Logic and Leaving it to Beaver

TwoGuysby Deana Chadwell    8/11/14
A while back I posted a video to Facebook – a video of Ryan Anderson explaining with great clarity and precision why it was fair for marriage to be legal only when it involved 1 man and 1 woman. My post, of course, rubbed some of my FB friends the wrong way and it quickly became clear that no cogent conversation was going to happen in FB mini-bites. I promised I’d write something more complete – I see 3 main reasons why gay marriage isn’t a good policy.

I have a differing attitude from my young friends because I’m old, and can vividly remember living in a society where divorce was rare and frowned upon, where getting pregnant outside of marriage was shameful, where the vast majority of children grew up in 1man + 1 woman households where the moms made their lunches every morning and the whole family ate dinner together in the evenings.

I don’t, however, bemoan the present state of affairs (pun intended) out of nostalgia and some latent Leave-it-to-Beaver fetish. My concern is much more practical.[pullquote]Sexual/romantic attraction is atomic-bomb powerful, but it is not the cornerstone of marital bliss and longevity.[/pullquote]

In the first place Leave-it-to-Beaver wasn’t easy. The girl who got pregnant in high school either quit and married or went to a Catholic home for unwed mothers and gave the child up for adoption. That was no small task. When a husband turned out to be a good-for-nothing jerk, the wife generally, as my mother did for many difficult years, made the best of it. When a person felt attracted to the opposite sex he/she kept that quiet, living either celibate or clandestine lives. Some quietly lived together, like the two middle-aged men who bought and restored an old mansion in the tiny town where my grandparents lived. Everyone knew that their passion for decorating with fine antiques separated them from the farmers who populated the county, but I never heard anyone speak ill of them. Nevertheless, it must have been tricky living that way.

But let me start where my gay friends were most distressed – they were sure Anderson was being illogical, so let me address that:

This is Anderson’s syllogism in a nut shell:

traditional marriage = 1 man + 1 woman + sexual exclusivity + lifetime commitment ± children (usually through natural procreation or adoption)

same sex couples = 1 man + 1 man (or 1 woman + 1 woman) ± sexual exclusivity ± children (through in-vitro fertilization or adoption)


Therefore – Marriage ≠Same sex couple

None of the conditions in Anderson’s first premise match the conditions in the second premise, i.e. no parallel exists. Not unless you distort the definition of marriage. Gay advocates do this by oversimplification – “If two people love each other….”

Note that the word love is not mentioned in the syllogism. The notion of romantic love as the only defining factor in marriage is a relatively recent development. And it’s a truly lovely addition to the mix, but it isn’t necessary. For most of human history marriages were arranged, and in societies where that is still practiced the divorce rate is not any higher than it is here in movieland.

Love (eros), as C.S. Lewis so eloquently explained in his tiny book The Four Loves, is only one of the four, the most fleeting, and the one that is not really a virtue. Sexual/romantic attraction is atomic-bomb powerful, but it is not the cornerstone of marital bliss and longevity. Having been married almost 50 years I can attest to that – a successful marriage demands heavy doses of all four loves.

In addition, look to the other parameters :

Exclusivity – a very high percentage of same-sex male unions are sexually open arrangements often involving scores of additional partners.

Lifetime commitment – 86% of female same-sex unions end in divorce

Procreation – none, unless done through artificial means, which is another Brave New World nightmare all its own.

Look back at the syllogism – if you add up all the parts of the first premise you also get societal stability and at least population replacement. If you add the components of the second premise you get instability and no net gain in population. (Those worried about the sustainability of population growth need to realize that negative population growth produces economic collapse – another nasty kettle of fish.)

There’s no unfairness here – we’re talking about 2 entirely different kinds of relationships. There’s no moral equivalence, no production equivalence, no stability equivalence.

Secondly, being gay is not the societal equivalent of being black. I keep hearing that argument. This confusion has caused people to lose their jobs and spend time fighting lawsuits, but it’s nonsense.

One is born black, but one is not born gay. There is no moral component in one’s race, but there is in one’s sexual behavior. Long term studies on thousands of pairs of identical twins in Australia, Scandinavia, and here in the US, have shown that only 14% of the pairs were both homosexual. Since DNA is exactly the same between identical twins, it is not possible for gayness to be a genetic issue. Some event, or some reaction to some event that was exclusive to one twin must be the catalyst, but gays can’t claim the kind of discrimination the black population has endured. Gayness is a behavioral matter; blackness carries no moral component at all.

In addition, all African Americans have wanted is an equal shot at doing what all people are designed to do – to work and be paid decently for that work. The gay population wants to do what they are not designed to do. The gay lifestyle (and it is either a lifestyle or a handicap – it can’t be both), goes against the natural design of the human body and results in serious health concerns – the incidence of HIV/AIDS in young male homosexuals is skyrocketing. You’d think that with the trend heading toward gay “marriage” that the disease would be dwindling, but that is not the case.[pullquote]One is born black, but one is not born gay. There is no moral component in one’s race, but there is in one’s sexual behavior. Long term studies on thousands of pairs of identical twins in Australia, Scandinavia, and here in the US, have shown that only 14% of the pairs were both homosexual.[/pullquote]

No doubt someone reading this somewhere is reacting and calling me a homophobe. It’s another term designed for use in heading off actual, productive discussion. Am I unreasonably afraid of those who are attracted to members of their own sex? No. Many are amongst my favorite people. I am reasonably afraid of what same-sex marriage will do to our society. And I don’t have to guess about that. We aren’t on a slippery slope – that happened in the 60’s – we’re now plunging off the cliff and call me names if you must, but I can see the rocks not far below.

And I’m not guessing, but citing facts. The Scandinavians have traveled this path before us. It’s been over 20 years since Sweden, Denmark, and Norway legalized same sex marriage. By doing that the concept of marriage was watered down until it became meaningless. In all three countries most children are born to unwed parents, a statistic that skyrocketed right after the legal sanction of same-sex unions.

I doubt you can blame all that on gay marriage. These countries, like the US, have been flirting with sexual abandon for quite some time  — the advent of birth control pills in the 60’s set it off, and then the legalization of abortion in the 70’s and now the gay movement. Meanwhile our divorce rate climbs – the last census showed that of 1,000 people 6.8 would marry and 3.6 would divorce – over 50% of marriages fail (though we should note that the divorce rate amongst evangelical Christians and Catholics remains below 30%, and for Bible-studying Christians only 18%). In black communities close to 80% of children are born out of wedlock and other groups are not far behind. So what? Juvenile crime is up, drug use rampant, high school graduation rates are low and getting lower (another stew that needs stirring) and we don’t have a handle on any of it.

So, we’ll do what? We’ll fold to the loud demands of only 1.6% of the population by legalizing gay nuptials and put more nails in the coffins of both marriage and family. Then we can sit back and watch stupefied as groups of three or more want to file joint returns, as pedophiles want to “marry” children, as all imaginable combinations vie for their fair share of public acceptance. That argument angers my gay friends, too, but I’m not equating homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality. It’s just that the dominoes are falling and I don’t want to think about the misery and dysfunction that will be our lot when the last one goes down.


Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (2358 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Essays and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Logic and Leaving it to Beaver

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Great opinion piece, Deana. That is one of your best and deserves a very wide distribution. I loved this bit as well:

    The gay population wants to do what they are not designed to do. The gay lifestyle (and it is either a lifestyle or a handicap – it can’t be both), goes against the natural design of the human body and results in serious health concerns – the incidence of HIV/AIDS in young male homosexuals is skyrocketing.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    And I’m not guessing, but citing facts. The Scandinavians have traveled this path before us. It’s been over 20 years since Sweden, Denmark, and Norway legalized same sex marriage. By doing that the concept of marriage was watered down until it became meaningless. In all three countries most children are born to unwed parents, a statistic that skyrocketed right after the legal sanction of same-sex unions.

    This is the reason I’m not a libertarian. Should I tear down the world to get what I want merely because I’m clever enough to call it a right?

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    I have a few observations to make. For one thing, conservatism (as distinct from being right-wing) involves caution about change — not reflexive rejection, but careful study with an awareness that there will be undesirable consequences to any action. Thus, careful study of those places which allow the legal recognition of homosexual marriage is desirable in order to evaluate such relationships as a matter of public policy. This becomes impossible, of course, if we proclaim it a matter of “right” — which also has the problem that it equates the “right” to redefine marriage as including homosexual relationships to basic rights such as the First Amendment freedoms that are often incompatible with it.

    In addition, we should note that the issue is purely legal recognition of homosexual marriages. No one is ever punished for being involved in any way with such a rite — but today people are punished for refusing to do so on religious grounds, even in states where homosexual marriage is “banned”.

    The future consequences (polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality) are inevitable given the logic of homosexual marriage, and especially its treatment as a “right”. Once we reject religious morality as a basis for marriage law, how can one justify all those other changes. The Overton Window is being shifted leftward in a lurch, and in a way that doesn’t allow moving back if we don’t like the results. So in the end people will decide to believe that pedophilia and bestiality are perfectly all right, because they can’t figure out how to explain what’s wrong with them.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      So in the end people will decide to believe that pedophilia and bestiality are perfectly all right, because they can’t figure out how to explain what’s wrong with them.

      Indeed.

      We used to live in a culture, Timothy, that wasn’t afraid to acknowledge limitations, usually expressed through traditional morals and law. But as Theodore Dalrymple points out, the counter-culture culture is now the primary culture. And as I often say, this orientation has no “off” switch. It knows only the pursuit of more novelty and expanded “rights.” There is no wisdom factored into the equation. There is no view toward unintended consequences.

      Society “advances” in any case. The conservative plank is not against change but that the sphere of private influence (not government) be the primary method of change. It’s one thing for Steve Jobs to, out of the blue, create the iPod which indeed changes the way we do music. It would be quite another thing to have the government be in charge of technological innovation which would generally be to make a mess of things.

      Even so, there is one structure that the government (thus all of us) have an interest in maintaining if we wish to remain free and prosperous: the family. The only alternative to the family is government. And there is no objective data that government-as-parent, nanny, or surrogate spouse can in any way maintain the kind of freedom and prosperity that are the hallmarks of America.

      What does it take to take a longer view of oneself and one’s society? What character trait is it whereby we might set aside some of our short-term desires (desires often inflamed and confused by passions and ego) and look toward the long-term good? Is it wisdom? Yes, I think it is. And one thing you can say about the Left is that there is nothing in that ideology that facilitates wisdom.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Edward Radzinsky, in his excellent biography of Tsar Alexander II (Alexander II: The Last Great Tsar), notes an interesting maxim the future tsar learned from a tutor: “Revolution is a destructive effort to leap from Monday directly into Wednesday. But the effort to jump from Monday back to Sunday is equally destructive.” This can be considered a good description not only of reformist conservatism (which is ready to advance, but with due caution) as opposed to either reaction or revolutionary leftism, but also of the Overton Window. This also explain one reason for the determined effort to impose homosexual marriage everywhere: to reach a point where it becomes impossible to turn back.

  4. Another Look says:

    I am also of the writer’s generation (or so).

    I appreciate the observation that “love” is not really what marriage is all about. Never was. Indeed, if you look in the literature, you will often find that marriage was more like commercial contracts made between families, where “love” (usually for someone else) got in the way. The literature rarely informs us as to what would happen in those cases where the commercially viable marriage is blocked, in favor of “love” between parties that are socially disparate.

    To put this another way: Of the famous hetero married couples who prominently support same-sex marriage (I am thinking of Bill and Melinda Gates, for example) how many have one go to an elite private college (graduated or not) and the other go to Nowhere State University? Is it all about “love,” or money?

    Yet another observation: SSM advocates sometimes like to approach economic conservatives by noting that marriage is a contract, and all the gays want is freedom of contract (thus, “freedom to marry”). But that fails for a simple reason: two-party commercial contracts do not entail any rights or obligations pertaining to non-contracting third parties. Marriage does.

    Example: Suppose Jane bakes donuts, and John runs a coffee shop. They have a mutually exclusive business contract, where she provides donuts to his shop alone, and he serves only her donuts. Now, suppose that Bob approaches Jane, and asks her to default on the contract with John, by providing donuts to his shop in addition. Is that morally reprehensible? Of course not. It is only actionable to the extent that John loses profits from having to compete with another shop that serves Jane’s donuts. And, if Bob’s shop is willing to sell Jane’s donuts cheaper (or with better coffee) then there is a positive public benefit. Can’t say that about marriage.

    The sticking point in the equation (as written in the article) is one that some gays identified long ago: If traditonal marriage has anything at all to do with children, then why not demand that a hetero married couple produce? This is less facetious than it sounds. One wag suggested that a hetero marriage be automatically dissolved if no child appears within five years. Otherwise, the marriage is solely for benefits (health plans, etc.), and why shouldn’t everyone else get in on it? This is the one area where I agree with their analysis.

    Yet there is one rationale that canot be surmounted: Marriage is a social practice that rises from the people to government, not a government program. It predates any meaningful concept of government. Our federal constitution specifically states that whatever is not specifically federal, is reserved to the states or to the people. The “or the people” is rarely stressed enough. Indeed, the recent spate of federal judicial rulings against popular referenda are, I say, facially unconstitutional; the people have spoken on a pre-existing right of the people.

    Edit: Some gays note that slavery was also a social practice. I (lifelong single) respond that all marriage is slavery, so I am trying to minimize it. In any case, at least in California, some SSM advocates grouse that the only reason Prop 8 passed was that among the various demographic groups, black women overwhelmingly supported it. To that I respond: Would you propose denying blacks or women the right to vote, if they don’t vote your way?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Yet there is one rationale that canot be surmounted: Marriage is a social practice that rises from the people to government, not a government program. It predates any meaningful concept of government.

      That’s a good point, Another Look.

      In the end, it takes clever, complicated, or disingenuous arguments to make the case for homosexual marriage. One can, of course, refer to one’s easy chair as an “elevator” or one’s car as a “the planet Mars.” But anything called “marriage” that isn’t between the opposite sexes is just pretend marriage.

      Libertarians try to make the case that the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage and that it is nothing more than a contract. Such a view of something as essential and obvious as male/female and family arrangement is cuckoo, just as saying that two men or two women who are “married” is cuckoo. Oh, you can, through social pressure and law — perhaps dazzling the easily-bamboozled with notions that they are on the cutting edge of “compassion” — declare that something never before even conceived of by the Greeks is heretofore to be called “marriage.” Even if this does happen, those whose minds extend above mere passing fashion and fad will recognize that the emperor wears no clothes.

      If two men or two women want to self-identify as homosexual and play mother and father, I guess that is their business. But there is no reason the rest of us should acknowledge it as “marriage.” And that has nothing to do with a distaste for homosexuality. It has to do with a distaste for redefining things willy-nilly and for no good reason — as well as acknowledging the destruction that a further assault on marriage, children, and families will cause.

      • Another Look says:

        Indeed. ALL marriage is an infringement on the liberties of non-contracting third parties. But in the case of traditional marriage (at least among the serious), there is an overriding rational for such infringement.

        A few years ago (I believe it was in the time leading to the vote on California’s Prop 8) one of the local calm and reputable gay activists gave a lecture on why he and his partner wanted gay marriage. I didn’t attend, but read the transcript. He did not express his views in terms of rights, or justice, or freedom. Rather, he truthfully pointed out that what he and his partner really wanted (mostly benefits) could all be obtained under current law, without gay marriage. The problem was that there was no one-stop shopping center for that. They had to do one thing to ensure that each was in the other’s inheritance, then another thing to ensure that each was in the other’s chain for medical permissions, and another thing for life insurace, and… You get the picture. But all of that came at once with traditional marriage. So, he argued, since they could get what they needed by jumping through numerous hoops, why not do it all at once?

        If you have ever run a small business (I have) and get tired of having to deal with numerous local agencies for all kinds of permits, and wish that there were one permit that did it all, then surely you’d sympathize.

        The problem is that marriage is not merely a one-stop permit center. I would have been willing to grant it for the kinds of things he wanted, because each separate item was already legal (not just in California). But nothing about that implied that love was involved, or marriage, or anything else. What he wanted, and what would be easy for even most conservatives to grant, was the equivalent to going to the DMV and getting a driver license for car, truck, and motorcycle with one appointment.

        Sadly, supporters of traditional marriage have been labeled as “haters,” and have not fought back. The real quesion is, “Why do YOU hate (traditional) marriage?”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Since liberals have started using “marriage equality” as their propaganda buzzword for homosexual marriage (note that this term wasn’t used to support interracial marriage), we should respond by referring to it as “mandatory redefinition of marriage”. That’s why the forms have to be rewritten to get rid of “husband” and “wife”.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link below is to a piece on today’s NRO Corner blog. It is a survey of beliefs regarding homosexual marriage and other sexual mores.

    Interestingly, the church going “Christians” were generally against it and the non-church going “Christians” were generally ok with it. They were also ok with a lot of other “sinful” behavior as the Bible defines it.

    The answers by the homosexuals showed that, in large part, they really are as immoral as the stereotypes about them suggest.

    I think it was Brad who said that many of today’s “Christians” have no idea of the content of the Bible. I think this survey clearly suggests that is the case.

    This is a sign of the Left’s success.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385190/surprise-pro-gay-marriage-christians-reject-rest-christian-teaching-about-sex-and

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Thanks for posting that, Mr. Kung.

      It will take God tapping me on the shoulder or hitting me with the Jesus stick to become a true believer. I’m just cynical and suspicious. And it doesn’t help seeing mainstream Christianity, for all intents and purposes, act not as a bandage for the soul but like a whoopee cushion for the esteem.

      More and more, Christianity seems to be the outer veneer that is applied to sanctify whatever inner desires one has.

      And, no, it’s not the hypocrisy that bothers me, for as they say, we’re all sinners. Would one expect to find nothing but saints in church any more than one would expect to find nothing but healthy people in a hospital?

      But my search for God generally proceeds quite outside the group-hug of Social Christianity. They can have it.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Note that a lot of Muslims don’t really know what’s in the Koran. In fact, the problem is that when some moderates Muslims learn the contents, they turn radical (and dangerous).

        There was an interesting contretemps in Indianapolis a few years back when a local homosexual-oriented church put up billboards trying to pretend that the Bible is in fact pro-homosexual. A local religious teacher, Marti Steussy (a leftist politically, as I know from personal conversations with her — she used to be a writer of excellent hard science fiction with a biological orientation), was critical of this misreading. Either she or another critic pointed out that some people try to adjust their behavior to the Bible when they realize their sinfulness — and others try to adjust their Bible to their behavior to continue to indulge without guilt.

    • Another Look says:

      Well, if one entirely rejects all of religion, then I would think that favors the side of traditional marriage.

      I’d be interested in known if a survey like this has ever been performed:

      1. Are you a scientist?

      2. Do you believe that science is superior to religion?

      3. Strictly in terms of science, without reference to religion, is there a discernible and relevant difference between a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple?

      4. Do your above answers affect your views regarding marriage?

      Lest that be regarded as frivolous, I note that for some time, right-to-life proponents have often noted that a fertilized egg has a unique genetic set, which is supposed to be scientific evidence of the inherent illegality of abortion. I also note that this argument does not appear to be influential.

  6. John Paul says:

    Excellent article. Though SSM advocates are not advocating for such goals as “equality”, but rather to destroy the institution of Marriage itself. Our Dear Leader whole heartily agrees, much like their support of letting infant survivors of botched abortions succumb to exposure in a cold, dark room.

    Their rationale:
    I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

    http://weaselzippers.us/191115-obama-state-department-honors-lgbt-radical-who-advocates-destruction-of-marriage/

    And: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2014/06/24/lesbian-activist-gives-away-the-ending/

  7. William Manning says:

    As a repentant and repenting bisexual homosexual (I’ll explain that later) I’d like to offer my two cents worth.
    The answer to the apparent dilemma regarding SSM is found in the phrase “so that two may become one flesh”. Set aside the word “flesh” because it misleads. Marriage is about a synthesis or integration that takes place when a man (who brings qualities singular to men) and a woman (who brings qualities singular to women) are joined together in what I would call the “synthesis” of matrimony. The aim of this synthesis is what some in the church call becoming “fully human”, a joining together of the best of both worlds if you will. The woman brings to the marriage things which the man is missing and vice versa. Today we call it “completion”. The only way to attain to this “one (flesh)” and have any hope of success in this synthesis is if both genders are allowed to contribute. You cannot achieve this complimentary synthesis if you exclude either gender. Men are designed to seek out a woman to complete him and women are designed to seek out a man to complete her.
    Homosexuals cannot achieve this state of being “fully human” or “completion” in the broader heterosexual sense because the completion they are looking for must come from another man and the only other men they have to choose from are men like themselves who are also looking for their completion as men. For me, as a homosexual, to say that I need another man to complete me by bringing whatever masculine/male qualities to the arrangement is to say that I as a man am incomplete in my maleness. Being homosexual is like being in a room full of men, all of whom have a glass of water that is half full. Everybody in that room wants their glass filled (completion) but nobody has any to spare as they are looking for it too. In this vein, I submit that what passes for promiscuity amongst homosexuals is more likely a life long quest to fulfill this profoundly human need for completion. We go from one man to another looking for that man who can complete us as men. Not surprisingly, gay men have an abiding and powerful attraction to straight men because they are seen as having in abundance those masculine qualities we seek. That’s why straight men devote their time to seeking out women for completion. Their stockpile of masculine qualities is, for all intent and purposes, complete. To find another human being to complete them they seek out women.
    There is another component to all this which is overlooked: affection. The human need for affection is enormously powerful and rightly so. It is part of what makes us human. My late father (born in 1898!) didn’t approve of interracial marriage arguing that birds of a feather don’t flock together. My mother responded noting that birds don’t fall in love. I bring up affection because gay men claim to want someone to love. Who doesn’t? That is what we are meant to seek out– someone to love. But for gay men, whatever affection we might get from another gay man is simply incomplete, there’s something missing. So we go looking for it in another gay man, and another, and another. It is this need for exclusively masculine affection that really defines a man as a homosexual. I identified myself as also being bisexual. Technically this is true. I am capable of a) having sex with a woman, b)enjoying it immensely and, c) doing it a lot. Many heterosexual men believe that my ability to do that should solve my problem (Phil Robertson comes to mind) but that’s not really the issue. What really defines a man as a homo vs. hetero sexual is whether he has an exclusive need for masculine sexual affection. Plenty of straight men, under certain circumstances (loneliness being the most powerful but alcohol or drugs will sometimes do the trick) wander off the reservation so to speak. Gay men claim that such men are latently homosexual and in denial about it. Not likely. Quite a few heterosexual men (very good looking, etc.) will sell sexual favors for money. They may be willing to do all kinds of sex acts that are clearly homosexual in nature (for the right amount of money), yet they identify as straight because they don’t kiss! For years I found this laughable; what defines a man as gay is the kind of sex he has, right? Who cares about the kissing?! I now see that I was very wrong. Those men call themselves straight because, though they might participate in some kind(s) of homosexual sex (for the right amount of money) they will not sell you any of their affection. They rightly understand that to show sexual affection to another man is crossing the line into genuine homosexuality which they will not do because they feel no sexual affection for any man. Hence the conventional wisdom in the gay community has always been and always will be, “Don’t fall in love with a straight man because he’s not going to fall in love with you.” Nobody ever says “don’t try to have sex with a straight man” because they know that’s possible and if you can get it, go for it. But everybody knows you are never going to get “love” from a straight man because doesn’t feel sexual affection for you. Parenthetically, it has always struck me as odd that the homosexual community would fight to be able to send vulnerable, lonely gay boys into a heterosexual group of Boy Scouts. On the one hand I am grateful to God for my straight male friends and I believe it’s mostly a wise idea for gay boys to spend time and make friends with straight boys rather than their gay friends exclusively. Nevertheless, gay boys, like all kids, are receptive to what used to be called puppy love. In the midst of a group of straight boys gay boys are bound to be very disappointed. But the pink mafia are very, very pushy! Very pushy indeed!
    An earlier commenter noted that it’s difficult to defend a position which you don’t fundamentally understand. I couldn’t agree more. What everyone needs to grasp is that SSM will never be equivalent to heterosexual marriage chiefly because homosexuality doesn’t work. That’s why it’s called a sin. That’s why all sins are thus called. They don’t work! Pass all the laws you want. It won’t change anything. Gay men will continue to go through life lonely. It’s the dreadful realization that your never going to find the love your heart otherwise naturally hungers for that, I’m afraid, leads to despair and suicide. Being gay is quite a cross to carry but if I wasn’t Christian and Orthodox at that, I don’t know what I would do. I really don’t.
    I would like to add one more thing. For years I’ve watched the pink mafia moan and bitch and brow-beat the world into all kinds of preposterous concessions. When it first started I was certain it would fail. Boy was I wrong! They have whipped you guys into going along with one preposterous idea after another. You need to understand that their ideas are never going to work because their premises are faulty, and that’s a fact.
    I’m sorry I didn’t speak up sooner.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      A very interesting analysis of the question. I think your point about affection as opposed to sex is important. I particularly like your observation about the intimacy and importance of a kiss. I have long believed that a kiss could be a spiritual connection between a couple. There is often a tenderness and affection which is not just lust.

      • William Manning says:

        Interestingly, Don Imus was/is (I haven’t listened to him in a very long time) a strong proponent of gay marriage but with one qualifier: Namely, that he didn’t want to see guys kissin and all that other stuff. Straight men may be willing to give homosexual sex a pass (because they don’t anyone criticizing their sexual lives) but they quite naturally find displays of intimate affection between two men repellent.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      For years I’ve watched the pink mafia moan and bitch and brow-beat the world into all kinds of preposterous concessions. When it first started I was certain it would fail. Boy was I wrong! They have whipped you guys into going along with one preposterous idea after another. You need to understand that their ideas are never going to work because their premises are faulty, and that’s a fact.
      I’m sorry I didn’t speak up sooner.

      Thankfully you are speaking up now. As an example of how the pink mafia, and the Left in general, never tire of expanding the boundaries of damaging behavior, and forcing their beliefs on the young, please read the article below.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385322/rough-justice-high-school-bondage-textbook-tim-cavanaugh

      • William Manning says:

        I agree. The problem is that moral relativist have spread the kind of doubting that results in folks uncertainty about what’s right and what’s wrong. The traditional taboos were repeated over and over again by people who didn’t really understand why they were taboos. When your opponent’s only line of defense is “jis cuz”, they’re easy to discredit. The resulting doubts helped to produce what is now being called “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism”. The phenomenon as described by the researchers who came up with the term is easy to grasp once you quickly read through their premises (see below). The upshot is that most people today are going to give all this crap a pass because, well, who’s to say what’s right and what’s wrong.

        http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/view/moralistic-therapeutic-deism-the-new-american-religion

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          The article and its conclusions are not surprising when one considers the general flabbiness of our intellectual and moral climate.

          The goal of being nice is something Brad often mentions as a moral rot. It is non-judgmental, doesn’t take much effort or thought and its goal is avoidance of all social discomfort. It also gives each of us the excuse to do whatever we want without fear of judgment.

          I have no doubt that going to church is pretty much a form of entertainment for a large percentage of “Christians” and it is not a bad way to make business contacts as well.

          And to touch upon a previous discussion we have had, this article is proof Christians do need to do missionary work in the USA.

          The present state of Christianity in American appears to be similar to that which on could find in deepest Africa or some Pacific Island a decade or two after the first Christian missionaries arrived. The natives have converted and profess to be Christians, but the Christianity they practice is really just a thin veneer over their true paganism, which in our case is secularism.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            And to touch upon a previous discussion we have had, this article is proof Christians do need to do missionary work in the USA.

            Hallelujah, Mr. Kung. My thoughts exactly as I read my way through that. What vindication for Ann Coulter, in my opinion. And a great point you make about the Pacific Islanders.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          That’s a terrific article, William. It makes many great points — points that us StubbornFolk here have made from time to time. Dr. Mohler’s essay was an astute evaluation. It’s interesting that he calls it “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” It’s also commonly known as The Religion of Leftism.

          There are so many good passages in that article, but this one was particularly good:

          This radical transformation of Christian theology and Christian belief replaces the sovereignty of God with the sovereignty of the self. In this therapeutic age, human problems are reduced to pathologies in need of a treatment plan. Sin is simply excluded from the picture, and doctrines as central as the wrath and justice of God are discarded as out of step with the times and unhelpful to the project of self-actualization.

          I’ve emailed Dr. Mohler’s office to see if we could reprint it. I would love to add to his fine thoughts that a central part of this new religion is “diversity.”

        • Timothy Lane says:

          This is why O’Reilly, some months back, said that defenders of traditional (i.e., genuine) marriage needed more of an argument than “the Bible says so”. A lot of people criticized him, I suspect because they assumed he meant that the Bible doesn’t say that, but his point was that the imperial judiciary would ignore such arguments.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            that defenders of traditional (i.e., genuine) marriage needed more of an argument than “the Bible says so”

            I made the same general point in my plea last year. I would also say, that simply resorting to scripture as a reason for doing or not doing something, is often a sign of intellectual indolence.

            http://www.stubbornthings.org/modest-request/

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This does emphasize my point that the issue in homosexual marriage is the forced redefinition of “marriage”. Words change, and so the meaning of marriage may in time change — but this isn’t evolution, it’s hijacking.

      • William Manning says:

        Exactly Timothy. The gay world desperately needs this to work so that they can feel OK about it. But nobody can make it work. Pass all the laws you want, kick and scream and threaten to hold your breath. It doesn’t matter. Gay men will still come away from it all empty-handed. This is the tragedy. The problem is exacerbated by cynical people in society who really do wish to corrupt everything, politicians who “evolve” because they don’t understand the nature of the problem and decide to go along to get along (especially if that translates to votes), and, perhaps worst of all, people who just want to be nice and think they are being helpful. When all is said and done gay men will still have nothing and the rest of the world will go on about their business because they’ve done all that the gay activists wanted and have run out of options. I don’t think the mess that will be left behind will be easy to clean up. Gay men should be wary of political leaders who, having “evolved” in their thinking over-night, may very likely throw them all under the bus when they’re not needed.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      What really defines a man as a homo vs. hetero sexual is whether he has an exclusive need for masculine sexual affection.

      That could be true, William. But I’m going to include this in the “Are’s we men or are’s we mice?” category. Are we nothing but “needs” or psychological maladies that we declare for ourselves (with behavior naturally following as night follows day) or is there some part of us that can be the master of mere passions?

      I have a need for male approval as well, but I don’t think having sex with a man is the right method. And, for men, I would say that sex itself isn’t about seeking approval. It’s about sex. Men seek sex. They’ll seek it with women, with goats, with camels, and with other men. This is one way in which we differ from women and one reason that is posited for why those who engage in homosexual behavior tend to be so promiscuous. With both parties having the highly sexualize nature of a man, there is no “off” switch, as it were, and certainly not one necessitated by the needs of a family and keeping a woman happy.

      Women tend to use sex in order to seek affection. And, it must be said, there probably isn’t a man alive who doesn’t seek approval, affection, or compliments, so part of this whole issue, to my mind, is extricating sex from all the other issues in life that we really ought to handle on their own.

      I do believe that some people are born as queer as a three dollar bill. But Deana and others have presented evidence here that suggests that homosexuality is primarily a conduct — perhaps as the result of a character or psychological flaw or bent need — not an innate orientation. That’s why, to my mind, it’s important that there be a stigma attached to homosexual behavior. If we tell our young men and boys that it is okay, then instead of seeking help they’ll see homosexual conduct as just one choice for their lives among many. And, what I gauge from what you’re saying, is that homosexuality is not normal, nor is it desirable. We would therefore be fools to blur the boundaries in the name of someone else’s attempt to marginalize the family (which is the purpose of the Left, not any kind of love for homosexuals).

      You’ve identified yourself as a homosexual and a bisexual. Why not just identify as a straight man who has done things he ought not to have? If homosexuality is primarily a conduct (born of imbalance or whatever) and not any innate quality, then live your words and call yourself a straight man who simply indulged in the homosexual lifestyle (for whatever reason). Hey, I use to think that having Ted Kennedy as president was a good thing, so I know about going off on destructive tangents. And it’s not enough to say that you got sexual pleasure from it for, again, it’s worth noting that men can gain pleasures doing many things, sexual or otherwise, that are not commendable. Life is at least half about suppressing destructive urges (something Libertarians, for instance, do not believe in).

      I think it’s plain now that homosexuality is a culture — sort of a counter-culture. It may be born of who-knows-what, but there is no reason to identify with it. If I were to stick my cock in the ass of a man tomorrow, there’s no reason to say that Brad was anything but randy (perhaps with Randy). One could say that Brad, being a male, gave into his all-pervasive horniness (we men do have this cross to carry). Maybe you could say that Brad had imbibed the fumes of the queer “community” which sneers at straights, at families, at religion, and any sense of decency and he had thus assumed a new “identity.”

      In the long run, there are things more important than orgasm. And as poor as I am at having relationships with the ladies, another man is not a substitute. Get a dog if one must have companionship.

      And none of what I’ve said is meant as a rebuke. I appreciate your honest words, William — words that are far more honest than the garbage one typically hears on this issue. I’m simply saying that you sound as if you understand the inside game that is going on. So take one more step and just identify yourself as a straight man and stay straight. This country needs straight-shooting people such as yourself putting out a message that — yes indeed — in order to have a good society we men need to know when to zip it up. And, to my mind (and from what you’ve described), the “gay community” is one screwed up place.

      Welcome to StubbornThings where any sort of a conversation may break out…and often does.

      • William Manning says:

        Brad,
        I can’t identify myself as heterosexual because being heterosexual is way more than the ability to “successfully” have sex with a woman. Women, those pesky creatures, rather quickly reach a point where sex for sex sake no longer gratifies; now they want affection. I couldn’t give an affection I didn’t feel so the relationships fizzled out. My successes at heterosexual sex are only part of the picture. Until I am able to feel sexual affection for a woman, thereby completing the picture, I remain homosexual. Heterosexual men may not be too good when it comes to sexual affection and intimacy but that’s not because they aren’t oriented that way but, rather, because their abilities are, in varying degrees, hampered by some kind of dys-function. Their intimacy abilities don’t work so good. Such men are bound to go from one woman to another with little success.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Thanks for your reply, William. I know that everyone here appreciates someone who is speaking out about the dark underbelly of homosexuality. I hope you find peace with Jesus and a new lifestyle.

          But my job here is to play the “bad cop.” I’m sure you’ve heard of the whole good cop/bad cop schtick. And I must say that if every man who had problems identifying with the emotional needs of women labeled themselves as other than “heterosexual” then there would be a run on pink men’s underwear. The fact is, (as this rather rude saying goes), if women didn’t have a vagina, we’d hunt them for sport (present ladies excepted, of course).

          Having not had perfect parents myself (who ever does?), the arguments regarding homosexual behavior of “Mommy doesn’t love me” or “Daddy doesn’t love me” don’t particularly move me. I’m still not buying the argument that homosexuality is just looking for emotional satisfaction via other means. I mean, maybe daddy didn’t love me enough, but does one seriously think that looking up another man’s ass is the solution?

          I’m inclined to the notion the men will boink other men (being the lecherous creatures we naturally are without proper moral guidance) unless we restrain ourselves. Are such men looking for sex or just intimacy? To my mind, it doesn’t matter. There are men and women inside of marriage who cheat on their spouses and then, when caught, claim they were just searching for emotional intimacy. But what about the possibility that they were just looking for sex?

          Again, and I’m not being flippant. If women don’t do it for you than get a dog. Or get a hobby. I’m not sympathetic to this current cultural fad that insists that “emotional fulfillment” is the be-all, end all of our existence. I think there has been way too much psychologizing of human beings and their motives. And although it may sound simple-minded to just say “Zip it up, guys,” that’s actually what most people need to do if they are engaging in icky or destructive behavior, including homosexuality or infidelity.

          I wish you success, William, in figuring all this stuff out, for I surely am myself. I’m single and am likely to stay that way. And not because I don’t like girls. It’s just that girls are indeed a pain in the ass (present company excepted, of course….how come I never met a Deana when I was younger? Alas.)

          By the way, William. I invite you to put your thoughts together regarding this entire subject in some organized fashion (or disorganized fashion if you prefer…we’re easy here), and submit an article. I would be glad to publish it.

    • William — thank you so much for your honest and articulate explanation. For the first time I have a glimmer of understanding of the predicament of being gay. Ever since, as a teacher, I came to know well homosexual students I have been struggling to understand where they were coming from and square it with my biblical beliefs. I totally appreciate you taking time to write this. dc

  8. Glenn Fairman says:

    Good lord, what an education that was. I’m glad I stuck around to read it. What are your opinions, if I may be so bold, on the origin of the homosexual disposition? If it is sinful, and sinfulness equates to the missing of the mark posited by a Creator, then it must not be endemically owing to a biological predisposition, for that would mean that God would have marked some men for iniquity by nature. What sayest thou? and don’t be afraid to say what you mean……..

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, I consider homosexuality an abnormality. (I have 4 toes on each foot, I have effectively no sense of smell, and I also have outwardly rotating hips, so “abnormal” is not meant as a pejorative here.) As a deist, I don’t have to consider the theological implications. It is a good question, though, and I would add the matter of the capacity for faith, a capacity I seem to lack (note that I’m a rationalist, but I don’t have faith in the purely mechanistic world, unlike most religious skeptics).

    • William Manning says:

      The conventional wisdom over the years said that homosexuality is the result of a fault in the relationship between a father and his son. The gay community mocks this idea but I believe there’s a lot to it. I believe that I failed to get something from my father which I needed to complete my formation into the heterosexual male I was intended to be. It’s not entirely his fault. When you rear 6 boys with a one size fits all program you’re bound to screw something up and the results may not be pretty. I believe that like myself, gay men somehow believe that they can therefore find what their heart desires from another man. But other gay men are looking for it as well so they’ve got none to spare. Straight men aren’t going to provide it because they will only share that with a woman. Like I said, some straight men have some kind of homosexual experience(s) but it never includes intimate, sexual affection. They are not going to share an affection they don’t feel. The gay man believes that it is in this intimate, sexual affection he will find what he’s looking for. But it’s not there. It’s never there. Not really. Disappointed, he moves on to the next man and the next and the next. Since I failed to get it from my father and I’m never going to find it in another man my only choice is Christ. At this stage in my life everything else I’ve tried has failed to fill that empty space inside me. Thus the sin of homosexuality is not (I cautiously assert) is not primarily the sex act. Rather, it is to persist in seeking what my heart desires from those who cannot (gay men) or will not (straight men) give it me and stubbornly refuse to turn to the only one who can now heal me, Christ-God.

  9. William — I’ve been thinking about the things you’ve written and I really think that your analysis is so valuable and so well said that it needs a wider audience. Polish it up. do some paragraphing and send it off to other conservative sites as well. If you need any help with the editing process, I’d be glad to help. Message me on FaceBook. Thanks again for the clarifications. dc

    • William Manning says:

      Thanks Deana. I’ll do my best. It’s kind of slow going for someone like me who moves his lips when he reads.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I confess that thanks in no small part to Glenn, Deana, and others, I have an “evolving” opinion regarding homosexuality. And my attitudes on homosexual marriage have changed from what they were three or so years ago – before I became away of the ugly and destructive counter-culture that was part and parcel of such a thing. (One of the down-sides of not hanging out at gay bars. I just don’t know the Kultursmog intimately).

    I’m generally of the “liberal” demeanor regarding sexual matters. As Dennis Prager notes (rightly or wrongly), Christians tend to be very touchy and restrictive about sexual issues.

    Well, maybe there is a good reason for that. This “Brave New World” of homosexual marriage is not likely to bring anything good in the long run. But in the short run, those who support it (at least amongst the low-information-voters on the bottom tier) can think they are against “discrimination” and, bless their hearts, are for that grand thing called “equality” (which they little understand).

    Being a man, I understand something about the sexual nature of men. And having read just enough history to make me dangerous, it’s obvious that homosexuality has a majority cultural component to it (just ask the Greeks). That is, if you normalize homosexuality as a behavior, you will get more and more men engaging in it. This is based on the firm knowledge that men will boink anything – sheep, goats, vacuum cleaners, I’ve even had my brother (an ex-fireman) tell me about all the bizarre aid calls he has been on. Removing light bulbs and other things form a man’s anus was not an entirely rare event.

    Man is therefore a natural debaucher without moral instruction and proper restraints. And it fools no one (but the low information voters) to normalize what is inherently debauched behavior. And, if you ask me, part of the problem with those who engage in homosexual behavior is that they have put way too much emphasis on sex. This, not affection, is likely a big impetus in male homosexual behavior, in particular.

    We need mothers and fathers. We need them to set good examples and apply proper restrictions, for without sane and reasonable guidance and restraints, we will indeed tend to try to make debauchery normal. And this is not a holier-than-thou speech. Any man, with a little knowledge of history, knows what the typical male is capable of. He rapes and pillages in war (historically) as a matter of course. And male-on-male sodomy is common because, if anything, men are highly sexualized and sexuality itself is a complicated and explosive thing. Just a little twist on one’s psychology – perhaps a little “daddy never loved me” – and off to the pole-smoking races you may go. But it is counseling, not anal sex, that surely most of these people need.

    I also think that homosexuality could be understood, at least in recent times, as being part of a noxious counter-culture movement. If you’ve been fed all the hateful things that the Left has served up, then what better way to live your beliefs than, frankly, to make another man’s anus central to your lifestyle?

    That said, I think it’s obvious there are those cases (we can argue about how many) where people are born as queer as the proverbial three dollar bill. The mixing and matching of genes creates all sorts of bizarre and sometimes sad consequences (think: indeterminate genitalia, for example). Even so, it is right and proper to understand even this kind of homosexuality as an aberration, and an unwanted one. But, like children born with Down syndrome, we don’t blame them or discard them. We must learn to live with them. But even so, we needn’t be stupid about it and let this fact be the underpinning for a “queer culture” which, I think from what William at the very least has been telling us, is a destructive and hollow thing.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think the key mistake was the Lawrence v. Walsh decision, which in essence made sodomy a constitutional right. This put it on a par with genuine rights such as the First Amendment freedoms that are sometimes incompatible with the invented right (especially freedom of religion). Had it not been for that, the situation would probably be manageable.

Leave a Reply

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