Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day (Joy Behar on Gay "Monogamy")

.…[from a larger debate years ago]….

This being said, the gay lifestyle is the epitome of hedonism. The nature of men and sex, unrestrained, is one of unbridled “passion.” in fact, women, via courting and marriage, are one of the biggest factors in raining in our passions. Not only that, but Western civilization adopted the Judeo-Christian ethic of one woman and one man making a marriage for life. This is where my conservatism comes out again.

Homosexuality is one of the most crucial issues we all must consider. At the personal level most of us know at least one of our friends, colleagues, or fellow-Americans who is dying the terrible death of AIDS. At a cultural level one most revealing indexes of a civilization is the way it orders human sexuality.

  • (Before I continue with this quote, I must respond to anyone who believes I am uncompassionate towards any who suffer any genetic or choice lifestyles. When a philosopher speaks of whether rape is morally wrong or not morally wrong, he is of course compassionate towards the victim of the act. However, the philosopher or politician is discussing the issue itself, asking deeper questions that if the individual him or herself is hurt, but rather if the act is wrong. Thus the philosopher may sound uncompassionate, but is merely dealing with the raw facts of the situation.)

When left to itself, human sexuality appears unconstrained and to the innocent mind shockingly polymorphous (meaning: having, assuming, or passing through many or various forms, stages, or the like). But the hallmark of a society in which all sexual constraints have been set aside is that finally it sanctions homosexuality as well. This point is hotly disputed today, but is reflected in the wisdom of the ages. Plutarch, the first-century Greek moralist, saw libertinism to be the third and the next-to-last stage in the life-cycle of a free republic before its final descent into tyranny. Edward Gibbon (The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire) in eighteenth century England understood this principle with respect to ancient Rome, but from a historians point of view. Sigmund Freud emphasized the same principle with respect to many cultures in the West – – although from a radically secular psychoanalytic perspective. For him, universal sexual repression was the price of civilization. Without constraints civilization would lose its discipline and vitality. And of course, the Bible repeatedly shows the effects of unconstrained sexuality, such as its stories of the rise and fall of Sodom, Gomorrah, and indeed Israel itself.

Dennis Prager, a reform Jewish cultural commentator, writes:

  • “Man’s nature, undisciplined by values, will allow sex to dominate his life and the life of society…. It is not overstated to say that the Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can, to a significant extent, be attributed to the to the sexual revolution, initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.”

In sum, it is a simple and sobering fact that no society that has sanctioned unconstrained sexuality has long survived.

The typical homosexual is a man who has frequent episodes of anal intercourse with other men, often with many different men. These episodes are 13 times more frequent than heterosexuals’ acts of anal intercourse (which is still showing disregard and unconstrained hedonism towards a man's wife or girlfriend), with twelve times as many different partners as heterosexuals. These statistics are quite conservative. The most rigorous single study – the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study – recruited nearly five thousand homosexual men and found that about 80 percent had over 50 sexual partners in their lifetime. The book, The Male Couple, was researched and written by a homosexual couple, out of the 156 couples they studied, only seven maintained sexual fidelity. Of the hundred couples that had been together five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. The authors noted that “The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals” (p. 3). A 1981 study revealed that only two percent of homosexuals were monogamous or semi-monogamous – generously defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners. And a 1978 study found that 43 percent of male homosexuals estimated having sex with five hundred or more different partners (A. P. Bell, Sexual Preference [Indiana University Press]). Seventy-nine percent said that more than half of these partners were strangers and 70 percent said that more than half were men with whom they had sex only once (A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Woman [Simon & Schuster]).

So while I would agree with you that the homosexual man could satisfy his partner without penetration, this just doesn’t happen. Nor would I support the normalization of even these acts in our society, as my conservative values seep out for keeping our society bent towards the family unit, which is the backbone of a healthy society. I don’t just say this; history proves my point for me.

Much thought, PapaG

P.S. – You said: “None other than religion. Religion is the only definitive argument against it.” This is not true. I have already shown the health hazards of this lifestyle; the result is an unduly large strain on society. I have pointed you to some books by historians that show unconstrained sexual activity becoming the norm as a major factor in the last stage ringing in the fall of a republic (societies that reject this unrestrained sexuality live long and prosper; one’s that accept die an untimely death). And the homosexual lifestyle is not genetic, but a psychological malady, as I have just shown their sexual drive to indicate. Not only that, but if the homosexual wants rights as commonly understood, theism (as I have clearly shown) is the only worldview that can give any meaning to the word rights. Especially unalienable.