An Ancient Struggle

“The argument against homosexualism is fundamentally a contest against the reign of voluntarism, the reign of desires furnishing their own justification against reason, the natural purposes of our being, and the conditions in which we dwell.” ~ James Matthew Wilson

via Marriage Ends in New York, An Ancient Struggle Continues | Front Porch Republic.

Much has been said recently of the vote in NY to refashion marriage to be inclusive of those who call themselves homosexual. Interestingly, a demographic that accounts for roughly 2% of the national populous has managed to seize headlines every day since the historic legislation. No other group so small – for instance, farmers – has been able to garner such a vibrant spectrum of coverage in regards to their imperiled interests. Apparently, the Media determine the causes they will themselves champion.

However, in spite of the barrage of reports, stories and commentary, neither wing of the Media seems willing to break the only real taboo in this discussion around this homosexual orientation; in other words, what does homosexuality, as a lifestyle and an orientation, do to the human soul?

The group of individuals who comprise a phenomenon known simply as “ex-gays” is one that is highly scorned by the Left and somehow ignored by the Right in the public debate. We have become so convinced as a culture that homosexuality is somehow normative that to even suggest the possibility that a person might not want to be gay is scandalous. When such a person actually overcomes – or at the very least, acts contrary to – his homosexual orientation, it is treated as if he were the one going against his nature. The vitriol once reserved for practicing homosexuals themselves by a “homophobic” mainstream culture has been redirected to spew only upon those who are so bold to deny that they are biologically homosexual, created by God to be as such, and happiest when living out the proclivity. In short, they are the true pariahs.

Please allow me to demonstrate my point. This week, as my wife and I were at the theater to take in the newest offering from Terrance Malick, The Tree of Life (recommended), we were subjected to a trailer for the movie, Pariah. This flick features a young african-american woman struggling to come to terms with her homosexual orientation. More than that, she is drawn to the masculine expression of lesbianism, a highly condemned mien within the black community. Ironically, the trailer simultaneously tried to affirm the young woman’s femininity while extolling her courage to practice masculinity. Given the black community’s disposition against this kind of behavior, I somehow doubt the producer had that demographic in mind in funding this film. Rather, this film was created for “White Liberals,” who are open-minded enough to assume their worldview must be accepted by everyone. The title of the film, Pariah, only speaks to the notion that a black homosexual girl is representative of one of the last few clusters of individuals who have yet to be embraced – or at the very least, tolerated – by their surrounding communities. Likely, the film could have substituted a Latina for the african-american, with similar product and effect. Regardless, the narrative of the suffering homosexual yearning to be free of social constraints has become so commonplace that the trailer, no matter how fantastic or sentimental, went relatively unnoted by those in the theater with us (except for the elderly couple behind us whispering, “Ooh, that looks good!”).

Now put the shoe on the other foot: imagine such a film in which the main character is a homosexual who is actually trying to relinquish herself from her orientation; to be free of same-sex attraction and all the chaos it has brought upon the life and soul of the individual. Who would have sat quietly through that trailer? Would it even have been deemed fit to air in the theater without fear of heavy repercussions? Surely at some point in the ensuing debate the cankerous curse of “hatespeech” would have landed on the table.

My point is this: the American media has so quickly adopted the “homosexual as normative” narrative that the public has hardly had time to bat an eye. Those who believe homosexuality is a disorder and the support around it little more than sentimentality on steroids constitute a new leper colony, so much so that it has become professionally and even personally treacherous to publicly discuss or question the viability of the homosexual orientation. Anyone who does is automatically understood and lambasted as “homophobic,” bigoted and tantamount to the KKK, and all this in the name of tolerance and freedom.

While we have certainly reached a point that to question this assumption would be professional suicide for any politician interested in re-election, and it boggles the mind to imagine a “forward-leaning” newspaper to print any commentary contrary to the dominant narrative, the Internet is yet uncensored. As vast and incoherent as the Internet has become, this must be the medium for those who dissent. In order for this to be an actual debate, both balanced and open, it is necessary to hear those who have gone beyond the pale and renounced their homosexual orientations. At one time in recent history, homosexuality was on the books as a psychological disorder, and a cure was sought. Now those who seek the cure are the sick ones. But to read their words, they do not sound sick. Rather, they sound like those who have emerged from the cage that confined them, those who have truly come out of their personal prisons. And what they tell us, having been on both sides of the bed sheet, is that the dominant narrative we’re ingesting now is the poison that kept them sick all that time.

For those still reading and interested, I want to recommend two such accounts. The first is by far superior writing and goes beyond the personal experience of the author to analyze the phenomenon of gay culture and its growing acceptance, but both are well worth the read. Be warned: both authors are devout Christians. This is often enough for any skeptic to immediately write off the account as religious babble. But the significance behind these men’s faith is that Christianity does not simply condemn homosexuality, as every major religion does. Instead, it offers healing from it through the Creator and Healer of the world, Jesus Christ. If homosexuality is indeed a disorder of the soul and mind (and no science proves the contrary, regardless of the popular sentiment that homosexuals were “born that way”), then the proper treatment must concern both mind and soul.

Please read carefully. The first account is somewhat graphic in its descriptions.

The Books Were a Front for the Porn: the Truth about the Homosexual Rights Movement by Ronald G. Lee

How a Gay Rights Leader Became Straight by Michael Glatze

You can read more about Michael Glatze in a recent New York Times Magazine article. The writing is good, and the testimony true, but even within the article you can sense the wriggle of the idea that maybe this guy Glatze is somehow not being truthful, or was never gay in the first place, or is just plain crazy. To be sure, the actual response to this man’s conversion from homosexuality was much more irate and rancorous than the article intimates. One need only peruse sites around the blogosphere to get a better idea of what kind of kerfuffle this “coming out” of Glatze’s created for the gay community.



Filed under Bigotry, Culture

11 responses to “An Ancient Struggle

  1. Christian bigots hate people who are genetically gay and want to limit their freedom, IMO that makes you fundamentally unAmerican, please leave America and move to Iran where they share your hateful intolerant views towards gay people. Here is a hint, you ARE like the KKK, and people against interracial marriage in the 40s made the exact same arguments homphobes make today down to being heavily salted with the delusions of semi literate desert dwellers suffering hallucinations of a non existent “god.”

    In short piss off and leave America and the sooner the better.

    And for terminally idiotic hateful bigots no I am not gay, but I do despise hate criminals like you!

    Will you leave this post? No of course not, haters are inevitably censorious cowards as well, again like your soul mates in Iran who you more similar to than different from.

    • Ocean Orchestra

      Ouch. It’s strange that you automatically assume I won’t allow this to post because I am a “hater.” These words of yours are possibly the most hate-filled string of words I’ve ever been subjected to. It tears my heart even to read them. Can you not feel it?

      Surely we disagree, but what can call for this? Is this the true American response?

      If my arguments are truly the exact same as those made by opponents to interracial marriage, then please point me to them and I’ll review. But why this?

      Thanks for reading and sharing.

    • Zachary

      I present the following not to attack you or homosexuals, but because I am sincerely confused by Atheism’s position on homosexuality and was curious as to how you resolve certain issues which appear to be contradictions.

      Modern atheism make two claims (among others):
      (1) Science is the most reliable arbiter of knowable truth.
      (2) Humans are the result of an eons-long process of evolution.

      Granting the above, and looking at homosexuality from a purely scientific standpoint, a few observations come to mind:
      (1) Individuals and humanity as a whole are genetically concerned with their own survival. The self-preservation instinct is arguably the first impulse of any living creature.
      (2) The corollary to the self-preservation instinct is the impulse to reproduce. Organisms are wired to desire to pass on their genetic code to as many descendants as possible. Naturally, the stronger organisms with superior survival traits produce the most descendants. This is natural selection or the survival of the fittest.
      (3) The phenomenon of homosexuality is inherently non-reproductive.
      Barring interference from the other gender, a homosexual cannot produce any descendants.

      If the above is true, than homosexuality is a undesirable genetic trait for the individual organism (because they do not pass on their genetic traits).

      Whether this means humans as a species should discourage homosexuality or (please excuse my crassness) simply let the homosexual gene trait run its course until all those who have it are weeded out by natural selection, I don’t claim to know.

      It simply appears to me as though you are arguing for homosexuality as a desirable genetic trait when it is quite obviously detrimental for the long-term survivability of any individual organism that has it.

      • (3) seems false; or, it’s at least obfuscating. It’s pretty contested (and the data sides against the claim) that sexuality is a two-state condition: either you’re homosexual or heterosexual. Instead, sexuality is a scale, with degrees of homosexuality and heterosexuality expressed in each member of the species. See the renowned Klein survey. Conceived this way, it’s easy to see how homosexuality becomes inherited. On a scale of 1-7 with “1” representing 100% homosexual attraction and “7” representing 100% heterosexual attraction, anytime a non-7 reproduces at all, some degree of likelihood of homosexual-preference will pass to the next generation. And of course, since 7s are no more likely to reproduce than, say, 6s or even 5s, ‘complete’ (that is, non-reproductive) homosexuality is always a possibility in some member or other of a subsequent generation. (Indeed, there are reasons to think that the likelihood of reproduction for a given number has as much to do with environmental factors as anything else.)

        The point being, here’s a naturalistic hypothesis that explains the transmission of homosexual attractiveness from parents who obviously were heterosexual enough to express the reproductive impulse to children who may express homosexual attraction to the degree that they do not wish to reproduce.

        And further, there are plenty reasons to think that some degree of homosexuality may be a genetically preferable trait to pass between generations. For one, if homosexual attraction represents some stifling of the reproductive urge, female members of a species with long gestation period (e.g. humans) have reasons to want their male partners to stick around, in spite of other reproductive opportunities that might arise during said gestation period. Thus, 6- or 5-isms may be far more desirable traits for females, since 7-ism is likely to correlate with a strong enough reproductive desire as to motivate 7-males to sow their wild oats. For another, 7-ism may correlate with some sorts of sexually aggressive tendencies among 7-males; not a preferable trait if you’re anything other than a 7-female (and even then…). For yet another, homosexuality may persist as a sort of natural population control. Hypothesize that species which express some degree of homosexuality tend to naturally curb their reproduction, leading them to consume and exhaust resources at a pace conducive to expansion.

        Anyway, yeah. Maybe you meant something else in your (3), though.

  2. Nony

    MSR: Nice Ad hominems! You’re a pro.

  3. “It tears my heart even to read them. Can you not feel it?”

    Cry me a river, how do you think gay people feel when they are dehumanized and told they can’t marry the people they love based on ancient superstitions?

    Here are some examples of bible passages that white supremacists have used in the past to limit the freedom of black people and white people to marry:

    Homophobia is the same b.s. of denying people the freedom to be themselves and love who like when they are harming no one, based on the hallucinations of semi literate dark ages personages hallucinating from ergot poisoning:

  4. Martin Snigg

    Matthew, if you don’t recognise the authority of the Bible, fine. But you can’t seriously be arguing that simply because the Bible has been misinterpreted in the past for wicked ends the same is occurrng now. You’re using the Bible in the same way they are – decontextualised – mindlessly.

    As for interracial marriage – the law ultimately was concerned about the conception of mixed race children because they knew that the natural fruit of marriage is children. Marriage is something and not another thing, and children reared by their mom and dad are of its essence (even if nature is frustrated more often that not at the moment). Unwittingly arguments from interracial marriage prohibitions undermine same sex marriage arguments.

    It strikes me how often ssm supporters descend into name calling. Vilifying people who want to retain marriage as it is rather than re-order society and its institutions according to the whims of a tiny minority who identify as homosexual and a tiny minority of these who actually want to adopt marriage norms.

    This seems fair and ‘equal’ to these people? Given the immense division and disruption it causes?

    • Lets make some things clear, there is ZERO evidence for a God and thousands of conflicting religions in the world so any argument from authority from religion is moot, and leads to the obvious question which religion? And yes it’s funny isn’t it how middle class white Americans *assume* that they happened by pure chance to be born into the one true religion ™?

      As for name calling, ie hate crimes, it is YOU who want to restrict the freedom of fellow Americans who did nothing based wholly on the fantasies in the bible. That is vile hatred and IMO America would be better off if those whose who hate based on thousands of years old epistemological fallacies, and who are incapable of understanding genetic science (that homosexuality is innate) leave America, and leave peaceful rational people to live their lives without your bigotry. Your kind lost the opposing interracial marriage fight and you will lose this one too, as older irrational religious bigots die off America will become a better place, until then please go find an island, perhaps you can call it Hatetopia.

      • Martin Snigg

        Matthew you’re quite mistaken about the existence of God, but don’t take my word for it youtube William Lane Craig, Greg Koukl, or NT Wright debating the Resurrection. Listen to experts in the fields of philosophy, ancient history, biblical scholarship etc. Christianity has been public for 2000 yrs if Jesus was such an evil guy and the Father that he prayed to non-existent, you ought to be able to refute Christianity as easily as drinking water. It is a very vulnerable ‘religion’ afterall, it makes very explicity historical claims: if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead Christianity is false. So …. go ahead.

        If you want an experience of why there are multiple doctrines about the character of the Creator and/or transcendent it might be enough to look at the divisions caused by romantic love, the divisions caused by those who think the state should impose on citizens the requirement to support fiscally, socially and legally erotic attachments of all kinds. Look at the divisions caused when we argue about the meaning of life, sex, marriage, nature, the body, family. You believe there are facts of the matter about these things, you believe that there are true and good answers to the meanings of these words and are prepared to viciously denounce as pure bigotry dissent from your chosen position. You want me to believe that what you write is the fruit of having gone well beyond debate, that on the other side of your long wrestle with doubt is your pure serene certainy gained after long bitter years of reflection and self assessment. And so you have the confidence to denounce me as the very anti-thesis of a Christian, someone who rather than follow Jesus and seek to extinguish every last trace of hatred from my heart and so be a disciple of His, I am rather the exact opposite a totalitarian, someone who history shows is motivated by hatred of the other. I don’t buy it Matthew and so I don’t buy your argument from ‘disagreement’ about the non-existence of God.

        It doesn’t give me confidence either that you can’t see your atheism as just as geographically and chronologically relative as any religion you dismiss: hardly anyone has every believed what you believe, hardly anyone else in the world apart from certain parts of senile anti-Christian western societies actually subscribe to them. Isn’t it a bit convenient that those who happen to be walking around now in the place you happen to live have gained such an epistemologically priveleged position? So much so they don’t need even to show how they are right, they can go straight to the dehumanising denouncing phase? And when these people have a moral philosophy that looks taken straight from Oprah?

        No I don’t buy it, what I’m much more persuaded of is that you’ve succumbed to that perennial human temptation, your hatred has turned you into the thing you denounce.

        You’ll not you didn’t respond to the argument about interracial marriage, you know nothing about the Bible, how to read it or what it says; you liberally use the most demeaning, dehumanising illiberal language and dogmatically pronounce that you have discovered, in your scientific reductionism, that sex is mere biology (you should publish).

        What you’ve revealed to me Matthew is that disarmed by your silly scientistic dogmas, Biblical ignorance and Christianophobia you’ve just let that pre-eminent realm of self-delusion – sex – turn you into something particularly ugly. And my brief exposure to homosexual marriage movement makes me believe that you are not an atypical representative of that movement.

  5. I have homosexual desires, and I married a good woman. 25 years ago, in fact. Have my “interests” gone away? or changed? Not really, but I have been able to be faithful. “Straight” males who lead an active sex life as singles have just as much difficulty adapting to heterosexual monogamy, in many ways, as I do; maybe more, because I didn’t actually do much before I got married. In one way my vice is worse, because it’s one step further removed from nature than straight fornication is; but as far as dealing with it, it’s similar. The “cure” for homosexuality is like the cure for alcoholism; you don’t “become heterosexual,” you live one day at a time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s