A Mildly Amusing Inconsistency

Sometimes it takes a while for things to percolate around in my aging brain. I read a post the other day, and something...rattled...back there in my brain housing group (as we call our skulls in the Corps), but just exactly what took me a while to figure out.

Y'see, the more recently-read post talked a bit about how, if the Republican Party ever managed to work up the nerve to tell the Christians among them--the "American Taliban"--to torque off, then they'd inherit the great mushy middle--that majority of folks who are more or less libertarian and presumably don't want to hear about issues like traditional marriage--and sweep to electoral victory.

Probably not two weeks before that, I read posts and comments to the effect that with that judge's ruling--was it Vaughan Walker, or Walker Vaughan? I forget--that the fourteenth amendment somehow protects a right to homosexual marriage, the country had finally gotten things right in spite of the bigotry and so forth of the clear majority of the country.

So there you have it, folks: on some days, the majority of folks are a bunch of moralizing bigots who don't want homosexual marriage and need to have a judge whip 'em into shape, and on other days, the majority of folks embrace a sort of mushy libertarianism that doesn't really want to talk about moral issues.

All depends on which ox you're trying to gore on a given day, I guess.

Homosexual "Marriage" in Ancient Greece and Rome

---

Some of this ain't for kids. You done been warned.

---

Well, I've been waiting, and so far, the answer to a question I asked hasn't been forthcoming. So I thought I'd google it myself. This is fairly representative of what I found:

What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).

Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.

Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation. Status concerns were also of the highest importance. Given that only free men had full status, women and male slaves were not problematic sexual partners. Sex between freemen, however, was problematic for status. The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one. The passive role was acceptable only for inferiors, such as women, slaves, or male youths who were not yet citizens. Hence the cultural ideal of a same-sex relationship was between an older man, probably in his 20's or 30's, known as the erastes, and a boy whose beard had not yet begun to grow, the eromenos or paidika. In this relationship there was courtship ritual, involving gifts (such as a rooster), and other norms. The erastes had to show that he had nobler interests in the boy, rather than a purely sexual concern. The boy was not to submit too easily, and if pursued by more than one man, was to show discretion and pick the more noble one. There is also evidence that penetration was often avoided by having the erastes face his beloved and place his penis between the thighs of the eromenos, which is known as intercrural sex. The relationship was to be temporary and should end upon the boy reaching adulthood (Dover, 1989). To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.

Ancient Rome had many parallels in its understanding of same-sex attraction, and sexual issues more generally, to ancient Greece. This is especially true under the Republic. Yet under the Empire, Roman society slowly became more negative in its views towards sexuality, probably due to social and economic turmoil, even before Christianity became influential.

Other writers had other material. One of the Wikipedia writers (Don't ever take Wikipedia as authoritative. It is often interesting and useful, but never authoritative.) noted that at least two of the Roman emperors "married" others of the same gender, but it is clear from the quoted historical material that this was considered extremely odd behavior, on the order of, for instance, promoting one's horse to the position of senator.

Sooooo, unless someone can produce something fairly definitive and authoritative to the contrary, I'm gonna have to take the position that if it existed, homosexual marriage in ancient Greece and Rome was seen as an aberration, and furthermore, that homosexuality in Greece and Rome was strongly linked to pedophilia (Surprised, aren't you?) and that the fact that homosexual relationships usually ended upon the victim's younger participant's maturation points strongly to such relationships being considered anything but marriages, which are, in theory at least, generally of considerable duration.

And, of course, unless that something fairly definitive and authoritative to the contrary can actually be produced, rather than just tossed out as the half-remembered opinion of a friend, that would also mean that one of someone's arguments for the historical normality of homosexual marriage just went "poof"--if you'll excuse the expression...

I'll keep waiting. But I ain't holdin' my breath.

Frank Turek on the "Born Gay" Crapola

Don't think I'm gonna add anything to this. Here y'go:

...renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer...concluded that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through reorientation therapy.

This is significant because Spitzer is no propagandist for the religious right. Quite the contrary—a self-described “Jewish atheist,” Spitzer has been a hero to homosexual activists since 1973 when he helped get homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder. Recently, however, they’ve turned on him because he reported the truth.

Dr. Spitzer said that his 2003 study “has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it’s helpful to them if they can present the view that once you’re a homosexual you can never change.”

When asked whether the American Psychiatric Association should now change their position statements that say orientation cannot be changed, Dr. Spitzer said, “I think they should, [but] they will not be. . . . There’s a gay activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and is recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There’s nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won’t talk.”

Dr. Spitzer then acknowledged explicitly that politics often trump the scientific facts at organizations like the APA (an organization cited to bolster Judge Walker’s conclusion). He also said that the APA should stop applying a double standard by discouraging reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy that’s intended to confirm and solidify a homosexual identity. Good point by Dr. Spitzer. After all, if people can be talked into it, then why can’t they be talked out of it?

Sexual orientation isn’t like race either. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African American.

Frank Turek Saith...

...this, among other things. Emphasis is mine:

Same sex marriage...affects the free exercise of religion very quickly.

Parents in Massachusetts now have no right to know when their children are being taught homosexuality in grades as low as Kindergarten, neither can they opt their kids out (one parent was even jailed overnight for protesting this). Businesses are now forced to give benefits to same-sex couples regardless of any moral or religious objection the business owner may have. The government also ordered Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals wanting to adopt. As a result, Catholic Charities closed their adoption agency rather than submit to an immoral order. Unfortunately, children are again the victims of the morality that comes with same-sex marriage.

“But you can’t legislate morality!” some say. Nonsense. Not only do all laws legislate morality, sometimes immorality is imposed by judges against the will of the people and in violation of religious rights. There is no neutral ground here. Either we will have freedom of religion and conscience, or we will be forced to adhere to the whims of judges who declare that their own distorted view of morality supersedes our rights—rights that our founders declared self-evident.

Think I’m overreacting? If this decision survives and nullifies all democratically decided laws in the 45 states that preserve natural marriage, religious rights violations in Massachusetts will go nationwide. In fact, it’s poised to happen already at the federal level. President Obama recently appointed gay activist Chai Feldblum to the EEOC. Speaking of the inevitable conflict between religious rights and so-called gay rights, Feldblum said, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Translation: Bite me, Christians. It always amazes me when people talk as though homosexuals don't have an agenda. They sure as the dickens do, and part of it involves muzzling any criticism of what they do.

Mr. Buchanan on the Walker Decision

---

Here's another one for which I took notes several days ago. My own thoughts at the bottom are several days old, as well.

---

I really would have you go read the whole thing. Eventually, I'll get 'round to putting down more of my own thoughts on the subject. At least I hope I will. There's about a bajillion things I want to get 'round to writing up.

Any emphasis in the following is mine:

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker is truly a visionary.

Peering at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.

[snip]

If the Walker decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, homosexual marriage will be imposed on a nation where, in 31 out of 31 state referenda, the people have rejected it as an absurdity.

This is not just judicial activism. This is judicial tyranny.

[snip]

Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been "biases" and "moral disapproval," and "moral disapproval ... has never been a rational basis for legislation."

But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?

What is the basis for prohibiting prostitution, a free exchange of money for sexual favors, if not "moral disapproval"?

[snip]

But not even a judge can change the meaning of words. In every language known to man, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

Walker may call such pairings marriages, but that does not make it so. As Lincoln said, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," said the judge.

He is calling opponents of gay marriage irrational.

This is not just an insult to the intelligence of those Californians who have rejected gay marriage, but to a majority of Americans.

[snip]

Up to today, Walker is the only federal judge to see in same-sex marriage a constitutional right. And what is the origin of this right? Supporters of Walker's decision cite the Declaration of Independence about our "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

But that same declaration says we were endowed with those rights by our Creator. When did the Creator indicate that among these rights was for homosexuals to have their unions recognized as marriages?

The author of that declaration, Thomas Jefferson, equated homosexual acts with rape and wrote that male homosexuals (they used the term sodomites in that time) should be castrated and lesbians should have a hole cut into their noses.

[snip]

...Walker's personal opinion.

But he is declaring it to be the only rational conclusion that can be reached. And having reached it, he has seized upon a phrase in the 14th amendment, "equal protection," distorted its meaning and dictated that this means his view and his values henceforth are the law in California, the voters be damned.

Ultimately, most people's opinion on this subject will turn upon whether they believe homosexual orientation to be something you are born with, or a choice--a choice conditioned by events in one's upbringing or other events, no doubt, but a choice nonetheless.

I fall into the latter camp. I hold that if you try to make a case for homosexuality being an inborn genetic trait, you also inadvertently make the same case for pedophilia, bestiality, porn addiction, serial adultery, foot fetishes, and so forth. That is, there is no argument that I have heard for homosexuals being "born that way" that could not also be applied with equal facility to the other sexual issues I have just mentioned. Likewise, if you reject the idea--on whatever grounds--that the pedophile is "born that way," I think that you have similar grounds for rejecting the idea that homosexuals are doomed to their particular perversion as an accident of birth.

I am not trying to say here that I think I am better than the homosexual on a moral level. I don't think there are more than a handful of people on the planet who aren't guilty of some sort of sexual immorality, even if it's just lusting after people you're not married to, which Jesus declared to be the equivalent of adultery (I trust I am not over-paraphrasing His words). Personally, I have little interest in legislating homosexuality out of existence for the simple reason that historically, it has never succeeded, and one's efforts appear to be better spent on evangelism and education. If they are willing to leave the children alone and not recruit them (You do realize that actively recruiting others is the only way the homosexual community can stay in existence, don't you? They sure as thunder can't reproduce...), I'm willing to leave them alone. But I draw the line at being forced, under color of law, to call two shacked-up homosexuals "married" or not to speak my mind about the morality of the whole thing (which is not a contradiction to "I'm willing to leave them alone;" if they tell me they don't want to hear it, I respect that), which is, based on what has gone on overseas, where this is all ultimately headed.

For Those Curious About the Bible and Homosexuality

For some reason--notably a federal judge's decision on the subject--homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" have been hot topics lately. More than a few might be wondering, "Just exactly what does the Bible say on this subject?" And there are certainly some that ought to be digging a little deeper into the subject before sounding off on it, people whose understanding of it appears to be, shall we say, less than fully thought-out. An excellent place to begin is James White's The Same Sex Controversy.

I thought about writing a brief piece about this (of course, just about anything in the blogosphere is necessarily brief), but then, thinking of Dr. White's book, I recalled seeing something on Dr. White's website a few years ago, and wondered if it was still there. It is. It is the transcript of Dr. White debating the Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on the subject of "Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?". It is sufficiently complete that it renders any additional verbiage from moi quite unnecessary, and I recommend it highly for anyone looking for a brief introduction to the subject.

Really. If you seriously want to know, read it. And don't just skim it and claim you read the whole thing, either. Most of the questions people typically bring up on this subject are actually answered in that debate, so if you really seriously want to know, you have no excuse for not reading it. If you don't want to do the little bit of work involved in reading so small a thing as a debate transcript, I don't know how you can tell yourself that you have an informed opinion on the subject.

James White Nails It

The post is short--so short, in fact, that the only reason I don't just quote it in its entirety is the few remaining shreds of my sense of decorum--but well worth reading. Dr. White links to an article noting that homosexuals in the United Kingdom are trying to legally require churches to hold homosexual civl union ceremonies.

You think that homosexuals will be satisfied with civil unions, or even with homosexual "marriage?" I beg to differ, and suggest that you don't really understand their psychology. As Dr. White says:

I have been saying for years, homosexuals do not want equal rights. They want uber-rights. They want to silence anyone who would identify their sexual perversion as sin.

[snip]

This is why there is no protection at all in the addition of "free speech" protections in hate crimes laws, etc. We need to realize they are taking things one step at a time: get the law in place, then whittle away at the protections until you accomplish your goal. Do it slowly enough not to raise too loud an alarm, but never, ever give up. And given that these people define themselves by their deviancy, they will dedicate themselves each and every day to their task.

Death Threats Against Traditional Marriage Proponents?

In a way, the idea that homosexual activists would pop off with death threats against those who advocate traditional marriage doesn't surprise me. You can hardly do anything in public these days without some idiot "threatening death" to you.

Shoot, even I've been threatened with death at least once in my life. Guy called up to the restaurant where I was working and threatened to "blow my blanking head off" because of some disciplinary action I'd had to take against his wife (and our employee). I can't even remember what it was. I just remember asking him if he was aware that she'd been doing X, and I heard him turn around and ask her if she'd been doing X, and she said, "Yes," and he got back on the line with me and said he was sorry.

So, even though I'm sure there are some homosexual activists out there who would willingly kill, I'm not all that worked up about it, at least not yet. Most death threats are just some idiot venting.

What amazes/amuses me is the attitude behind it all. Throughout human history, marriage has been between men and women, by and large between one man and one woman. There have been a few instances in some cultures where homosexual relationships have been widely tolerated, but darn few where people actually referred to the participants as "married." Few enough that their existence more readily highlights the weirdness of the situation than anything else, with the upshot being that for most of humanity throughout most of history, to talk of two guys being married or two women being married would have been roughly in the same class as talking of a man and a goat being married or something. Just ludicrous.

Homosexuals in this country, for the most part, are not even interested in what we would typically think of as a married, that is, monogamous, lifestyle. Most of them are quite promiscuous and prefer life that way. You need not take my word for it. Start googling and find the average number of partners the average homosexual man has in a year. If you haven't already done this, you will find yourself wondering when they have time to work.

Seen it on display at work. I was in the restaurant business, which, if you didn't already know, is rife with homosexuals. They like it because the hours suit their lifestyles. I knew a pretty fair number of them over the years and frankly, most of them, all they cared about was getting back out to the bars for another encounter. Picturing that crowd as interested in "marriage," for the most part, is just silly.

As far as I know, in every state of the union, homosexual adults are perfectly free to shack up together for as long as they like. They can go to any lawyer and arrange, via wills and so forth, dispositions of their property very much like any married couple. Except for religious organizations, hardly anyone cares what your sexual orientation is when it comes to employment. When it comes down to it, even most evangelicals that I am aware of are not in favor of out-and-out outlawing homosexual behavior. I expect that I am fairly typical: as long as we're talking about adults, I'll maintain that it's a free country and that though I think homosexual behavior is shockingly sinful, it's nevertheless not a matter for governmental interference.

Given a situation like that, why push for homosexual "marriage"? Why, in the face of overwhelming opposition throughout the country? You must realize that every single time the issue has come to a vote of the people, it's gone down in flames (so to speak). The only thing I can think is this: homosexual activists, for whatever reason, are determined to force me and like-minded individuals to call them "married" whether we like it or not, and not to speak our minds in public about the morality of homosexuality, under penalty of law. In other words, this whole thing is not so much about homosexuals being able to get married, a state most of them are simply not interested in, as it is about using force of law to shut up their critics.

Dreadfully immature, in my opinion. But then, immaturity has long seemed to me to be a hallmark of the homosexual community.

Mat Rodina Bloggeth On...

I'm tellin' ya, if this guy keeps up this way, it's gonna be hard not to keep quoting him.

Apparently, some folks recently attempted to have an impromptu "gay pride" parade in Moscow. Part of Stanislav's (I'm not sure yet whether the guy's name is "Stanislav" or "Rodina) take on the situation, emphasis mine:

But what were/are these social perverts trying to accomplish in Russia? Why nothing more then getting their <>, Gay rights...does not sound to vulgar on the surface, does it? But let us dig deeper into these <>. What rights do they want? Right to do what they want in the bedroom? They already have it. Right to vote? They have it. Right to live peacefully, pursue wealth, choose (or rather in their case, reject) God? They have it. So what rights?

Why the rights of the 1 to 2% to shove their perversion down the throats of a whole society and to silence the free speech of any who dare to question this chosen minority. That is exactly the <> they have in the West, a post-Christian, God hating society as a whole, which sides with perversion and takes away, daily more and more, the very basic free speech of those who follow God and His views. The rights they seek is to destroy the meaning of marriage to include them. It is to force the school systems (in some Western nations, including parts of the US) to start indoctrinating the children as early as kindergarten, that their perversion is very good and ok. They have gotten the right to shut down churches, or at least silence them, that criticize their perversion and self love. And of course, the absolute <> to silence any talk about the facts that their life choice is the most destructive short of a third world drug addiction.

The American Andy Thayer was quoted as stating, in Moscow: <> In other words, wreck the system that works for 98% of the population for the <> of a perverse, anti-social minority of insignificant proportion, so that that 2% can be privileged above the 98%. This may work for the West, but thank God in Heaven, we are not and will never be the West.

Mr Thayer went on, with his out of this planet ideas that: <>

I've got news for you, Mr. Thayer, good news for us, crappy news for you: the vast, as in well over 80%, of Russians are disgusted by these Western perverts and their Russian counterparts and chapters. Our Church, unlike the West's, is ascendant and as more and more Russians find Christ, the support for homosexuality will only decline from low to all but non-existent. Keep quiet and about your business and no one will bother you. We will pity you and your bunch of lost souls. Get in our faces to shove your perversions down our throats and the reaction will be swift and brutal and not at the least to your liking. We are not the spineless masses in the post Christian West, who may find you the perverts you are, but are to cowardly, living in their police states, to say it.

In the main, I think that Mr. Stanislav has it right--that is, I think he is right about the aims of the pro-homosexual marriage, homosexual super-rights crowd. A simple perusal of the statistics regarding homosexual behavior quickly reveals that, by and large (there are always exceptions), homosexuals don't give two hoots about being "married." With some exceptions, to be sure, the homosexual lifestyle is one of profligate, promiscuous, largely indiscriminate sex. You can google it yourself; it will not take long to find out that I am right. Now, if these folks aren't genuinely interested in anything resembling marriage, why do they keep agitating for it? Largely, I think, because they hope to experience the delight of forcing, under color of law, some sort of approval, or at least silence, out of people they know do not agree that their lifestyle is just and good and wholesome.