Alan Keyes, the only true conservative in the race

[Florestan]

I was not referring to the concept of personhood as such, only the idea that one can speak of a person as "a homosexual" or "a heterosexual" - two polarized concepts - as opposed to describing certain acts and feelings - which is how they did it in the Western world until the sexologists came along in the late 1800s, and how they still do it in many countries today.

I'm afraid I don't follow you. Do you imply that, prior the late 19th Century, there was no clear distinction  --- polarization, as you put it --- between heterosexuals and homosexuals? Or, on the contrary, that after that time the differences began to be blurred? Please be more explicit.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I'm afraid I don't follow you. Do you imply that, prior the late 19th Century, there was no clear distinction  --- polarization, as you put it --- between heterosexuals and homosexuals?

Broadly speaking, this is correct. The word "homosexual" itself only dates from about 1870, if I recall correctly (ditto its counterpart, "heterosexual"). Of course, it was noticed for centuries that some people liked to take part in homosexual activity, but this was not seen as an implication that these people were exclusively oriented that way. Nor was it assumed that because a man was attracted to women, he was therefore categorically not attracted to men. Sexuality was seen as a continuum, not an on-off switch (a view which I think is more in accord with the historical and anthropological evidence than the "binary scheme" is).

In short, peoples' views of sexual orientation were different then - because the very concept of sexual orientation, as we understand it, didn't exist. (This, by the way, is one of the factors that complicates investigation into the sexual lives of people who lived long ago.)

[Florestan]

Thanks for expliciting. Still, your theory raises the question: if things were so, then how can one explain the intolerance about homosexuals? It is a fact that homosexuality was legally defined as an offense and every homosexual who went public risked imprisonment, in modern times, or death, in older ones (although I wonder in how many cases this risk actually materialised). This doesn't fit in the picture you propose: one of relaxed and not strictly defined sexual mores.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Thanks for expliciting. Still, your theory raises the question: if things were so, then how can one explain the intolerance about homosexuals? It is a fact that homosexuality was legally defined as an offense and every homosexual who went public risked imprisonment, in modern times, or death, in older ones (although I wonder in how many cases this risk actually materialised). This doesn't fit in the picture you propose: one of relaxed and not strictly defined sexual mores.

You've raised a number of big questions  and I don't have time right now to go into great detail. Just to keep things short:

1. The fact that sexual orientation was "not strictly defined" does not necessarily imply that sexual mores were relaxed.

2. Intolerance and legal penalties for homosexual behavior varied greatly, depending on a whole range of factors. There were also penalties for certain types of heterosexual behavior, again depending on many factors. Some times and places were very strict, some much more relaxed. In Renaissance Italy for example, sodomy was downright fashionable for a while.

3. As far as I know, "homosexuality" was not legally defined as an offense; usually "sodomy" was, and it was not seen as being something exclusively homosexual. In some ways, the 19th-20th centuries were tougher than previous ones, since in the old days homosexuality was not seen as a curable psychological disorder. Hence, people couldn't be subjected to electro-shock therapy or other torments designed to "cure" them.

[Florestan]

Again, thank you. You made some very important points (#2 and #3) which, if true, and I don't see how they can be contested, show that:

a. In the much maligned past times, say pre-1800, the society and the rulers were far from opressing homosexuals; they did not even have a specifical policy aimed at them, as homosexuals could come under penalties to which a heterosexual could as well be subjected. There is a long list of great homosexual artists about whose sexual mores everybody knew, including the authorities, and who yet continued to live and work without being troubled in the least, except, maybe, by their own conscience or religious convictions. Those "backward" and "unenlightened" times were far more liberal and tolerant than ours. This is true especially about Catholic countries and there is no wonder that, as you say, Italian Renaissance was a sort of golden time for homosexuals. It can even be contended that the only places where you could find a systematic "witch-hunt" against them were the Calvinistic theocracies in Holland, Switzerland or the British American Colonies

b. Large-scale, specific incrimination of homosexuals as such is an essentially modern phenomenon, and its appearance coincides with the collapse of the old customs, traditions and social and political frames. It is precisely the Enlightenment and Revolution, the darlings of "Liberals" and Leftists, with their obssession for centralization, massification, classification, standardization and uniformization that brought about their misfortunes. Again, no wonder that the regimes who persecuted them the most were Nazism, Communism and Fascism --- they are the very embodiment of the political modernity.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

To your point a, I'll just say that I am not trying to set up "the good old days" as generally superior to more modern times; as we know things could be quite barbaric. And the time-frame of your inquiry (everything before the 19th-20th c.) is too huge to generalize about anyway. All I can really say is, It varied, depending on time, place, religion, social class, the law, and the inclinations of rulers. But regarding your point b:

b. Large-scale, specific incrimination of homosexuals as such is an essentially modern phenomenon, and its appearance coincides with the collapse of the old customs, traditions and social and political frames.

I see no reason to disagree with it.

[Florestan]

To your point a, I'll just say that I am not trying to set up "the good old days" as generally superior to more modern times; as we know things could be quite barbaric. And the time-frame of your inquiry (everything before the 19th-20th c.) is too huge to generalize about anyway. All I can really say is, It varied, depending on time, place, religion, social class, the law, and the inclinations of rulers.

You are right, I was quite equivocal. If I restrict the time frame to 800 A.D. - 1789 A.D. and the geographical frame to Europe (including, until 1453, the Byzantine Empire) --- that is, if I refer to the Christendom --- would it be a fairly accurate description, in your opinion?

But regarding your point b:

I see no reason to disagree with it.

Thank you, for the third time in a row.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

You are right, I was quite equivocal. If I restrict the time frame to 800 A.D. - 1789 A.D. and the geographical frame to Europe (including, until 1453, the Byzantine Empire) --- that is, if I refer to the Christendom --- would it be a fairly accurate description, in your opinion?

Oh dear, you didn't like my weaselly answer ("It varied")?  I'll try again - based on what I know, this description seems fairly accurate - but please don't ask me what was going on in (say) 13th-century Bulgaria, or 17th-century Norway, or the Great Moravian Empire, because I just don't know.

However, as a blanket statement

Those "backward" and "unenlightened" times were far more liberal and tolerant than ours.

I can't agree with this unless we're very specific in terms of discussion.

[Florestan]

Oh dear, you didn't like my weaselly answer ("It varied")?  I'll try again - based on what I know, this description seems fairly accurate - but please don't ask me what was going on in (say) 13th-century Bulgaria, or 17th-century Norway, or the Great Moravian Empire, because I just don't know.

I don't!

I don't even pretend that everything was all right and that Christendom was a paradise for homosexuals. I just say that, broadly speaking, they could live their lifes and pursue their bussinesses, whatever they would have been, without much interference from the local or central authorities and relatively safe from the penalties of a law against their sexual practices, even if such a law existed. The political control was much more relaxed then than now. A man could live his whole life, form the craddle to the grave, as a subject of the king, without ever encountering a state official. He had more to fear from the envy or ill-will of his neighbours than from the government itself.

With the advent of modernity things changed completely. A modern government has at its disposal means of control and coercion about which Frederick the Great or Louis XIV never dreamt of, and the pressure it puts on its citizens is far greater and absolutely inescapable. Now the reversal is complete: from the craddle to the grave, a man cannot live his life without almost daily encountering a state official. In this respect, a king's subject was freer than a citizen of a modern republic. It is in this sense that I made that admittedly broad statement, to which the present qualifications add, I hope, more weight.

[adamdavid80]

Nor do I despise or hate --- God forbid! --- homosexuals.

I oppose homosexual "marriages" (not civil unions, mind you, since this is just a contract between two individuals): marriage is a specifically religious institution anyway, and since most homosexuals are atheists, I really don't see what marriage can mean to them.

I oppose giving homosexuals the right to adopt children and this from a strictly biological / evolutionary POV: since the nature, by the very evolutionary process, has devised a specifical way of having children, i.e. from a man and a woman, any other way would be a violation of the nature; after all, generalized homosexuality would mean the extinction of human race. Moreover, since, as it is claimed, the homosexuality is also an evolutionary result, this means that the very nature intended them not to have children. Still moreover, having and rearing children is something typically heterosexual; it doesn't make any sense for a homosexual to want to behave in a typical heterosexual fashion.

Heya -

Coo.  Lots of things to discuss here.  The question of homosexual marriage was something I tried to discuss with J, and, unfortunately, the conversation fell apart.  Now, I'm not a religious person.  Should I not have the right to marry?  In your argument, marriage is a religious institution.  So what about about marriage from a nondenominational minister?  How would it affect your life and your own domestic situation if homosexuals had the right to marry? 

In terms of adoption, well, what about a lesbian woman who gets inseminated?  Biologically, God blessed her with the plumbing to do so...so what about that?  Or, say, a heterosexual woman who is infertile?  Biologically, she can't have babies, so why should she have the right to adoption (is this against nature, as well)?

I think this was my point: this world is so full of variables, and different POVs, that they're all to be considered valid.  Who are we to say that we're born into the "true" religion, when they're are hundreds and hundreds around the world, all with different sects and interpretations...sometimes in the seat right next to you.

Saying a homosexual is "abnormal"...I see where it's coming from...but it's similar to calling someone 'incompetent" because they can't perfrom complex mathematical equations without a calculator: yes they are "unable" to perform the task, and that IS the definition of "incompetence", but the word's color and tone is far more demeaning and condemning.

[Florestan]

The question of hmosexual marriage was something I tried to discuss with J, andm, unfortunately, the conversation fell apart.  Now, I'm not a religious person.  Should I not have the right to marry?  In your argument, marriage is a religious institution. 

There are two issues here. The civil union, which is a private contract between two individuals, can be entered upon by anyone, regardless of religion or sexual orientation. The religious marriage, on the other hand, takes place between a man and a woman, in front of God, by the intercession of a priest. That's it. Now, if a heterosexual atheist chooses to marry this way, it is my opinion that s/he violates her/his own conscience by adhering to rituals and sacraments about the validity and legitimity of which s/he is in complete denial. Still, this does not violate the essential heterosexual character of the religious marriage and the implied hipocrisy is strictly personal. But a homosexual religious marriage violates the very definition of the marriage. It simply isn't marriage and its validity is nil.

I repeat: I fail to see why an honest atheist would want to have a religious marriage. There is, of course, the much more painful case of a religious homosexual, but you can look at it this way: religion is not compulsory, you can accept or reject it. If you accept it, it's just like entering a club: either you play by the rules or you're expelled.

So what about about marriage from a non-denominational minister? 

I'm afraid I don't understand what a "non-denominational minister" could possibly mean.

How would it affect your life and your own domestic situation if homosexuals had the right to marry? 

If you talk about their right to conclude civil unions, in no way whatsoever, and as I said, I don't oppose it. If you mean the right to marry religiously, I'm afraid you put the problem wrongly. Such a right does not exist. It is not the bussiness of the government or the legislature to dictate to a religion who should receive the marriage sacraments. Look, I am an Orthodox Christian. The marriage in the Orthodox Church has been defined long ago as a sacred union between a man and a woman and no priest can violate this without excluding himself from the Church and the marriage being nil. You might not agree to that, you might think it's not fair, but again: these are the rules and they have a theological as well a moral justification. Nobody forces you to accept them, it's up to your own conscience. But once you accepted or rejected it, playing around them and trying to suit them to your own needs is moral hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. In this respect, the Catholic Church, not strictly Orthodox but nevertheless very closed to it, officially teaches that if a Catholic loses his faith in good conscience but continues going to church and receiving Catholic sacraments, he commits a grave sin and endangers his salvation more than he would do by leaving the Church.

To summarize, civil unions are legal contracts free for anyone. Religious marriages are restricted to religious people. I think it's common-sense.

In terms of adoption, well, what about a lesbian woman who gets inseminated?  Biologically, God blessed her with the plumbing to do so...so what about that?  Or, say, a heterosexual woman who is infertile?  Biologically, she can't have babies, so why should she have the right to adoption (is this against nature, as well)?

I'll address this issue later. Please, stand by.

I think this was my point: this world is so full of variables, and different POVs, that they're all to be considered valid. Who are we to say that we're born into the "true" religion, when they're are hundreds and hundreds around the world, all with different sects and interpretations...sometimes in the seat right next to you.

I am of the old school that thinks that, if statement A is true (or believed to be true, it really does not matter) and statement B contradicts it, then they cannot be both valid. One of them is false, and that is B. Consequently, I tolerate different POVs, I discuss different POVs and I allow everyone to have her/his POVs --- but I still think that only one is true, not necessarily mine.

In this respect, as in others, I follow the truly liberal maxim of the --- again, I can't help it --- Catholic Church: In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.

[scarpia]

There are two issues here. The civil union, which is a private contract between two individuals, can be entered upon by anyone, regardless of religion or sexual orientation. The religious marriage, on the other hand, takes place between a man and a woman, in front of God, by the intercession of a priest. That's it. Now, if a heterosexual atheist chooses to marry this way, it is my opinion that s/he violates her/his own conscience by adhering to rituals and sacraments about the validity and legitimity of which s/he is in complete denial. Still, this does not violate the essential heterosexual character of the religious marriage and the implied hipocrisy is strictly personal. But a homosexual religious marriage violates the very definition of the marriage. It simply isn't marriage and its validity is nil.

You are equating your religious views with religious views.  Many homosexuals do not regard homosexuality as inconsistent with belief in god, and several major religious denominations do sanction same-sex marriage.  You should consider that the people who show up in gay pride parades are not typical homosexuals.

In the second place, in the US marriage confers certain legal rights which cannot be obtained any other way.  For instance, you can inherit assets from your spouse without paying tax.  Money or property inherited from someone to whom you are not married is income, and subject to income tax.  The US government does not decide who can or cannot be married religiously, it decides who receives the benefits described in tax codes, social benefits and in federal, state and municipal law.

[Florestan]

Many homosexuals do not regard homosexuality as inconsistent with belief in god

Neither do I.

and several major religious denominations do sanction same-sex marriage.

The major religious (Christian) denominations, as far as I know, are Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anglicanism, and none of them has officially sanctioned same-sex marriage, bitter struggles on the issue, especially in the Protestant Churches, notwithstanding.

You should consider that the people who show up in gay pride parades are not typical homosexuals.

I don't like to quote myself, but here is what I wrote on this subject:

I oppose "pride parades" (and I very much doubt that a decent homosexual ever took part in this disgusting exhibitionism).

In the second place, in the US marriage confers certain legal rights which cannot be obtained any other way.  For instance, you can inherit assets from your spouse without paying tax.  Money or property inherited from someone to whom you are not married is income, and subject to income tax.

One of the most widespread arguments for same-sex marriage is that it's all about people's love and also God's. Now I see it's all about money and assets. If I were homosexual I would be ashamed with such advocacy of crass materialism and utilitarianism.

The US government does not decide who can or cannot be married religiously, it decides who receives the benefits described in tax codes, social benefits and in federal, state and municipal law.

Then the fight is not about imposing same-sex marriage on this or that Church, but about repealing those legal rights conferred by the legislative bodies on religiously married people. It's about completely separating the Church and the State, and not about the Church as such. Religion has nothing to do with it.

[Guido]

This argument is ineffectual. Humans are just a part of "nature" as any other living being on the planet, so the fact is occurs in the animal world doesn't make it any more natural or normal. At best, it dispels the notion homosexuality is determined by choice and it reinforces the theory i expounded in that CMG thread (in case it wasn't obvious, the poster Anton Webern is non others then yours truly).

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which thread you are referring to. Link?

[scarpia]

One of the most widespread arguments for same-sex marriage is that it's all about people's love and also God's. Now I see it's all about money and assets. If I were homosexual I would be ashamed with such advocacy of crass materialism and utilitarianism.

Do you believe this stupidity you are typing.  There is nothing crass about it.  If you were told your wife couldn't inherit the house you live in, collect your pension, retain custody of your children after you die because you are left handed, do you think it would be "crass materialism" to demand that these rights be honored?   It is no more crass to expect the government to afford same-sex life partners the same benefits as opposite-sex partners.

[Florestan]

Do you believe this stupidity you are typing.  There is nothing crass about it.  If you were told your wife couldn't inherit the house you live in, collect your pension, retain custody of your children after you die because you are left handed

I don't buy this little piece of sentimental sophistry. Try again.

[Bulldog]

There are two issues here. The civil union, which is a private contract between two individuals, can be entered upon by anyone, regardless of religion or sexual orientation. The religious marriage, on the other hand, takes place between a man and a woman, in front of God, by the intercession of a priest. That's it. Now, if a heterosexual atheist chooses to marry this way, it is my opinion that s/he violates her/his own conscience by adhering to rituals and sacraments about the validity and legitimity of which s/he is in complete denial. Still, this does not violate the essential heterosexual character of the religious marriage and the implied hipocrisy is strictly personal. But a homosexual religious marriage violates the very definition of the marriage. It simply isn't marriage and its validity is nil.

I repeat: I fail to see why an honest atheist would want to have a religious marriage. There is, of course, the much more painful case of a religious homosexual, but you can look at it this way: religion is not compulsory, you can accept or reject it. If you accept it, it's just like entering a club: either you play by the rules or you're expelled.

I'm afraid I don't understand what a "non-denominational minister" could possibly mean.

If you talk about their right to conclude civil unions, in no way whatsoever, and as I said, I don't oppose it. If you mean the right to marry religiously, I'm afraid you put the problem wrongly. Such a right does not exist. It is not the bussiness of the government or the legislature to dictate to a religion who should receive the marriage sacraments. Look, I am an Orthodox Christian. The marriage in the Orthodox Church has been defined long ago as a sacred union between a man and a woman and no priest can violate this without excluding himself from the Church and the marriage being nil. You might not agree to that, you might think it's not fair, but again: these are the rules and they have a theological as well a moral justification. Nobody forces you to accept them, it's up to your own conscience. But once you accepted or rejected it, playing around them and trying to suit them to your own needs is moral hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. In this respect, the Catholic Church, not strictly Orthodox but nevertheless very closed to it, officially teaches that if a Catholic loses his faith in good conscience but continues going to church and receiving Catholic sacraments, he commits a grave sin and endangers his salvation more than he would do by leaving the Church.

To summarize, civil unions are legal contracts free for anyone. Religious marriages are restricted to religious people. I think it's common-sense.

You're very rigid about all this; hope you modify your views as you get older.

I'm not religious but did get married by a Rabbi.  Why?  Simply because that's how jews get married, and my wife would have hated a civil ceremony.  You gotta be flexible sometimes.

[scarpia]

I don't buy this little piece of sentimental sophistry. Try again.

You point is you're not concerned about profound life problems of people not like you.  You're not worth it.

[Florestan]

I'm not religious but did get married by a Rabbi.  Why?  Simply because that's how jews get married, and my wife would have hated a civil ceremony.  You gotta be flexible sometimes.

Did you then, or do you now, believe that the religious ceremonial of your marriage has any legitimacy and validity other than conforming to a tradition --- "that's how Jews get married" --- or to the wish of your wife --- "she'd have hated a civil ceremony"? I do not know the Jewish marriage ritual, but in the Christian Orthodox one the priest repeats three times for each part "The servant of God John Doe marries the servant of God Jane Doe, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, Amen!". Now, if someone who denies that there is such thing as a God Who is simultaneously Father and Son and Holy Ghost submits himself to this ritual, how would you qualify his attitude, other than acting against his conscience?

[adamdavid80]

Florestan -

I do appreciate you discussing your POV.  Some worthy points, some (like scarpia's issue re: your claim of materialism in marriage) I spiritedly disagree with.  A couple of things:

1) Marriage in ye olde days was rarely about love.  Arranged marriages were the norm - espeically among the upper classes - and that was more about the dowry than anything else.  It sure wasn't bc these two young kids made such an adorable couple together,  So, materialism was always an element of marriage.  For a more contemporary example, google "A-Rod divorce settlement".

And scarpia's points re: legal rights reserved for the married as opposed to cililly unioned are valid.  As it currently stands, there are plenty of states where even visitation rights are limited and restricted.  There are only a handful of ways to resolve this major issue, and marriage is among them.

Re; gay pride parades, would you consider Rudy Giulliani or Hillary Clinton among those "anyone"s who you oppose?  Becasue they have marched.  As have numerous other public figures.  So what?  It's a party.  There are a majority of marchers who are simply representing - they're not dancing on top of a float in nothing but a spangly bikini with a puerto rican flag motif.  (and w=so what if there are?)  They're having fun, only celebrating that they don't have to live in the closet anymore, and still giving public voice to that their struggle for full rights and tolerance be understood.

(At the same rate, would you be the St. patty's day parade?  halloween?  Macy;s Thanksgiving day Parade?) Becasue, lets face it, you DO get a handful of idiots in those crowds too...