of human gramophone which plays without a hitch whatever tune the official thought-controllers may call.” And how many broken records have you heard on this issue, even at this site?

    We see the creeping and creepy thought process of collectivism. Suddenly the Smart People are all for something that only a moment ago none (or few) of the Smart People were for. And this change of opinion is even more bizarre because there is no acknowledgment of the inherent arbitrariness of it, of it being rooted in nothing but fad or fashion. Instead we get little but bumper-sticker slogans and pre-packaged soundbyte-reasoning which is a double attempt at deceit: to deceive others and to deceive onself.

    My friends, to not be collectivists we first have to stop thinking like them. And one of the primary traits of Orwellian collectivism is to have your mind belong to others, where opinions change like the wind. Many processes in our culture (especially including state education) is turning people into sheep. And these sheep, of course, are taught that they are not sheep at all but are the Smart People. If this was not so serious, it would be funny. Well, it is indeed funny all the same.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I’ve been pointing out this sort of thing in FOSFAX for years, and in fact have written a series of articles on the Orwellian nature of liberalism that focus on 2 aspects of that odious political cult: liberal hostility to opposing views, and the remarkable ability of liberals to contradict themselves as you cite here. One early example of steady reversals is the liberal support for, then hostility to, then support for independent prosecutors depending on who is President. What makes it funny is that liberals never admit that their views have changed and are purely partisan, so they will proclaim principles that they obviously don’t really believe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *