Homosexuality: A Theory

Homosexuality may be a natural variation that prevents men who are too effeminate and women who are too masculine from reproducing which would otherwise harm the species.

It can arise, for males, as follows: women who are especially feminine and therefore successful at bearing many children may end up “feminizing” some of their sons while they are still in the womb.

Whether or not there is a “gay gene,” a gay boy is a biological victim of his own mother’s feminine charms and reproductional achievements. He is an unfortunate price such a woman pays for all her other, normal children.

Gay Marriage Does Not Fit into What Marriage Is

Ian Millhiser brings up Justice Ginsburg’s argument in favor of gay marriage:

[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible.

Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship.

Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

Ian goes on: the law “presumed that the wife was both financially and sexually subservient to the husband. … But marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles. And when those gender roles are removed, the case for marriage discrimination breaks down.”

Now first of all, let’s admit that while marriage is a Catholic sacrament, and may save one’s soul, and many other wonderful things, the civil or common law is not concerned with such subtle matters of divine grace but with more mundane issues of human nature, that is, of man as he (and she) is in his own natural state. As a result, how marriage is to be conceived should be discussed by considering solely natural law.

And regarding that, marriage exists in law to order human reproduction. There are two aspects of it: unitive or the relations between the husband and wife; and procreative or the relations between the parents and children.

The unitive aspect of civil marriage is to discourage faithless love, thereby promiscuity, thereby heartbreak. Both men and women benefit tremendously from the stability, sexual, emotional, intellectual, that marriage brings to their lives and frees them to pursue happiness rightly understood, and the law is concerned to foster such stability.

I mean, who can doubt that until a man marries a woman, he is essentially desperate and capable of all manner of self- and other-destructive things?

For male homosexuals, there is no love, even faithless kind: it’s all about lust: the very idea that two gays can fall in love with each other defies reason. Lesbianism may be different; but lesbianism seems so preposterous that it only makes sense in pornography. So, the unitive function of marriage is not served by “equality.”

The procreative aspect of civil marriage is to assure legitimacy, that children are biologically one’s own, and provide a home for those children that features both unconditional nurturing from the mother and conditional guidance from the father.

But gays cannot have children, at least at the current level of biotechnology. Nor are they capable of providing a suitable home for adopted children; therefore, even with adoption properly privatized, no adoption agency can be permitted to send its kids to homosexuals.

It is these concerns, and not whether the wife should or should not be “financially and sexually” subservient to the husband that suggest that society ought not to recognize gay marriage as an institution as special as normal marriage.

Gayness as a Moral Vice

I suggest that we meet the gays who claim they were born this way, and conservatives who argue it’s a lifestyle choice, somewhat half-way by saying that same-sex attraction, once contracted by whatever means, is an ingrained habit, in particular, a filthy and repulsive one, to be strenuously resisted; and sodomy is a no less filthy and repulsive act, like fucking a pig.

Again, even fucking (your own) pigs would be legal in a good libertarian society; at the same time, everyone will have the liberty to refuse 1) to invite pig-fuckers to high society dinners or 2) to preside over or bake cakes for man-pig marriages.

Reign of Homosexualists

The whole thing about gay marriage is the homosexuals trying to become an Official Victim Group, under no circumstances to be “discriminated” against.

It’s probably even worse than this. I’d expect individual homosexuals to balk at the idea of privileging themselves in the eyes of the law in this way. The homosexuals understand quite well that they are perverts and that their personalities are vicious. Far be it from them to preach the virtues of their disgusting habits!

The people leading this attack are themselves most certainly not gay but are as if a demonic horde intent upon erasing all distinctions between things, including between heterosexual and gay relations. They seek to grind the world into prime matter. What they are doing is unjust, yet they are aware of and will this injustice.

Not only are they eager to suppress people’s ability to discriminate between good and evil through propaganda and government schooling, but they also aspire to sic the government’s police onto those who still do (most reasonably, by the way) discriminate.

Again, individual gays are not to blame. There is a big difference between the garden-variety situation of Smith’s sinning and the monstrously evil situation of Jones’ teaching other people that what Smith is doing is perfectly Ok.

Complementarity in Straight Marriage but Not Gay

Let’s recall Ginsburg’s argument in favor of gay marriage:

Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. …

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

There are two problems with this reasoning. First, equality of the husband and wife regarding their rights to dispose of property and even regarding custody of children does not entail any other kind of equality. For example, perhaps sexually, the wife ought to be “surrendered.”

Second, there are in general not 2 human relations, hegemonic dominance / subordination and equality, but 3, with the addition of complementarity.

We see this most easily in the market, where people specialize within the system of the division of labor. People’s skills complement each other; they can be more or less sophisticated; they earn their owners different amounts of money. Thus, people are unequal both as producers and as consumers; but neither do they rule or submit to each other.

St. Thomas likens this special relationship to “works done by art; for the roof of a house differs from the foundation, not because it is made of other material; but in order that the house may be made perfect of different parts, the artificer seeks different material; indeed, he would make such material if he could.” (ST, I, 47, 2, reply 3)

Similarly, straight marriage features the relation of both bodily and spiritual yin-yang complementarity which gay marriage does not; a reason why they are relevantly different in order for society to recognize one and spurn the other.

Personal Vices Are No Excuse for Bad Ideology

Homosexuality is when a man sucks dick. Disgusting, right? Well, not as disgusting as homosexualism, which is when a man goes around proclaiming to everybody that sucking dick is a perfectly wonderful and wholesome pastime. An open homosexual should properly be full of guilt for his vice and publicly condemn homosexuality, even if he personally in private does not (yet) practice what he preaches.

Similarly, a welfare bum should vote for a political candidate who proposes to abolish welfare, and a crony capitalist should be in favor of laissez-faire.

Personal wickedness is no excuse for intellectual errors. Be a hypocrite if you must. But don’t be an idiot in addition.

Demise of Milo Yiannopoulos

Wikipedia states:

While Yiannopoulos is openly gay, he has stated that gay rights are detrimental to humanity, and that gay men should “get back in the closet.” He has described being gay as “aberrant” and “a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring [gay people] pain and unhappiness.”

We should be careful to distinguish between personal and political.

For example, Milo is a homosexual personally, but he is not a homosexualist ideologically.

A person may be personally rich and possess lots of private property but be a committed socialist.

A person may be working at a state university and using government roads personally and yet be a political libertarian.

A person may be, like Stephan Kinsella, personally an intellectual property lawyer and yet pioneer theoretical arguments against IP.

A Muslim is simply an adherent of Islam; an Islamist is a supporter of “a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.” (m-w.com) One can be a Muslim without being an Islamist.

So, on the sacking of Milo, we can’t say that the left “eats its own” until we decide whether we characterize the left as a set of personal lifestyles or as a political ideology.

To conflate personal and political is essentially to embrace Marxian polylogism which claims that “personal” necessarily determines a similar-to-it “political.”

Thus, according to polylogism, a capitalist qua factory owner must be capitalist qua supporter of free markets.

And a “proletarian” in his individual conduct of daily life must necessarily support the establishment of socialism.

And, as possibly the most vicious example of polylogism, an economist, simply by virtue of the middle-class lifestyle of most economists, is of necessity a “sycophant of the bourgeoisie.”

The reality is far more complicated.

An Evaluation of Homosexuality

A FaceBook thread on which I posted some arguments that considered the moral status of homosexuality was deleted by the original poster, because, as he decided, “I don’t want all of us looking bad because of two guys.”

The two guys included himself. No names shall be named to protect the innocent.

Now, however, I feel compelled to summarize the argument.

1. I consider both hetero- and homosexuality to be neither an unchangeable inborn trait like one’s biological gender or even IQ; nor a mere lifestyle choice like preference for vanilla vs. chocolate ice-cream, i.e., a matter of taste easily swayed; but a persistent, ingrained, and deep-seated disposition, i.e., a habit.

Homosexuality would then be a “nasty habit,” a vice; and gay sex prompted by the vice would be a sinful act.

Innate predispositions to homosexuality are not denied, any more than natural timidity or proneness to alcoholism.

2. St. Thomas considers homosexuality to be an “unnatural vice” as being “contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race”; he numbers among such vices

procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy.”

Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.”

Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female…, and this is called the “vice of sodomy.”

Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

3. I judge the homosexual lifestyle to be:

– physically unhealthy,
– aesthetically ugly and repulsive,
– loveless and joyless, as there is no natural basis or specialization for a spiritual union of the “partners” any more than for physical union,
– childless.

The homosexual personality must differ from a heterosexual one greatly.

4. Gay sex is furthermore sensually debased. The many sensations of the body in straight sex are united to elevate the experience away from just the orgasm and into an overall bodily ecstasy. Gay sex seems to be directed simply to come and be done with it.

5. In addition, it is unworthy of a real man as a spiritual warrior, as taking it up the ass is a monstrous humiliation.

Here’s why: it is indeed proper for a man (metaphorically) to possess his wife who surrenders to him; but it is a horrid indignity and injustice for a man to be possessed by another man.

If it is objected that gay sex does not involve possession, then it by that very fact misses out on a key joy of sexuality.

6. If, furthermore, as I allege, gayness is loveless and childless, then nothing unites a gay couple into a one, a family. Their relationship must then be ephemeral and faithless. It is no accident that gays are, as a rule, fantastically promiscuous.

7. In any kind of sexual act, even in masturbation or gay sex, the soul goes out naturally to love and unite with its complement. If it finds nothing suitable, it retreats, wounded and desperate. Gays then in having sex injure their own hearts.

A normal straight man, on the other hand, falls in love easily.

If it is objected that gays have no interest in loving at all, then a gay man is by that fact a quasi-psychopath.

Either way, he needs to check himself ASAP and attend to his spiritual health.

Conclusion: Homosexuality offers an illusion of pleasure which, however, pales in comparison with heterosexual union and familial bliss properly executed and achieved.

It is a burden or cross to bear, a sorrow, and if the habit resists changing, it may be sufficient for holiness to abstain from the sinful act; otherwise, homosexuality is not a definitive obstacle to grace, improvement in charity, or salvation.

Classical vs. “Cultural” Marxism

Both kinds of Marxism postulated class conflicts and even warfare. However, there is a crucial difference between them.

Classical Marxism declared a war between the vast majority of the proletarians and a tiny minority of the capitalists. The vital interests of the great mass of workers, almost of society as a whole, were held hostage to the vicious selfish interests of a much smaller clique of capitalists or bourgeoisie. The latter clung to power only by inculcating false consciousness among the proletarians. Dispel the fog of illusion, and we’ll have our revolution.

This numerical difference was key in the argument that socialism was inevitable: there is no way that this oppressed majority would forever acquiesce in being exploited. You can’t fool all the people all of the time. It is also why Marxism is collectivist.

Modern cultural Marxism abandons this understanding entirely. Women, it says, are oppressed and exploited by men, but women are neither a majority nor a minority. Blacks are oppressed by whites; Muslims are oppressed by Christians; etc., but precisely as part of their being minorities. How many transsexuals are there really? A tiny percentage of the population. But they, too, say the new Marxists, are oppressed.

In stark contrast to the old-style Marxism, a revolution in which the transsexuals rise up and sweep away the oppressive order is out of the question; even more important, cultural Marxism is, far from collectivist, in fact hyper-individualistic.

Note the idea of “intersectionality”: there are minorities within minorities, battling for the title of Most Oppressed. It’s an Oppression Olympics: are black women more or less pathetic than gay Muslims? Who determines these things? Since the oppression hierarchy shifts all the time, it is even possible that group B that’s being oppressed by group A itself oppresses group C. It’s all very complicated and unlike classical Marxism.

Other traditional Marxist tropes like communism, alienation, the material productive forces, stages of history, labor theory of value, immiseration of the working class, what Rothbard called “reabsorption theology,” and so on, too, are gone and forgotten.

I like sushi; there are many others who do, too. Let’s say we form a club, Sushi Lovers of America, where we share recipes, restaurants reviews, and sushi’s health implications. Here’s a brand new “group identity,” where a bunch of people are associating with their own kind. Our group is a minority. Surely, however, we would not be oppressed. If some person were to lobby for legislation to outlaw Japanese restaurants, or even express contempt for our habit, everyone would think him unreasonable.

Now there are some men who want to fuck each other in the ass. They, too, enjoy associating with each other. Call this group identity “homosexuals.” This group is legally unrestrained; the state does not punish sodomy.

It is true, however, that the larger society exerts a non-coercive pressure on gays by despising them. Homosexuality is a nasty lamentable vice. Gay sex is nauseatingly disgusting. Homosexuals defile their nature. They humiliate themselves abjectly by sucking dick. By not even realizing that they are wretched sinners, they are deluded. Etc.

Gays are not all too happy with this attitude. As a result, they have resorted to implausible measures. For example, what kind of an intellectual sicko got the idea to call the various gay events “pride”? What are gays proud of? Their dick-sucking abilities? On the contrary, it’s shame, accursed brethren, great shame in what you are doing, and not pride at all.

So, is the contempt of homosexuals by society an injustice and oppression, or is it a perfectly reasonable and just stance?

I say the latter. It helps to call attention to the viciousness of homosexuality and to the fact that gays, far from embracing their “identity,” are duty-bound to try to shed it, to cure themselves. Where sushi lovers are free to enjoy themselves with self-forgetfulness, gays are to hate their perversion and to burn this corruption from their souls.

If, however, I am wrong, then there is a sense in which gays are oppressed for having to endure unjustified contempt and disapproval from the great majority of the population.

In any case, what with May Day having been replaced with Gay Day, “cultural” Marxism bears only a slight resemblance to its forefather.