PETER: “Let’s address the misleading “gay” mantra of “equality.” Carey and fellow LGBT activists — and straight fellow travelers like libertarian Margaret Hoover (who masquerades as a conservative commentator on FOX) — like to plead for “marriage equality” for homosexuals. But it is easy to demonstrate that whatever homosexual “marriages” are, they are NOT equal to natural, God-ordained marriages. For one thing, there is the simple, indisputable fact that same-sex unions cannot produce children on their own. They can acquire children only with the help of heterosexuality and procreative-enhancing science, but they can’t reproduce or “have children,” as homosexual activists like to say. In contrast, normal marriages produce children and families without any help from homosexuality.
In their desperation to answer this obvious point on marriage and procreation, “gay” activists point to infertile hetero couples, who also need the help of science and adoption to create a family. “Should conservative commentator Pat Buchanan and his wife Shelley be denied marriage because they are childless?” they ask. But this is a silly argument. For one, infertile normal couples meet the basic requirement of marriage: a man and a woman. Secondly, when they seek to adopt children or benefit from reproductive science, they are merely mimicking the natural, complementary, mom-and-dad family — not creating intentionally motherless or fatherless homes and subjecting children to a radical reinvention of “family,” with two “dads” or two “moms.” Lastly, such straight, infertile couples desiring children turn to bountiful, procreative heterosexuality — not homosexuality, or apple trees for that matter — to fulfill their dream of a family.
So here’s a challenge to our homosexual critics: prove that same-sex “marriages” are EQUAL to the real deal given their procreative deficit, or stop this nonsense about “marriage equality.” (I understand that this is an unrealistic request; if homosexuals and their liberal allies cared about the real meaning of words, they wouldn’t have called homosexual unions “marriage” in the first place.) As my friend John Shepard writes, “Aristotle may have been the first in recorded history to say in his Politics, ‘It is unjust to treat unequal things as equal.’ This is why it is patently unfair to treat homosexual sex as marriage. Heterosexuality is intrinsic to marriage. Marriage is consummated by heterosexuality, not sodomy.”
GABE: If ever I want to show my students an example of bigotry alive and well today all I need to do is provide a link to your World Aids Day post from yesterday. Simply amazing. I mean, your whole site is one bigoted rant after another but that post is beyond the pale.
How can you - with any conscience - deride gay people for promiscuity out of one side of your mouth and oppose any recognition of gay unions from the other? It has nothing to do with behavior for you. Regardless of behavior, from marriage to bathhouses, you oppose anything any gay person does. You have an animus toward someone identifying as a gay person wholly independent of his or her behavior.
Also, you don't oppose harmful behavior regardless of identity. AIDS is astoundingly on the rise among African Americans but you don't condemn their community's promiscuity. HIV is a virus with no self-awareness, which attacks bodies indiscriminately.
Risky, promiscuous sex, such as the random sex in bathhouses you seem concerned about, mostly occurs among men who are uncomfortable with their sexual orientation. Most men seeking anonymous sexual encounters are trying to be straight but getting some play on the down low. Greater acceptance of people no matter who they are promotes healthier behavioral choices.
Young gay people today do not engage in as much anonymous sex because they are more able to have relationships out in the open with support from their peers and parents. The bathhouse culture is a result of bigotry such as the type you promote. In the face of the environmental factors to which you are a huge contributor gay men will seek sexual outlets in anonymous and high-risk scenarios. However, in a world without bigotry toward sexual orientation gays can openly form the type of healthy relationships idealized for their straight counterparts.
Finally, there is little to no risk of AIDS from sex between lesbians. Actually, of all people lesbians have the lowest risk of STDs and pregnancy than any other sub-group. You reason that the government should criminalize men from engaging in homosexual relations because of some risk of disease. By your reasoning shouldn't the government then promote lesbian relations as ideal?
Of course, your conceptualization of gay is limited to males and you apply all your disease hysteria to men exclusively because your bigotry is even narrower than gay people. You have a problem with gay men specifically. None of your arguments apply to lesbians. Not the disease or the anal sex stuff. This is, again, evidence that your real problem lies within. You want the government to criminalize and discriminate against others because you think it will better help control something within yourself. I lack the expertise to diagnose you but your fixation with gay men - not women, straight or gay - is clearly indicative of a deep problem with you and your level of self-acceptance. I honestly think you should speak to a psychologist about your fixation and career choice. You are a grown man who claims to be 100% straight but whose full time job is to write about gay sex among men. Anyone with an ounce of sanity would look himself in the mirror and ask why.
If you were to speak to a psychologist perhaps he or she could reassure you that your chosen path in life is not clear evidence of an imbalanced fixation. Perhaps you could be validated in your career choice of turning unfair criticism of one group into a job. But, I doubt it. A counselor or psychologist could help you work through your issues with your own masculinity or whatever provokes a supposedly straight man to obsess about other men in bathhouses so much. At least admit that the amount of attention you devote to other males’ sex lives is a little weird.
I wish you nothing but pleasure in your bathhouse explorations, porno research, and leatherman investigations . But I also wish you honesty and self-awareness. Do not pretend like your addiction to all things gay has anything to do with anyone's behavior but your own.
- Gabriel Hudson
PETER: Gabriel, surely you understand the difference between behavior and identity. We regard the promotion of sinful homosexual practice as a good/normal thing as … evil, yes. There are many evils in society, racism, etc. That is one – and labeling it marriage only adds to the evil. Jesus condemned sin. And let’s not forget that many on your side call my side “evil.” Can you see you YOUR side is “whipping up a frenzy” against religious people? Did you see the Mormon missionaries ad by the No on 8 side? Do you approve of that? --pl
GABE: I approve of the Mormon missionary ad. I think it is quite accurate.
You're right. Somehow straight marriages are just better than gay marriages. Take for example Kelly Layne Lau and Michael Schumacher. They kept a teen starved and chained in their house. The wife reportedly had sex with animals while the husband took pictures. Wonderful.
You're right. Their union is intrinsically better than the one between my friend Claire and the wife she married this summer. You see, Peter, people should not be judged on their individual merits. They should be judged by their group identity. That's how you justify unequal treatment under the law for people based on whether they follow your religion or not.
Straight = good. Gay = bad. All heterosexual couples make good parents. All homosexual couples make unfit parents. It's so simple! Thank you for reducing all the complexity of love, relationships, commitment, fulfillment, and the human experience into a simple dichotomy. All your former professors at Imaginary U. must be so proud.
- Gabriel
PETER: So would you classify all those who regard (all) homosexual behavior as always wrong (or sinful) as … wrong? That itself is a sweeping judgment, is it not? We can agree that there are many messed-up hetero relationships. But the issue is behavior and the question before society is: should homosexual behavior be rewarded with government recognition. You say yes, I say no.
GABE: I disagree with you. I think you are wrong. But I respect your right to believe as you choose. I do not wish for you to be treated differently by the law because of how you live or what you believe. Equal treatment under the law is not an endorsement of any behavior or belief. It's just neutrality. I think any two consenting adults should be able to have their marriages recognized regardless of the gender of the parties. Personal religious beliefs are an inadequate argument for civil inequality.
Comments