WHAT can be said about Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent chastising and threatening of Nigeria for its new anti-sodomy laws except that the U.S. Government is a great force for evil in the world. As the blogger Mundabor points out, it’s interesting that Kerry has not publicly condemned Saudi Arabia even though sodomy is a capital offense there. “People everywhere deserve to live in freedom and equality. No one should face violence or discrimination for who they are or who they love,” said Kerry this week. Everyone deserves freedom and equality except those who don’t particularly want to see their relatives and friends pulled into the land of AIDS, drug use, suicide and homosexual promiscuity.

— Comments —

Dnr writes:

Reading your post gave me a feeling of such deep contempt for the “leaders” of the former United States of America.  No longer does a position of authority in this country naturally entail moral accountability.  Those in positions of power in this country are so utterly corrupt, so devoid of Godliness, that they appear to be irredeemable.  I cannot completely express my scorn and shame for the administration of this country.  The real United States of America is clinically dead, on life support, while some wish for the best with no evidence that anything like its former self will ever live again.

To be fair, the U.S.A. no longer has moral standing in the world because it has thrown it away with the blessing of the citizenry.  One could argue that the elections which installed the contemptible leadership of this country were largely based on fraud and illegal voters, but even if that is so (and I believe it is), all of us bear accountability for not rolling back the fraud and taking to the streets like our counterparts in Egypt, and in Iran a couple of years ago. We deserve what we get.  We have lost our way.

Jacques writes:

Everyone deserves freedom and equality except those who don’t particularly want to see their relatives and friends pulled into the land of AIDS, drug use, suicide and homosexual promiscuity.”

Even in a country with no laws against homosexuality, people who think that homosexuality leads to (or just is) all of these bad things may be free to disapprove of it, preach against it, tell relatives and friends why they think homosexuality is so harmful.  In the U.S. there are no laws against alcoholism, but that fact alone does not deprive people of the freedom to oppose heavy drinking or warn people of the risks, etc.  There are no laws against sexual promiscuity, but that doesn’t prevent people who oppose those things from speaking out against them, warning people of the risks, etc.

I assume you don’t wish for a society in which everything harmful or dangerous is illegal.  Even if homosexuality is as bad (or evil) as you think it is, surely that doesn’t imply that it should be illegal — or that laws against it are morally acceptable.

 Laura writes:

Laws are more effective than preaching. Would you like to see anti-theft laws replaced by preaching? There should be laws against the public promotion and encouragement of sodomy.

There are laws, by the way, controlling the sale of alcohol.

Paul T. writes:

Picking up on the blogger Mundabor’s point:

I can’t tell you how moved I was by John Kerry’s utterance, “People everywhere deserve to live in freedom and equality. No one should face violence or discrimination for who they are or who they love.” And on that very basis, I urge the Secretary of State to push for immediate and heavy sanctions against Saudi Arabia until that country agrees to permit Christianity to be preached there openly and without fear of reprisals.

Jacques writes:

There are laws controlling the sale of alcohol, but not against adults drinking it — even to excess, even to the point of ruining one’s life. The drinking of it, of course, is the harmful part. Would you like there to be laws against adults drinking alchohol, or drinking more than some officially specified amount?

More generally, do you think that everything harmful should be illegal? Probably more people would eat their vegetables and exercise regularly if not doing so resulted in prison time. There too, laws would be “more effective than preaching.” But most of us don’t think it should be illegal to eat fast food (or whatever). And I suspect the harms of homosexuality are much more similar to (or identical with) the harms of poor health rather than, in your comparison, theft. One important reason for anti-theft laws is, of course, that the victims of the theft did not consent to have their property stolen. It’s not clear to me how homosexuality in and of itself harms people who didn’t consent to those harms. (Though of course some may not be well-informed… hence perhaps the need for preaching.)

Laura writes:

As to your first point, I said there should be laws against the promotion and encouragement of sodomy. These laws would protect the health and welfare of those who, through no fault of their own, are tempted by homosexual desires. Laws against actual sodomy, I did not address. Human beings are social by nature and are drawn into activities that are publicly approved.

Homosexuality is harmful to the soul and body. It is harmful to the personality and the common good. Your point about laws against eating vegetables is too trivial for me to address except to say that most societies have imposed serious sanctions against homosexuality. Nix on the vegetable laws. Why this is so seems self-evident, but if you are honestly mystified by this historical fact, I suggest you brush up on the long list of physical and emotional disorders associated with homosexual behavior and consider the inability of homosexuals to procreate.

Jacques writes:

You say that you merely defend “laws against the promotion and encouragement of sodomy.” The article you linked says that the Nigerian law imposes a prison term of up to 10 years on any person who “participates in gay clubs, societies or organizations.” Is this the kind of law you have in mind? Do you think that a person deserves to spend a decade in prison for hanging around at a gay bar? For going to a gay rights rally? Should it be illegal to present good faith moral arguments to the effect that homosexuality is not wrong? In your post you are attacking Kerry for criticizing this Nigerian law. This makes it appear that you think there’s nothing objectionable about the law, that the “laws against the promotion and encouragement of sodomy” that you propose are laws of this kind. (If you do favour of laws of that kind, I guess we’ve reached the end of any meaningful conversation on this topic.)

Laura writes:

The Nigerian government is fully within its rights to impose such laws.

I am not proposing any specific laws. It should be illegal to promote and encourage homosexuality publicly.

Rob writes:

I’m a gay man and an outspoken advocate for same-sex marriage. I’m in a five-year relationship with my same-sex partner and we do engage in what you call sodomy. We have done so repeatedly and plan to continue doing so unrepentantly. Under your ideal legal system, what criminal penalties should we incur? Please be specific. Fines? If so, how much? Imprisonment? If so, for how long?

Laura writes:

As I said, the public promotion and encouragement of homosexuality should be illegal. Perhaps it thrills you to think you may be persecuted when there isn’t the slightest chance of that happening. The fact is, it is you who are doing the persecuting in your campaign against marriage.

Rob writes:

You’ve made it clear you think the promotion and encouragement of homosexuality should be illegal. I’m asking you to specify what penalties you think should be imposed.

Laura writes:

There is no need for me to give the issue of possible penalties for such hypothetical laws serious thought at this time.

Jacques writes:

“There is no need to give the issue of possible penalties for hypothetical laws serious thought at this time.”

In your post you’re criticizing Kerry for his opposition to a specific law in Nigeria.  So the topic is a set of actual penalties under an actual law:  actual penalties that you apparently think are not objectionable.  (Otherwise why was it so bad or unreasonable for Kerry to oppose that actual law?)

In any case, I still don’t see how you justify your position that it should be illegal to promote or encourage homosexuality.  You have said that homosexuality is very harmful.  But you also seem to accept that there are other very harmful things, like alcoholism, the promotion or encouragement of which need not be illegal.  So what is the reason for your position?  Either you think that (a) it should be illegal to promote anything harmful, or that (b) there is some other reason for thinking that it should be illegal to promote this particular harmful thing.  I wonder which it is.

Laura writes:

The penalties imposed in Nigeria do not warrant international intervention by the United States. The penalties in Saudi Arabia do warrant severe criticism.

The promotion of immorality is wrong. Homosexuality is not the only form of immorality, but it is a serious perversion of nature. I cannot give you a complete list of all the things that should be prohibited in a sane and just society at this moment.

Laura adds:

Laws should be geared not just to protect citizens from harm, but to help them attain their true end, which is eternal union with God.

Sexual freedom, as has been said here many times before, is a misnomer. Impurity is enslaving. The Revolution cleverly uses sexual emancipation to further its aims; it has no love for “homosexuals,” who are tools in the campaign to enslave humanity.

Laura continues:

It’s interesting to me that Rob proudly proclaims his aversion to women. “How dare any society restrict the hatred of women! I have a right to be disgusted by women!” There was something very civilized about a world where people at least kept their aversion to the opposite sex to themselves. There was something civilized about a society where there were no hordes of men publicly engaging in various forms of phallus-worship. Walk through a neighborhood of homosexual men. What do they exhibit? Their rejection of women and adoration of the male physique. “Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all? Me! Me!” Look at lesbians. What is their life centered around but the rejection of men and the elevation of their own sex? Homosexuality, publicly accepted, makes estrangement between the sexes and narcissism commonplace. Golly, I’m old-fashioned.

In answer to Jacques, alcoholics and people who don’t eat their broccoli don’t spread the same kind of viciously anti-social behavior.

John P. writes:

The idea of criminalising homosexuality makes me uncomfortable. I don’t like the idea of government having control over private consensual behaviour. The difference between homosexuality and, say, alcoholism, is that homosexualism has become an ideology. There are very few, if any, heavy drinkers who believe it’s simply okay to drink heavily. It’s just how life turned out for us. The problem with homosexuals is that they want everyone to believe their behaviour is completely normal and in no way problematic. But it is. It is associated with health problems, promiscuity and drug abuse. Moreover, pedophilia is a disproportionate phenomenon among gays.

So long as I don’t drive drunk, get into fist fights at bars, or beat up my children, it’s a personal matter. The fact that I’m destroying my liver is a problem for me and those who care about me. I would view homosexuality the same way except that they are not willing to leave well enough alone. They believe homosexuality must be viewed as just another way of living. It isn’t.

Enjoy your vice but don’t teach teenagers it’s normal. That’s all I ask of you.

Rob writes:

You write: “It’s interesting to me that Rob proudly proclaims his aversion to women. ‘How dare any society restrict the hatred of women! I have a right to be disgusted by women!’”

I don’t know whom you’re talking about but it certainly isn’t me. I’ve expressed no aversion to women. Certainly no disgust or hatred. I’m simply not sexually attracted to women. Neither are you; does that mean you have some sort of hatred of women? This sort of bizarre fantasy world you’ve constructed about gay men is exactly the reason you’re losing this battle so badly. When you’re so divorced from reality, so embroiled in unreason, you can’t hope to win hearts or minds.

Laura writes:

Okay, it’s not hatred, it’s categorical dismissal. You find women physically unappealing. But it’s more than that. No women have qualities of character that could possibly motivate a man with physical desires for other men to discipline and overcome his sexual attraction to men, in your view. You call yourself “gay,” which by common definition means you reject women as mates. [There is no reason for me to accept women as mates because two women cannot fulfill the primary purpose of marriage.] That might not be hatred, but it sure isn’t approval. You’re willing to change social convention that has existed for all of human history to make it easier for men to live without women. Seems like misogyny to me.

Jan. 22, 2014

B.E. writes:

The late Lawrence Auster wrote many articles about homosexuality and same-sex pseudo-marriage, particularly the necessary and logical outcomes of their public acceptance and promotion. It seems time to quote him again on this topic.

“At first it seems extreme, the most extreme imaginable thing. 100 years ago, 30 years ago, 15 years ago, the very idea of homosexual marriage would have been utterly inconceivable, absurd. And now it has become the norm, while anyone who opposes it is seen as a bigot whose views shouldn’t even be heard. So how did we get to this state, where the once inconceivable and bizarre has become the normal, and the once normal has become the bigoted?

“The answer is liberalism. What is liberalism? It is the denial of any higher and larger truth, the reduction of everything to the self and its desires. And once that happens there’s no reason why marriage shouldn’t be redefined to meet people’s desires and needs as they see fit. Instead of marriage having a meaning that precedes us, a meaning that we do not choose, we become the creators of the meaning of marriage, which is, a means for satisfying our desires for convenience, pleasure, companionship, social recognition of our sexual orientation, financial protections, and so on. Further, anything that stands in the way of meeting the desires of individuals, any assertion of a higher or traditional value or institution, is seen as bigoted.”

Morality is part of why homosexual behavior is different from alcoholism, or a poor diet. No great moral issue attaches to a poor diet, though there is a moral issue involved in gluttony. Alcohol abuse is similar to gluttony in that it is a loss of self-control, a giving in to harmful desires. This lack of self-control is seldom contained to one area of one’s life; the example of Bill Clinton should make this obvious (he could not control his desires for unhealthy food, or for women not his wife; his lack of control was also manifest in his politics).

Homosexual behavior is similarly a loss of control, but is of greater moral weight than alcohol abuse or gluttony, as homosexual behavior also necessarily entails a rejection of the normal. The embrace of homosexuality requires the repudiation of traditional morality, the moral precepts that are at the root of every society. Homosexuality is harmful to both the individual and society, as it injures the physical and moral health of both. The amorality of homosexuals is evidenced by their callous disregard of their own health and that of others, as demonstrated by the continuing spread of AIDS among homosexual men, who account for about 50% of all those infected, even though they are just 2% (or so) of the population.

We have laws against public inebriation and drunk driving. We understand them now as matters of public safety, but those laws came from the recognition of the immorality of drunkenness. The anti- sodomy laws that have now been abolished similarly protected the people at large from the harm of an immoral behavior; now, without those laws, vulnerable individuals are at greater risk of engaging in physically and morally harmful acts. The legalization of same-sex pseudo-marriage raises this harmful behavior to the level of a positive good―a serious inversion of morality, common sense, and biology.

So the comparison of homosexual behavior to alcoholism or a poor diet are inapt. It’s apples and oranges.

Jacques writes:

B.E writes that homosexual behaviour is like excessive drinking or gluttony, but has a “greater moral weight” because it “necessarily entails a rejection of the normal.”

What does “normal” mean here?  Does it mean “what most people do,” or “what is natural”?  If so, then I agree that homosexual behaviour is a rejection of the normal.  But I don’t see that abnormality in this sense is morally significant.  Most people don’t do Nobel prize work in physics, but it’s not morally wrong to do so.  It’s not natural for our species to sleep all day and work all night, but doing so has no moral significance.

Maybe by “normal” B.E. means something like “what is compatible with moral norms”.  Then then claim that homosexuality has greater moral weight than other things because it entails a rejection of the normal is just to say “It has greater moral weight because it has greater moral weight.”  But why does it have greater moral weight?  In what way is it so much worse, morally, than these other things?

Laura writes:

Alcoholism is not a comparable threat to social order or spiritual welfare. It does not redefine the meaning of sexuality, which involves the most powerful drives and is connected to the most essential social bonds. Homosexuality is a disorder of the sexual drive, separating it from higher aspirations. Pleasure and emotional satisfaction are important, but not as important as the life of the soul, procreation and social cohesion. Public homosexuality is an attack on sexual identity and the spirit of self-sacrifice upon which the family is based. The family is the basic cell of society.

Please follow and like us: