First, when I saw the RT news item announcing that “
Moscow bans gay pride for century ahead” I went “no way!” and had the giggles thinking of how the
doubleplusgoodthinking Lefties in the West would cry in outrage if such a decision had really been taken. Then I saw an
outraged statement by Human Rights First confirming that the folks on Moscow had really taken such a decision. Now some of you might wonder what a self-proclaimed “Left Libertarian” like myself might think of all that. Let me tell you:
I am totally DELIGHTED by this decision!
Now before the inevitable verbal stoning beings, let me explains my reasons, okay? Then you can hate me for being the bigot that I am…
Before I begin making my case, I would like address two issues: one semantic and one dialectical one. First, I refuse to use the word “gay” on principle as it should not be applied to homosexuals because it is a “value-loaded” use of an otherwise perfectly legitimate word designed to shape any discussion of the topic. Furthermore, there is nothing gay about gays, any psychologist or addiction specialists will confirm that to you (if only in a private conversation). Frankly, I always thought that “gays” should really be called “sads”, but that would be loaded too. So I will thus use “homosexual” – an accurate and value-neutral descriptor. Second, I will not use any religious arguments in discussing this topic for a very simple reason: most religions already have a clear stance on homosexuality which should be normative for the followers of these religions but which are also irrelevant for everybody else. Simply put – to discuss the topic of homosexuality to religious folks is preaching to the choir. So there shall be no mention of “sin” or “fallen human nature” in my argument below. Now let us turn to the issue itself.
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975. Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and it was finally declassified by the World Health Organization in 1990.
It is interesting to get some background on how this decision was taken. I have found the following details in the article of Philip Hickey
Behaviorism and Mental Health. Here is what the author writes (stress added):
Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974. What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard.
Got that? Yup, this was a 100% political decision which had no scientific basis whatsoever. From a scientific point of view, it was as nonsensical as declaring – simply by vote – that cancer or schizophrenia are not more diseases but are “normal”. Wikipedia deals with this problem in a single, and yet very telling, sentence:
|
“A normal and positive variation” |
While some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
Right. Brilliant. So “same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behavior are normal and positive variations of human sexuality”. And yet pedophilia is still considered a psychiatric disorder (
source). What about incest? Well, guess what? Psychiatry puts incest next to paraphilia, i.e. pathologic sexual activities which is a group name for every sexual activity that is considered unnatural in psychology and sexology. Apart from incest, paraphilia also includes paedophilia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, necrophilia, nymphomania… (
source).
And how does one distinguish between “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” and
paraphilia? Since up until 1974 homosexuality was considered a paraphilia, why were no arguments presented to remove it from this category?
This is all utter nonsense, of course. There are only three possible solutions to this conundrum:
a) declare that only one specific form of sexuality is “normal”
b) declare that any form of sexuality is “normal”
c) arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for it.
Most developed countries have opted for the third option, making a completely arbitrary, illogical and absurd list of “normal” and “not pathological” sexual behaviors. By the way, the same dumb approach was used in dealing with sexual practices between consenting adults (the so-called “
sodomy laws“) or the codification of a
legal age of sexual consent. Even a cursory look at these laws clearly shows that they are based on nothing except political expediency.
And what does “normal” really mean? It can mean one of two things: a) consistent with some average or minimum or b) within expected norms, for example, of society.
In the first case, I would gladly admit that homosexuality is “normal” simply because of its prevalence. But I would immediately add that so are many, if not all, of the forms of paraphilia. And I would also agree that homosexuality has become “normal” in the 2nd meaning of the word simply because it is socially acceptable to most developed societies, in particular in the post-Christian ‘West’. So to speak of the normalcy of homosexuality is absolutely nonsensical.
Furthermore, is there anything in the above which suggest that the decision of the City of Moscow to ban so-called “gay pride” parades is morally, ethically or even logically wrong?! Is it not the right of any society to establish its own social norms?
|
“Gay Pride” in Paris |
Furthermore, compare the situation of Russian homosexuals with the situation of Western pedophiles who are the victims of a systematic campaign of vicious persecutions. Oh, I am
not saying that it is wrong to persecute pedophiles, I am only saying that I don’t see any logical reason to viciously prosecute the adepts of one form of paraphilia while allowing the adepts of another form of paraphilia to engage in “pride parades”. And if Moscow has no right to ban “gay pride parades” then the West has an obligation to allow “pedophile pride parades” in its Berlin, New York or Rome. But no, the West gets away with its massive anti-pedophilia campaign while, in July of 2011, the
European Court of Humans Rights condemned Russia to pay 30,000 euros in compensation to gay activists over its decision to ban so-called pride marches. Talk about absolute hypocrisy!
I would like to add one more thing here. I find militant homosexuals particularly offensive and irritating. Frankly, to each his own. There are plenty of sexual psycho-pathologies out there and plenty of people engaging in them. I don’t force everybody to give a standing ovation to my own sexual preferences, and I don’t see any reason why somebody would demand from me that I approve and cheer on his/her sexual preferences. Keep your bedroom in your bedroom and leave the rest of us alone. But no, that is not good enough for what I call the “Homo Lobby”.
|
“Gay Pride” in Paris |
Homosexuals are the only ones who, not content to be left alone, are demanding not only equal rights, but special protections. They have the nerve to demand that society treat them as some kind of oppressed minority, they want their “marriages” to be considered as equivalent to heterosexual ones, and they even want the right to form “single sex couples” and adopt children. Amazingly, the very same society which considers it to be a felony to possess photos of naked children on your computer finds its perfectly acceptable to give away its children to homosexual “couples”!
I am delighted that Moscow is pushing back against the “Homo Lobby” and its cultural fascism which considers that “live and let live” only applies to individuals and not to nations. I say let the Western homosexuals do whatever the hell they want in their own countries – that is the West’s problem – but don’t let them engage in cultural imperialism and demand that the rest of the planet submit to their completely subjective and illogical system of double-standards.
I have said above that I will not make use of any religious arguments to make my case in defense of the Moscow City Council. Since I have made my case on this topic, I will now add a few general comment about homosexuality, religion and society.
First, this entire topic is yet another illustration of Dostoevsky’s truism that “if there is no God everything is permitted”. The very concepts of “right” and “wrong” must, by logical necessity, either be anchored on some absolute (such as God) or become absolutely arbitrary and subjective. Secularists can bawl in impotent rage and frustration but there is no logical argument which can be made against this fundamental truth. In other words, no secular society will ever be able to logically distinguish between right or wrong (other than by convention), much less so in the case of sexuality.
Second, traditional Christianity affirms that since the Fall man has lost his original, true, nature and that his current fallen nature is the cause of his suffering. The fact that some percentage of any given population is affected by any one type of psychopathology is therefore something Christians fully expect from all humans. To the homosexual argument “I was born that way” a Christian simply replies “brother, we were all born dysfunctional in some way” and “what we now must do is reclaim our real nature and our full potential” (conversely, the word “sin” really means “missing the target” or “failing to act according to one’s true potential).
Thus while Christianity never condemns a condition as such, neither does it consider any putatively “natural” condition as good or in any way “legitimate”. In fact, the very purpose of life is, according to traditional Christianity, to re-claim our *true* human nature by a process of
theosis (which I shall not describe here; those interested can read
this).
Third, the one and only reason why homosexuality is the only paraphialia which gets an official stamp of approval is that there is a strident, wealthy and well-organized “Homo Lobby” (well, a
LGBT lobby, really). This lobby was very effective in presenting the issue as one of “homophobia” and “hate” against one of tolerance and diversity. Of course, there will always be some insecure idiots out there who think that their manhood will be somehow enhanced if they beat up a homosexual, preferably in a group. But to present any rejection of the Homo Lobby’s
dogmas (because that is what they are!) as an expression of homophobia is, of course, a total misrepresentation of what is really happening. As far as I can tell, most people do not care at all about what adult and consenting homosexuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms. What bothers people is the extremely rude and strident “in your face” attitude adopted by what I call the “militant homosexuals”. Frankly, if they did not dress like clowns (or birds! see photos) and if they refrained from organizing “gay pride” parades they would gain far more acceptance from most heterosexuals. My 2cts.
Now let the stoning begin :-)
The Saker
Good job, Saker, very good job. Recognizing the bait-and-switch tactic of moving a behavioral dysfunction (homosexuality) into a identity politics (innate gayness) allows one to cut through a lot of the crap that’s peddled in the name of this “movement”. It amazes me how successful post-modernist sophistry, in the name of cultural “critique”, has been in creating new fictional and artificial gods of identity politics. It’s about time to see some genuine pushback.
Thanks for bringing a level of clarity to this topic. I may add some more thoughts on this in the next day or two if I get the time.
Peace
@Ishamid: thanks a lot for your kind words! I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts on this topic and, in particular, if you could summarize the Islamic view of homosexuality.
Kind regards and peace to you,
The Saker
I disagree with Dostoyevsky that there is no objective basis for ethics without belief in God. You can simply invoke the Golden Rule which states you should treat others they way you would wish to be treated yourself.
As for homosexuality it is interesting that the sponsor of the bill to make homosexuality legal in the UK made a statement calling on homosexuals to comport themselves with dignity. The arguments used to persuade Parliament to legalise it was that what people did in the privacy of their own bedrooms was their own business and making it illegal subjected otherwise harmless people to blackmail. It was an argument based on a call for tolerance. Once legalised it became impossible to prevent a lot of noisy queers from coming out of the closet and demanding full equality never mind tolerance.
@Robert:You can simply invoke the Golden Rule which states you should treat others they way you would wish to be treated yourself.
I disagree. First, the Golden Rule does not contain in itself a reason why it should be followed, at least not a moral/ethical one. You can, of course, make a pragmatic decision to treat others well in the hope that they reciprocate, but that is not a moral/ethical reason and, besides, it is often a mistaken assumption. Besides, taking the example of money, if I hoard all the money for myself while everybody else shares it with me (in the hope that I will reciprocate), I can maximize my profits. Finally, the Golden Rule’s underlying logic assumes that others are aware of your actions. But as long as your evil deeds are concealed from others, it does not apply.
But I don’t want to get sidetracked too far into this argument.
The arguments used to persuade Parliament to legalise it was that what people did in the privacy of their own bedrooms was their own business and making it illegal subjected otherwise harmless people to blackmail
Very sound argument. I fundamentally believe that the State – any state – has no business micro-managing what happens in bedrooms and that each and every person has the moral right to make his/her decisions without having to justify himself/herself to anybody else. If that was all which homosexuals demanded they would have my full support, not because of some special status that I would grant them, but simply because they are citizens of the same society as the rest of us and should be given the very same basic rights – no more, no less.
Cheers :-)
No individual with a natural and well-balanced mind will disagree with your views expressed so well. There is much to write about it but to make brief, I will mention that the word “gay” as totally wrong to identify queers. According to the British Dictionary, “gay” means “very happy” or “hilarious” but it is NOT associated with homosexuality in any way. Also, those identified now as “gays” are not even true homosexuals, but tools of whom created them as part of an agenda to enslave us all. Drugs, miscegenation, pedophilia, and general perversion are all part of the Jewish plan to weaken, corrupt, and finally destroy the natural will to rebel. The so-called “gays” don’t even know that they are being used as idiots by Zionists in their quest for a one world government nowadays much closer than anyone would think. http://www.thetruthisfreedom.wordpress.comthe-truth@post.com
Got that? Yup, this was a 100% political decision which had no scientific basis whatsoever. From a scientific point of view, it was as nonsensical as declaring – simply by vote – that cancer or schizophrenia are not more diseases but are “normal”.
That’s completely wrong. You haven’t considered the possibility that the decision to label homosexuality a mental illness in the first place was a political one. Secular institutions are not immune to religious bigotry, particularly in the US, nor are they immune to conflicts of interest. There is a financial incentive for psychiatrists who have made millions “treating” homosexuals for a non-existent illness to maintain the fiction that it is in fact an illness. The overwhelming preponderance of empirical studies on this issue both then and now reject the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
At any rate it’s rather dishonest to go so far back in time to search for scientific data that fits your agenda, particularly when the consensus modern view based on actual research totally contradicts it. Why not go back to the fifties for a consensus view on lobotomies?
Most developed countries have opted for the third option, making a completely arbitrary, illogical and absurd list of “normal” and “not pathological” sexual behaviors.
If you can’t understand the difference between two gay people having consensual sex and someone fucking a four-year-old or sexually torturing someone, I fear we are not going to get far in broadening your understanding of homosexuality or why it’s viewed the way it is by scientists. There is no evidence that homosexuality is a sexual aberration or a mental illness.
There is a logical basis for laws against pedophilia and incest, as children are not considered to be capable of giving informed consent and also the power differential between parents, adults and kids where kids are expected to obey their parents means kids often have little agency to say no. Sodomy laws are an arbitrary and idiotic product of religious authoritarianism, like the gay parade ban in Moscow.
Furthermore, is there anything in the above which suggest that the decision of the City of Moscow to ban so-called “gay pride” parades is morally, ethically or even logically wrong?! Is it not the right of any society to establish its own social norms?
Do you agree the Soviet Union had the “right” to ban the Russian Orthodox Church? The whole idea of individual liberty is that individuals have the right to deviate from society’s norms except where the state or society can make a compelling case that doing so causes harm to society. I don’t see where anyone did that in Moscow other than make the assertion that it is harmful without evidence or logical argument. If we all have to conform to some Mao-jacketed consensus view of right behavior that would be a pretty dull and tryrannical society indeed.
Banning the parade violates the Russian constitution which allegedly gives people the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is morally wrong as it allows religious authoritarians to ban any assemblies they deem unfit based on nothing but their own ignorance and intolerance and the threat of violence. This is tyranny, not freedom.
Homosexuals are an oppressed minority. They are denied civil rights by people who think they have a right to tell them what they can do in their own bedrooms. They are discriminated against, denied civil rights and even murdered in many countries, including by the government. I don’t see gays trying to deny you your rights to believe and practice what you like or live the way you prefer. But religious authoritarians think they have the right to dictate to everyone else how they should behave, based on the shallow assertion they have a monopoly on “morality.”
“Secularists can bawl in impotent rage and frustration…
Oh get a grip already and spare us the melodrama, Saker. It is self evident to thinking people that religious people not only do not have a monopoly on morality, they tend to be a lot more hateful, intolerant and immoral than the rest of us. Their “morality” is a pre-packaged, prefab farce with lots of loopholes for all manner of barbaric behavior, like executing gays. Throughout history people who never heard of your religion have developed moral systems that are more sophisticated and humane than that espoused by your faith. No God needed.
“A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html
@ Sean
=============
There is no evidence that homosexuality is a sexual aberration or a mental illness.
=============
Come on, be serious. From a naturalist/non-theist/empirical perspective: Biologically speaking: Sexual activity is primarily a pro-creative activity. Let us be blunt: Arousal and attraction serves the function of procreation; the penis was designed by nature for the vagina and vice versa. The anus was not made for the penis, and the vagina was not made for the dildo. Homosexual conduct constitutes a sexual dysfunction in that it channels the sexual instinct towards that for which is not made by nature.
Aristotle: Morality is a function of achieving the objective telos or aim/purpose of human life. Aristotle believed that the objective purpose of the human being is the perfection of the rational consciousness. A biological reductionist might reduce that to procreation. Homosexuality cannot serve either; hence it is a biological dysfunction.
Kant: An action is good if and only if it is universally applicable in principle to every human being. Applying this principle, heterosexuality can be universally applicable; homosexuality cannot, for it will lead to the destruction of the human race. Hence homosexual conduct is immoral.
Liberal secular ethics are generally emotivist/relativist/subjective, hence the definitions of the concepts “good” and “bad” become functions of the will of the society. When looked at subjectively, one can define “good” and “bad” anyhomw one wishes. Objectively, however, homosexuality is an aberration and dysfunction, whether one looks at it from a spiritual or naturalistic perspective. The evidence is both rational (Aristotle, Kant, etc.) and empirical.
You may disagree, but you cannot say there is no evidence. That’s just more of the usual liberal secularist dogmatism.
Peace
@Sean: unlike Ishamid I don’t have the patience, or even inclination, to argue any of the silly comments you made, but there is one which I think does deserve some discussion. You wrote:
the difference between two gay people having consensual sex and someone fucking a four-year-old
The problem with this argument is that it does not explain why 4 year old is bad, but 16 is ok. or 15. or 14, and then we can go down the list. The point is that the entire concept of pedophilia is predicated on the idea of the age if sexual consent which itself is completely arbitrary. If pedophilia is bad, what about hebephilia (11-14)? A quick look at history will quickly show you that it was very much accepted in many societies. Now check out this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
Notice that as to whether to include hebephilia in the DSM-5 or not is very much contested. So is hebephilia a “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” or is it a mental disorder?
You are also totally missing a VERY important logical distinction:
Having sex with a 4 year old is an ACTION. Being sexually attracted to 4 year olds is a PERSONALITY FEATURE. See the difference? Whether homosexuality and pedophilia are legal or not, this in no way implies that they are therefore personality disorders or not. Most humans are probably capable of murder, yet murder is illegal. The fact that one engages in murder does not entail a personality disorder any more than the fact that one is sexually attracted to, say, lawn mowers, does not entail that such an attraction is illegal.
So even if it is legal to have consensual sex between two “sads” (-: hey, you used your loaded word, let me use mine :-) and it is not with a 4 year old, this says exactly nothing about whether homosexuality and pedophilia are, or not, mental illnesses.
Oh, one more thing Sean – if you can look at the images of these clowns dressed as birds and swallow the idea that their behavior is just a “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” then you are really confused, even for an atheist :-P
More than homossexuality, what I find most absurd is the current trend to deny gender differences and claim these are “social constructs”. Now that is the ultimate lunacy, in my opinion:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20074594.html
And this nonsense is beginning to find its way to “old-fashioned” Latin America:
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1479936-banos-para-tods-en-la-universidad-de-la-plata
(couldn’t find this news in English). The most important phrase “These (bathrooms) are for men, women, and for whatever you decide and want to be”.
Live and let live.
And, people should mind their own business.
Homosexual conduct constitutes a sexual dysfunction in that it channels the sexual instinct towards that for which is not made by nature.
This assumes the purpose of sexual activity is purely reproductive, when clearly it is not. Homosexuality, masturbation and even inter-species sex are common in mammalian species. Non-procreative sex is normal in mammals, and it is normal in humans. Is the leg-humping dog in this video engaging in “unnatural” behavior for a dog? Is the purpose of his activity procreation? Is he guilty of a “sin” for engaging in dog-on-man sex? Making babies is not the goal of most heterosexual sex in humans or even many animals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBBKYmGBqiQ
For the better part of human history most non-Christian/Islamic societies have regarded homsexuality as normal and non-procreative sex as serving a necessary social function. Even within Christianity and Islam it has been widely accepted at various times and various places. There is nothing “dysfunctional” about non-procreative sex and few societies ever regarded it as such.
If procreation is the sole or primary purpose of sexuality in humans, then every act of sex should result in a pregnancy. Instead, it is relatively difficult for human females to get pregnant without continual sexual activity most of which will be non-procreative. Ovulation is hidden in humans, whereas all other mammalian species can go into heat indicating the ideal time for a potential mate for procreative sex. Animals are “bioengineered” to have sex at exactly the right time to maximize the odds of a pregnancy, but humans are biologically designed to have a lot of non procreative sex well beyond what should be necessary to produce a pregnancy, which is really just one time in a system designed exclusively for procreation.
If we assume efficiency in biological or divine design, as you do here, then this excess sex must serve a purpose.
As should be obvious from a casual examination of any human culture, sex serves purposes other than just procreation, including the release of stress, the enjoyment of life and the encouragement of bonding between individuals. Sexual bonding encourages the family structure needed to raise healthy children, but it also encourages interfamily unity and social stability in human tribes. The ancient Greeks and Samurai, for example, encouraged homosexuality in their warriors in the belief it bonded the warriors closer together and made them better fighters.
Humans have the capacity to experience sexual release outside of vaginal sex, and to experience sexual pleasure and gratification from non genital contact. The vagina may be necessary for procreation, but it is unnecessary for sexual release as our horny dog friend demonstrates. Even erotic mental imagery can lead to orgasm, so even a partner isn’t needed. Premature ejaculation and wet dreams are nonvolitional sexual responses completely at odds with procreative sex. All of this suggests that sex was neither biologically or divinely designed solely for the purpose of procreation.
Why would God make human sex so inefficient for the purpose of procreation if that was his primary intent? And if the purpose of sexual desire and pleasure is solely to induce us into having procreative sex, why would he give us so many non-procreative outlets for sexual gratification, including masturbation and homosexuality? From a theological or biological standpoint this makes no sense if the primary purpose of sex is procreation.
Aristotle believed that the objective purpose of the human being is the perfection of the rational consciousness.
That’s nice. Aristotle regarded homosexuality as a sign of higher intellect. part 1
part 2
Kant: An action is good if and only if it is universally applicable in principle to every human being. Applying this principle, heterosexuality can be universally applicable; homosexuality cannot, for it will lead to the destruction of the human race. Hence homosexual conduct is immoral.
By that reasoning, religious celibacy must be considered evil too as it similarly leads to the destruction of the human race if pursued by everyone. Of course it is not pursued by everyone, which makes the point moot.
Kant’s reasoning is easily refuted. Let’s say you and twenty people are sitting in a McDonald’s when some nut starts shooting people one by one. Is it moral for you and the other people present to run for your lives? Now let’s say you and the other 20 people are cops. Is it still moral for you to run for your lives and leave the guy to shoot who he will? Clearly, an action that is morally justified in one group of people would be regarded as immoral in another based on the role they are expected to perform in society, so the idea that an action is only good if it is universally applicable to every human being is false.
You might make the case that at a time when tribes were small and a lot of breeding was necessary to compenesate for deaths due to war, famine and disease homosexuality would be a severe burden on society if it were ever practiced extensively (and assuming that homosexuals couldn’t be induced to breed with women for the good of the tribe, as the Greeks did).
But in today’s world we have the opposite problem, and the primary threat to our survival is overpopulation and all the evils that it breeds. In this day and age, birth control and homosexuality are things that by any rational standard should be encouraged to reduce our run-away population growth. Even the ancient Cretans did this, according to Aristotle. Instead we are constrained by ancient “moral” standards contained in books written centuries ago that do not apply to our modern problems, yet we remain hamstrung by them in the face of new existential challenges.
Liberal secular ethics are generally emotivist/relativist/subjective, hence the definitions of the concepts “good” and “bad” become functions of the will of the society. When looked at subjectively, one can define “good” and “bad” anyhomw one wishes. Objectively, however, homosexuality is an aberration and dysfunction, whether one looks at it from a spiritual or naturalistic perspective. The evidence is both rational (Aristotle, Kant, etc.) and empirical.
As I’ve demonstrated, this is nonsense. Homosexuality in the modern context of overpopulation is entirely rational and functional, and in the ancient world it was rational and functional for the social purposes that it served and indeed, was encouraged to perform in many places. So is celibacy for that matter but humans are not known to adhere to it for long. At any rate the discussion is over whether homosexuality is a mental illness when the evidence is that it is not. You can not arbitrarily label homosexual sex as “dysfunctional” simply because it does not result in procreation particularly as most hetrosexual sex doesn’t result in procreation, either. Sex serves other purposes than procreation and we have way too much procreation going on as it is.
Religious morality is more often than not completely arbitrary and not based on reason however much you may wish to claim it is so. There is no objective, rational basis to telling people not to eat meat on Friday or to not pick up sticks on the Sabbath lest they be put to death. Secular morality can adapt to changing times and changing attitudes. Slavery, the oppression of women and genocide are no longer tolerable in modern society nor should they be. Secular morality easily adapts to these changes but they are still sanctioned by ancient religious texts with inflexible and obsolete moral standards.
Consider the definition of mental illness. Here are two from dictionary.com:
“Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual’s normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma.”
“(Medicine / Pathology) any of various disorders in which a person’s thoughts, emotions, or behavior are so abnormal as to cause suffering to himself, herself, or other people.”
and the wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness
A mental “illness” that doesn’t cause harm or distress to oneself or others isn’t much of an illness.
It is also easy to see why pedophilia is a mental illness. It causes severe cognitive and behavioral impairment—pedophiles often find it near impossible to resist their urges versus the rest of us who can refrain from sexual temptation most of the time. This is why they have such a high recidivism rate. They also have difficulty forming normal relationships with adults. Fucking a four year old also does clear and obvious harm and meets the definition of mental illness as behavior so abnormal as to do harm to others.
Now, why isn’t homosexuality a mental illness? Simple. The overwhelming number of studies that have been done show no significant deviation in psychological test results between homsexuals and normal people. They are as well-adjuested—or not—as everyone else. There is no evidence that homosexuality in any way harms others or harms society. Ergo, it is not defined as a mental illness.
You ask why homosexuals are not “persecuted” equally with pedophiles? Firstly, because we don’t persecute people for being mentally ill we do however persecute them for behaviors which harm others. Homosexuality harms no one. Raping a child does. This holds true whether we regard homosexuality as a mental illness or not, or whether the age of consent laws are arbitrary.
“Notice that as to whether to include hebephilia in the DSM-5 or not is very much contested. So is hebephilia a “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” or is it a mental disorder?”
Who knows? They obviously haven’t been able to determine whether this meets the definition of a mental illness or not, so whether it qualifies as one is anyone’s guess. That question has been answered with regards to homsexuality.
As for Age of Consent laws, they are of course arbitrary, and do not take individual factors into account. I can’t think of any circumstances in which sex with a 4-year-old would be anything but brutally traumatic and disturbing, but a 14-year-old might be mature enough to give meaningful consent to sex and find the experience to be positive. Or she might lack the maturity, only agree to it due to pressure from a more sophisticated adult, find the experience traumatic and end up pregnant with all the known risks of teen pregnancy and abandoned having to face life as an unwed teen mom. The law should be flexible enough to deal with both situations, but it isn’t.
http://newsmomsneed.marchofdimes.com/?p=3501
Of course one way to minimize the risks of teen sexuality is to educate kids about sex and relationships and given them the tools to prevent pregnancy and STDs and resist/prevent non-consensual sex, but the religious nutters are opposed to that and would prefer young girls suffer under the wrath of biology.
Oh, one more thing Sean – if you can look at the images of these clowns dressed as birds and swallow the idea that their behavior is just a “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” then you are really confused, even for an atheist :-P
People dress up in gaudy costumes during parades. Who knew? Better stay away from Mardi Gras or Carnivale lest that stick up your ass pops out in shock.
Here’s a good Christian parade for you, by manly men who knew how to deal with fags.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fXPKfJ_H4s
@Sean: Here’s a good Christian parade for you, by manly men who knew how to deal with fags. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fXPKfJ_H4s
Actually, the SS were not Christian. They were either atheists or pagans with a strong leaning towards the occult. And pulling out the SS as an example of homophobic Christians is about as intellectually dishonest as screaming “anti-Semite!” when somebody criticizes Israel or calling Saddam the 2nd Hitler.
Clearing, having to defend these feather-wearing ‘sads’ as examples of “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” making you loose the already thin veneer of logical argumentation which covers your rather inept arguments. You might as well begin hurling ad-hominems at me now, as it ain’t gonna make you look any worse than your defense of these “birds”..
Speaking of which: in Russian prison slang the lowest creature in the carceral hierarchy is the “petykh” (петух), literally the cock (the bird, not the organ). what is it about homosexuals and their association to brids?!
Actually, they were. Your asserting otherwise proves nothing.
Continuing to invoke the Christian apologist lie that the SS or the Nazis were atheists and pagans is not only intellectually dishonest it’s rather farcical. Somehow, Germany magically transformed from a Christian nation into an atheist/pagan one overnight and then back again after the Nazi era.
Here’s all anyone needs to know to rebut that lie. If you’re still repeating it after the evidence presented here you’re simply not interested in the truth.
http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
I particularly like the “Madonna and Child” painted by the atheist Hitler.
As for hurling ad hominems that seems to be your preferred style of rebuttal of my “weak arguments.” Try logic for a change.
Such a fine representation of humanity in the Russian prison hierarchy. What is it about homophobes and their glorification of violent machismo?
I doubt Jesus of Nazereth would have recognised the Nazis as Christian
@Sean: LOL, with the SS as an example of Christianity and half-nacked sads with feathers as an example of “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” you live in a truly bizarre mental representation of the world and one which I really don’t have the patience to deal with.
@Everybody: if somebody wants to discuss homosexuality as a rational way to deal with overpopulation, inter-species sex in mammals, premature ejaculations, Christian SS and feathered sads as mentally balanced individuals, please be my guest :-))
I doubt Jesus of Nazereth would have recognised the Nazis as Christian.
Why not? I doubt Jesus would recognize Christianity as Christianity.
You’re employing the standard logic of Christian apologists here:
1. Christians are good.
2. The Nazis were evil
3. Therefore the Nazis could not have been Christians.
Never mind the evidence that they were, in fact, Christians as was the majority of the German people.
Robert said…
This guy was a real Christian. The Nazis were not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
Many of the Nazis may have claimed to be Christians. So what? The old East Germany claimed to be a Democratic Republic but there wasn’t much democratic about it.
Sure, and Obama is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Anyone can claim anything, but the facts speak otherwise. The logic here is:
1. People can pretend to be anything for political expediency.
2. The evidence that the Nazis were Christians upsets me.
3. Therefore the Nazis were pretending to be Christians.
It is a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy, where anytime a Christian is shown to do something evil his Christianity is automatically revoked, and he is assumed to be an atheist or whatever because no “True Christian” would behave that way.
If the Nazis had to pretend to be Christians to get the German people to carry out their crimes and atrocities, what does that say about Christianity? Are you now going to pretend the German people were all atheists pretending to be Christian? Whether he was a fake Christian or not, religion was the lever Hitler pulled to gain the compliance of the German people, and the agenda he pursued was definitely a Christian one.
Looking at the list of Hitler’s self-declared enemies, they were almost all consistent with what the Christian churches in Germany also regarded as their enemies: Jews, Gypsies, “sads/birds,” communists, freethinkers, atheists, esoterics, occultists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other people perceived to be at odds with Christianity were targets of Hitler’s wrath on principle. The Christian Right in the US today holds the same enemies list in its hands, as do many Christian sects.
Hitler formed a Concordat with the Catholic Church but freethinker and atheist organizations were banned within months of Hitler taking power. As an added insult, atheist Hitler converted the HQ of the German Freethinkers League into a center for the encouragement of Christian belief—not exactly the behavior of an atheist, not even one faking Christianity.
Speaking of Bonhoeffer, are you familiar with his theology? He was an adherent and proponent of Radical Theology, which as the name implies was pretty “radical.” He questioned the validity of the virgin birth and resurrection stories and felt that Christians should “live as if there is no God.” The irony is that were it not for his martyrdom, few modern Christians would accept him as one of their own and Bonhoeffer would today be placed on the “No True Christian” list alongside Hitler for his radical beliefs.
http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=537
They (Soros and co) are obviously using the gay agenda as a weapon to undermine the Orthodox church and Russian society just like they do in Serbia and Weimar Germany so they can introduce other liberal elements by introducing the most extreme pole and bring in other forms of liberal control like feminism, minority rights, etc that will be a softcore version of Russia after 1917 backed by privately funded foundations.
@Jack:They (Soros and co) are obviously using the gay agenda as a weapon to undermine the Orthodox church and Russian society just like they do in Serbia and Weimar Germany so they can introduce other liberal elements by introducing the most extreme pole and bring in other forms of liberal control like feminism, minority rights, etc that will be a softcore version of Russia after 1917 backed by privately funded foundations.
Well, the way you phrased that I cannot really agree with. However, you are definitely unto something here, so here is how I would personally state it:
They (various Western interests) are trying hard to blow up as much as can be anything that can be construed as a “lack of freedom” or “return to dictatorship” or any other similar nonsense in order to paint Russia as, again, the Evil Empire. So if that means standing up for the “rights” of Russian homosexuals, so be it. The West has a long track record of supporting various types of crazies in the former Soviet Union like, for example, the Hare Krisha which, quite unlike their very respectable Indian counterparts, were mostly lunatics. And quite a few Soviet dissidents *did*, indeed, have a low-level form of “creeping schizophrenia” too. There were plenty of nutcases amongst them, really.
I tell you, if Moscow’s sewage rats could somehow be made into oppressed dissidents, oppressed minorities or heroic freedom fighters, the CIA would not hesitate to do so.
In Soviet times *REAL* opponents of the Soviet system, like Igor Ogurtsov or Leonid Borodin, got *zero* support from the West.
Well, today, the Orthodox Christians who do not accept the state-controlled Moscow Patriarchate and denounce it for the illegitimate body it is are facing all sorts of forms of repression and nobody, NOBODY, in the Western media gives a damn.
Somehow, a persecuted Russian Orthodox priest is not worthy of support, but a group of sexually dysfunctional loonies do.
That is Western ‘democracy’ at its most typical.
Your understandable problem Sean is a lack in understanding of what real Christianity is .. this may help .. Christ’s words are truly revolutionary: “I am come to send fire on the earth” (Luke 12, 49). “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10,34). “The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matthew 11,12). How are these words understood ?
The violation of our nature is absolutely necessary to defeat our internal enslavement, which entails every external form of slavery. Our trials is the struggle to deny “our old man” (Matthew 16,24. Romans 6,6). Man’s will must become accustomed in resisting the establishment of sin, constituted by the ego-centered attitude towards the people and the world. Being inside our sin, in the death-life that we live we face everything as being neutral objects, subjected to our needs and desires. Let us consider the exploitation of the world (the creation) and the people, environmental pollution, nuclear arms production used in the race of the superpowers for a dynamic preeminence. The person, who is faithful to Christ, is fighting his ego-centered nature through willing deprivation, willing undertaking of controlling the flesh, in order to be lead to external liberation. He mretires from the trend to subject everything, learns to love the world and realize his unity with the world, to discern the seal of God’s creative power on each individual creation and utilize the world (in a pleasing way to the eyes of God) as a continuous liturgy and reference to God. Through trials and tribulations (this spiritual exercise) man reaches an authentic communion, where life becomes self – transgression of love … http://www.romanity.org/mir/me03en.htm ..
I only briefly read the first part of your comments but wanted to confirm your accurate rejection of the “gay” fraud. It’s so easy to brainwash the gullible world as the Nazi & Soviet fascists have proven, and now their American successors have joined that vile chorus. It’s no accident that a Christian creationist America defeated a godless evolutionist Nazi Germany & Soviet Union; it’s a tragedy that after the victory they flipped and embraced the godless delusions of the defeated. See true science, Biblically-based creation science of the greats like Newton & Galileo vs the evolution fraud at http://www.creation.com See the “One Blood” article/book at that same site on evolution’s vile racist history, as with abortion’s whores like Planned Parenthood @ http://www.blackgenocide.org.
See “The gay invention” http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f at http://www.touchstonemag.com and see http://www.DrJudithReisman.org on how the gullible world has been taken over by the lawless fascist thought police that threaten the lives of ex-gay’s kids (see exodus.to) and of others in their devils’ tragic enslavement of them, God have mercy. This evil lie is what happens to those who forget God. Even the very word group “homosex-” is an oxymoron, homo=same+sex=opposite and has resulted in the absurd redefinition of our language and society into lunatic derangement that the gullible historically and Biblically illiterate happily imbibe (keep drinking the koolaid; eat your heart out Jim Jones), even causing the gross mistranslation of the Bible re arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 with the bogus “homosex-“.
God save us,
Russ
I only briefly read the first part of your comments but wanted to confirm your accurate rejection of the “gay” fraud. It’s so easy to brainwash the gullible world as the Nazi & Soviet fascists have proven, and now their American successors have joined that vile chorus. It’s no accident that a Christian creationist America defeated a godless evolutionist Nazi Germany & Soviet Union; it’s a tragedy that after the victory they flipped and embraced the godless delusions of the defeated. See true science, Biblically-based creation science of the greats like Newton & Galileo vs the evolution fraud at http://www.creation.com See the “One Blood” article/book at that same site on evolution’s vile racist history, as with abortion’s whores like Planned Parenthood @ http://www.blackgenocide.org.
See “The gay invention” http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f at http://www.touchstonemag.com and see http://www.DrJudithReisman.org on how the gullible world has been taken over by the lawless fascist thought police that threaten the lives of ex-gay’s kids (see exodus.to) and of others in their devils’ tragic enslavement of them, God have mercy. This evil lie is what happens to those who forget God. Even the very word group “homosex-” is an oxymoron, homo=same+sex=opposite and has resulted in the absurd redefinition of our language and society into lunatic derangement that the gullible historically and Biblically illiterate happily imbibe (keep drinking the koolaid; eat your heart out Jim Jones), even causing the gross mistranslation of the Bible re arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 with the bogus “homosex-“.
God save us,
Russ
Isn’t it ironic that so-called “homo”sexuals (homo=same) are so deluded as to pretend approving their lies has anything to do with “diversity” as in the rainbow that was God’s promise never again to destroy the world by flood (an insurmountable problem for the absurd local flood theory that would make God a liar every time there’s a flood today), when their flag should really be yellow and brown, the color of the urine and feces on their bodies as a result of their vile methods of achieving pseudo-orgasm they conveniently never mention as off-putting as it would be to sane people unlike themselves. As I’ve said previously, the article “The gay invention” at http://www.touchstonemag.com and http://www.DrJudithReisman.org are excellent sources of information to expose the lie that has destroyed the lives of countless dear souls and threatens civilization itself as seen in the lawless, fascist, lunatic “gay marriage” fraud brainwashing the planet, proving yet again, as did the Nazis & Soviets, how easy it is to brainwash the planet and pretend like you’ve actually done something intelligent, when nothing could be further from the truth, The Truth being Jesus Christ as John 8:32 so wonderfully and lovingly declares. Soli Deo Gloria!
Russ Davis
As an ignostic (not “agnostic”), I would like to respond to your quote:
“The very concepts of “right” and “wrong” must, by logical necessity, either be anchored on some absolute (such as God) or become absolutely arbitrary and subjective. Secularists can bawl in impotent rage and frustration but there is no logical argument which can be made against this fundamental truth.”
Actually, there very much is. There are biological and evolutionary constraining factors – if you would like to know more, search for studies of morality in other non-human animals. We are gradually discovering the rules that govern development of morality – it can be PREDICTED. It is FALSIFIABLE. Like elemental physics particles. We are not great at it yet, but we are always improving and, like with other scientific advances, we will eventually catch up and explain it better than religion does (in some ways, we are there already).
Until that happens, here’s my hypothesis for how it works:
Morality exists in our minds, and even someone like you who believes that it has absolute values must agree: not only do people not agree on what these absolute values are, often even if they belong to the same religion, but much of the planet would think that YOU are the heretic. And yet: there are limits to the variation, because we are all humans, we live on the same planet. Just like our faces all look different but can still usually be recognized as human, so it is with morality.
Religion is a TACTIC, used by societies to make their morality last for a longer period of time by “setting in stone” the laws from a particular time period. Nevertheless, even the religious method doesn’t last forever; shellfish are widely eaten these days, and mixed fabrics are widely worn, even though the Bible forbids them.
To this non-theist, your argument about morality misses the point entirely. By thinking that it would deeply affect me, it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with the philosophical foundations of my position.
(please note, I am not a complete enemy and I really like your writing on other topics. Your coverage of the Ukraine crisis and the history that led to it in particular is very good, and I have shared it with others!)
Wow, I’m amazed to know the Saker is a self-proclaimed “Left Libertarian”. I assumed your were a kind of Russia conservative, not exactly right wing, in fact I believed you probably didn’t think in terms of left-right as it’s usual with anti-globalist comrades. I think the Libertarian indicates just that you are not a Marxist-Leninist, because in the west it has a completely different meaning. So-called “left libertarian” party in Brazil defends Maidan as a “popular revolution against a heir of stalinism”, blasts “homophobic dictator Putin”, “bloody tyrants” Assad and Gaddafi, “dictator” Chavez and even call for a new revolution in Cuba.
I am a convicted anti-imperialist and Communist, not stick to any vertent , but I am simpathetic to Marxism-Leninism, Bolivarianism and Third-Worldism. I am generally antipathetic to trotskyism and new left since these groups usually promotes US imperial/neoliberal agenda. I have a positive view of USSR and 1917 Revolution, but I think the religious persecution was very wrong.
I consider myself spiritual, but I don’t have a specific religion. I am secularist also.
I really disagree with you in to homosexuality, but I since I love your blog and geopolitic analysis and you have a very staunch opinion on this issue, I’m not fighting over it. I see no problem in homossexuality because of the consent, because it doesn’t harm others. What you said about the age is right, it is subjective, but it’s also valid for heterossexual relations. And what to do, just say that “age is a social construction, then pedophilia doesn’t exist” like the pedo lobby want?
Since I’m not religious, I’m not judging acts as right or wrong, but rather legal ou ilegal. I think it’s arbitrary anyway, but I think the State should act behalf of common good, not religious or traditional values. I don’t think that science is always neutral, rather it is often used for political purposes. But I believe in science and reason, since I’m not a postmodernist nor religious. So I’ll base my view of homossexuality in scientific studies, and there are a lot now saying it’s innate and not a disease. I also don’t like LGBT movements and style. But I think the State should not intervene in parades, unless in case of explicit obscenity (LGBT parades in Brazil often have public sex).
As an “old-school” Communist I am very disgusted at how queer and other post-modern theories completely took control over Western Left. I think post-modernism is clearly opposite to Socialism, as it is very individualist. I think transgenderism is clearly against logic, since either the gender is defined based of steoreotypical gender roles or based in “self-declaring” which is absurdly arbitrary (although I recognize most transgenders are in a marginalized social condition). Yet, you can’t say anything bad about transgenderism (let alone homossexuality!) in Brazilian “Communist” parties. Western leftists care so much about decriminalization of drugs and abortion, gender idendities, gay kissing in public, sluts walks, but very few care about class struggle and even fewer about anti-imperialist struggle.
“What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard.”
Lies: scribd.com/document/165076223/APA-Science-vs-Obscurantists
http://homoresponse.blogspot.com/2011/05/countering-heterosexist-arguments.html#02
“And how does one distinguish between “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” and paraphilia?”
Here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310132/
“There are plenty of sexual psycho-pathologies out there and plenty of people engaging in them. I don’t force everybody to give a standing ovation to my own sexual preferences, and I don’t see any reason why somebody would demand from me that I approve and cheer on his/her sexual preferences. Keep your bedroom in your bedroom and leave the rest of us alone. But no, that is not good enough for what I call the “Homo Lobby”.”
They tried to in private but no one would leave them alone.
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/russia-central-asia/article/3021697/murder-gay-hunters-strike-terror-russias-lgbt
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/06/how-police-surveillance-led-stonewall/593026/