Thursday, April 22, 2010

What'll it be? Math or Masturbation?

Well, "we live in a culture that is saturated with sexual imagery," so the obvious answer is: masturbation. After all, we have calculators that will do the math.

Our schools fail to teach our children reliable history or literature, math, science, or the basics of English grammar and usage, but our educational mandarins are tireless in their determination to teach the (very) young, not only about the "birds and the bees," but about masturbation and "oral and anal sex." Canada isn't far ahead of us, and, with "Safe-School Czars" like Kevin Jennings they won't be ahead for long. But here's a glimpse of where most of the country is headed and where much of California and Massachusetts and other states are already.

It's Ontario's new sex-education curriculum:
The revised curriculum, which will be implemented in Ontario schools beginning in the fall, will see Grade 3 students being taught about gender identity and sexual orientation. This is the first time this topic has been specified in the sex education curriculum.

Students in Grade 6 will learn about masturbation and wet dreams while those in Grade 7 will be taught about oral and anal sex.
I am trying to resist the impulse to plunge ever more fully into a synthesis of RenĂ© Girard, Philip Rieff, and others, but stories like this don't help. Rieff's complex understanding of the fundamentally transgressive nature of our cooingly therapeutic -- that is, anti-credal* -- culture cries out for greater explication in light of lunacies such as we see today: the state assuming the role of parent and teaching -- not a moral discipline upon which a meaningful and genuinely expansive life depends -- but the transgressive imperatives bequeathed to us by Nietzsche, Freud, Marx and their countless reflexive and small-minded epigones now running the state's educational establishment.  *(Rieff's terms italicized)

The public, and especially parents, one hopes are finally growing weary of the attempt to pass off this indoctrination as enlightened science or preventative medicine. How perfunctory and hollow those familiar trope are today.
Alex McKay with the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada said although the teachings seem controversial, the move only puts Ontario in line with sex education curricula from other provinces.

"It is developmentally appropriate for students in Grade 3 to have an awareness that not all people are heterosexual," he said. Before any type of education takes place in the schools, many kids are going to be walking through the doors with that awareness anyway. The curriculum is appropriate and knowledge is preferable to ignorance."

Mr. McKay said this new outline for teachers is based on "sound scientific education methods."

"The issue is that we live in a culture that is saturated with sexual imagery and that it is more important than ever that young people have a solid foundation of basic knowledge about human development and sexuality, and that this curriculum helps to deliver that," he said. "It would be compromising the health and well-being of our youth if we shy away from providing this important information and skill set."
Think about that: "compromising the health and well-being of our youth." The statistics on the pathologies and dangers of a homosexual lifestyle are staggering and irrefutable, but we justify the mainstreaming that lifestyle as the promotion of "health and well-being."

Many in the educational establishment have begun to downplay the old refrain about parents getting involved in the process, but the time for that involvement is now.

The video I posted earlier bears viewing in this light. As I said, if this issue gets traction, it will make the Tea Party movement seem like a sleeper.



Doughlas Remy said...

The statistics on the pathologies and dangers of a homosexual lifestyle are staggering and irrefutable...

Whoa, Gil, that’s pretty rough language. You and I have been going round and round about this for years, and you haven’t yet offered any of those statistics you claim exist. I keep asking, and you never deliver. All I get is unsupported claims. Every major health organization in this country disagrees with you, so where are you finding this information? Exodus International?

I’m not even sure what kinds of “pathologies and dangers” you’re imagining. But please tell me, because I am very interested in maintaining my health and safety, and I want to know. What is it that I am doing, as a homosexual, that imperils my health or safety? Everyone I know thinks I am pretty healthy. Do you know something I don’t? Please share.

You describe the evidence as “staggering and irrefutable.” Where in the world are you getting this? The evidence of the Pope’s complicity in child abuse cover-ups is certainly staggering and irrefutable, but those terms cannot be used to describe the evidence that my “lifestyle” (which I prefer to call a “life”) is either dangerous or pathological. That is because there is no such evidence.

I think you should apologize to all your friends, including Peter Thiel and James Alison, whom you insult with such libelous language.

And perhaps you could also remove the beam from your own heterosexual eye before you attempt to remove the mite from mine. After all, there is a disproportionate number of divorces among heterosexuals. Homosexuals are pretty clean on that score. :-;

Rick said...

…and here’s Doughlas, right on cue.

I’m just curious, honestly curious, Doughlas, if Gil had left that part you quote out of his post, would you have been fine with the rest of it?

You ask, “You describe the evidence as “staggering and irrefutable.” Where in the world are you getting this?”

Since Gil probably won’t, I would answer, “my own eyes and ears over many decades”. There are certainly plenty of things one does not need an “…experts say…” article or scientific research study or opinion poll to know what is true or not true, as evidenced by the wonderful news referenced by Gil’s post this morning.

Anyway, if Gil doesn’t mind too much, I would say that Gil and I are closer to this man’s view on homosexuality than yours. Of course, there are no demands on you to agree with it, or any of it. It is offered so that you can hopefully understand our perspective on the topic. That is, if you have the time, it is a little longish. Anyway, the light this man shines on homosexuality is one he also, in my opinion, rightly, shines just as critically on heterosexuality.

In other words, if I can take it, you can take it :-)
The Ochlophobist

Doughlas Remy said...

Rick, I didn’t respond to the rest of Gil’s post for the same reason that I don’t respond to most of the content on his site: lack of time. And a question for you: Why do you leave yourself so wide open to such easy rebuttals?

But since you ask, I have absolutely no problem with Ontario’s new curriculum. I can’t conceive of a single reason why children should not be taught about gender identity and sexual orientation as soon as they are able to understand these things. And I can think of many reasons why they should be. Even before Grade 3, children are curious about such matters, and they deserve to have their questions answered. Wait until later and certain erroneous ideas about gender start to fossilize.

Grade 6 is about right for learning about masturbation and wet dreams, and Grade 7 (age 13) would be about the right time for accurate information about anal and oral sex. These are the ages at which youth are beginning to experience these things, and under the current system, they are learning about them from each other. Need I say more? I think you can take it from there.

Rick, we may, after all, need some scientific research to support Gil’s claim about the dangers and pathologies of homosexuality. You say you have seen such evidence with your own eyes, but you didn’t say what it was. Like Gil, you didn’t name it. You just said it was there.

I am afraid I am not up for any shocker videos. Can you just put it in words? What is it about my life that is dangerous and pathological? And what have you seen?

Advance warning: If you point to something that “some” homosexuals do, then I will point to things that “some” heterosexuals do. Our discussion is about homosexuality, not about particular behaviors of some homosexuals.

truepeers said...


I'll return to our previous discussion when i have a moment.

For now, I'm curious what you think when homosexual Canadians make claims like Gil's.

See here and the list of claimed health issues, here

Rick said...

"Can you just put it in words?"

The Ochlophobist says it better than I ever could. Which is why I offered it. But you don't have time to read it. I can assure you it isn't any kinder to heterosexuals.

Thanks for answering my question. We disagree.

Gil Bailie said...

Once again, I tried to ok Douglas' last comment and hit the wrong key on my cell phone. So here it is on the bounce. (By the way, thanks to all for the lively exchange. I apologize for not contributing more that I do.)

Douglas Remy said:
Truepeers, Gil’s remark was a sweeping defamatory generalization about homosexuality. I resented it because I am homosexual and his generalization is untrue and affects me personally, as it does his friend James Alison (a Catholic theologian) and his benefactor and associate, Peter Thiel (also founder of Imitatio). All three of us are COV&R members. If Gil wants to criticize people who practice unsafe sex, spread disease, etc., then I will join him in doing so. But it is wrong to single out homosexuals in this way or to suggest that the homosexual “lifestyle” is dangerous and pathological. There is no homosexual lifestyle any more than there is a “heterosexual” life style.

AIDS in Africa is predominantly a heterosexual problem. Teen pregnancies are entirely a heterosexual problem. The battering of women is primarily a heterosexual problem. And I could go on. What good does it do to blame heterosexuality for these things? Wouldn’t it be more productive to address the behaviors rather than the identities of those who spread AIDs, impregnate teenage girls, and batter their wives?

If there were more spousal abuse among African-American families, would you conclude from that that the “African-American lifestyle” is dangerous and pathological? I hope not.

I grew up in the South, where I got my fill of these kinds of hateful and bigoted remarks. I left there thirty years ago. Gil grew up there, too, but apparently he never left.

the other Gil said...

Douglas Remy - Are you sincere about researching the pathologies and dangers of a homosexual lifestyle? If so, you can begin here:

Also, keep in mind that up until 1995, when the United Nations declared to gay organizers around the world that they would not get recognition if their groups continued to promote sexual relations between adults and children, NAMBLA was embraced by the Gay Movement. What sane heterosexual group can you name that has ever supported the agenda of NAMBLA? Before 1995 NAMBLA representatives were invited to march in Gay Pride parades, but after the UN ruling the gay leadership decided to throw their brethren from NAMBLA under the bus, but the influence of NAMBLA on the gay movement has not ceased. Indeed, Kevin Jennings recently sang the praises of America's most popular gay activist who openly supported NAMBLA, Harry Hay, even after the UN ruling. Allen Ginsberg was another gay activist who refused to stop supporting NAMBLA after the UN ruling, naming the gay leadership as sell-outs. And Elton John still hammers away at lowering the age of consent between adults and children, emphasizing his intentions with a particular performance:

The famous gay columnist and Editor in Chief of Seattle's weekly gay rag had this to offer on one of his celebration of sex issues:

Keep in mind that this gay weekly is made available to children of all ages in Seattle, including at the libraries.

If anal sex is going to be taught in schools, teach about how unnatural and harmful it is instead of "the joys of anal sex." It takes an ideologue of the highest order to blind himself to how terribly harmful anal sex is. And anyone who tries it will tell you how the body immediately registers how harmful it is (teen boys are now pressuring girls into engaging in this behavior as an act of humiliating them, and then telling the girls if they refuse, “Didn’t you hear the expert in sex ed?”). But as one gay person told me, "The body rejects cigarette smoke, too, but if you keep at it you will learn to love it."

the other Gil said...

At the heart of the pathology of a gay lifestyle is a dynamic expressed best by Paul Valery:
“We are wont to condemn self-love; but what we really mean to condemn is contrary to self-love. It is that mixture of selfishness and self-hate that permanently pursues us, that prevents us from loving others, and that prohibits us from losing ourselves.”
I would add that this dynamic also began to inform the sexual relatedness of many young heterosexual couples beginning with the overwhelming success of the sexual revolution (even most Catholics, including its priests, rejected the prophetic vision of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae) that placed narcissistic neediness above self sacrifice.

Doughlas Remy said...

To “The Other Gil”:

I can’t imagine why you recounted the history of NAMBLA to me. What do I or any other gay or lesbian person necessarily have to do with NAMBLA? Did you imagine that I was a big fan of Harry Hay?

If I were black, would you have recounted the history of the Black Panthers to me? If I were Catholic, would you have thought you needed to convince me that priest sex abuse of children is wrong?

How would you react to a woman who assumes that because you are a man, you must see eye-to-eye with Hugh Hefner? Or, worse, she starts detailing the crimes of Ted Bundy to you as if you needed to issue a personal apology? I think you would recognize that she has stereotyped men in a most ungenerous fashion.

Gil wrote, “The statistics on the pathologies and dangers of a homosexual lifestyle are staggering and irrefutable,” and you echoed and supported him in your opening statement. What I find objectionable about this statement should become clear if you remove the word “homosexual” and insert “Catholic,” “African-American,” or “heterosexual.” Have you seen photos of the ghastly re-enactments of the crucifixion practiced every Easter by Philippino Catholics, where real nails are driven into the participants’ feet and hands and their backs are bloody from whipping? Are you aware that the incarceration rate for African-American males in the U.S. is eight times higher than that of white males? Have you ever driven through a “red-light” district of an American city and seen the prostitutes prowling the streets? Did you know that one-third of girls in this country become pregnant before the age of 20 and that 81 percent of them are unmarried? Neither gay men nor lesbians are to blame for this sad state of affairs.

The term “homosexual lifestyle” suggests that all gays are the same, which we are not. There is no “homosexual lifestyle” any more than there is an “African-American lifestyle” or a “Catholic lifestyle.” But what is even more offensive in Gil’s remarks (and yours) is that, having bundled us all together in this way, you stamp the bundle with words like “pathological” and “dangerous.” This is the essence of bigotry. What else do you think bigotry is? I can’t think of a clearer example.

And If I approve of context- and age-appropriate sex education for youth, why would you assume that I advocate any particular sexual practice? Sex education is not about endorsing anal or oral sex. It is about educating children in matters of sexuality so that they will not contract disease, become pregnant, harm themselves physically or psychologically, etc. Which one of us would not support programs to help young teens steer clear of such dangers? That is our responsibility as adults. If we are going to address the huge problem of teen pregnancies and STDs in this country, then we are going to need more sex education. If we don’t educate children about sex, they will just educate each other, and we do not want that.

Your negative assumptions about gays and lesbians continued into your second comment, where you suggest the presence of some pathologically narcissistic dynamic in homosexuality. What is so revealing about your comment is that you also see this dynamic at work “in the sexual relatedness of many young heterosexual couples... Notice the asymmetry: you see this dynamic in homosexuality (the gay lifestyle), but when it comes to heterosexuals, you only see it in individual couples. You’ve shifted from groups to individuals, from identity to behavior, and the homosexuals got stuck with the bad stuff once again.

Rick said...

I just want you to know that I thought your first three paragraphs of you previous comment were damn good comedy. I mean that sincerely.
I'm not even going to follow this with a "But..."
Good job.

Rick said...

I can't resist. Forgive me.

"The term “homosexual lifestyle” suggests that all gays are the same, which we are not. There is no “homosexual lifestyle” any more than there is an “African-American lifestyle” or a “Catholic lifestyle.”

Then you shouldn't be offended.

Doughlas Remy said...

Rick, I know it's hard sometimes. Try putting "Latino" in the slot where "homosexual" is and then try it out: "The statistics on the pathologies and dangers of a Latino lifestyle are staggering and irrefutable..."

If you still can figure that out, then I don't know what to suggest for you.

Rick said...

I was serious. Well.. I mean, I was laughing with you. The Other Gil sort of gave me the creeps.
Anyway, I understood/stand your point. However, exchanging Latino is not offensive to me, even if I were Latino.
But that is the point. Doughlas, I care more about you than I do about my own Latino-ness. (If I were Latino.)

Doughlas Remy said...

But thanks for your sincere compliment about my sense of humor.

the other Gil said...

Doughlas Remy: The reason I recounted the early history of the Gay Movement and its publicly embracing NAMBLA was to make clear historically that promoting sex between children and adults was integral to the Gay Rights Movement until the UN condemned it.

You ask, “If I were black, would you have recounted the history of the Black Panthers to me?” No, I wouldn’t. But if you named yourself a Black Panther, I would.

You ask, “If I were Catholic, would you have thought you needed to convince me that priest sex abuse of children is wrong?” No, but I would remind you that the vast majority of the sexual abuse of children was committed by gay men.

You ask, “How would you react to a woman who assumes that because you are a man, you must see eye-to-eye with Hugh Hefner?” I would first make clear to her that we live in an age where it is difficult to distinguish, and that Hugh Hefner is not so much a man as he is a vanguard in the sexual revolution, one of its founders, and that’s how he should be addressed.

It is pathological for a man to believe he is a woman trapped in a man’s body, and will go so far in his pathology to request castration in altering his body to fit his pathology. That the American Psychiatric Institute considers him normal and assists him in a grotesque medical procedure, which matches any pathological practice from the Middle Ages, in no way makes me feel I am the one who is deluded or pathological or sexist.

When men fixate on and incorporate the mannerisms of women to identify their sense of who they are as men, this is a sign of pathology. And that in our political correctness we have banned all the psychological data explaining varying origins of these pathologies from college campuses in no way makes it incumbent on me to reject this psychological data.
I can’t find anything in distinctly “Catholic” or “African-American” literature that promotes pathological behavior, but there is tons of it in Gay literature.

You write, “The term ‘homosexual lifestyle’ suggests that all gays are the same.” I do not bundle all homosexuals together. I never used the term “homosexual lifestyle” in my life. There are many persons who identify themselves as homosexual who reject the gay lifestyle.

Essential to embracing the gay lifestyle is the lie that homosexual unions are tantamount to heterosexual unions when that is physically impossible. My mission is to get gay ideology removed from determining what will be taught in sex education classes. In other words, do what you got to do, but leave the children alone.

Finally, you write, “What is so revealing about your comment is that you also see this dynamic at work ‘in the sexual relatedness of many young heterosexual couples..” Most heterosexuals do not view the sado-masochistic act of anal penetration as the ultimate expression of physical union, and regardless what you say, this is a belief that has been long held in the gay community. A man and a woman can, like gays, have sex with each other in narcissistic and/or sado-masochistic delight, but it is not ideal and never will be, but in gay relationships the narcissistic/sado-masochistic element is predestined by a physical/emotional reality: the other always mirrors the other, and because of this deficiency, no true other, there is always a sad disappointment in not being able to fully consummate a sexual union, which generates a bitterness which engenders an inescapable sado-masochistic element. There is no transpiercing, no iconic, transcendent delight, and why gay relationships are doomed from the start, regardless how much narcissistic love is generated, and why the statistics, even in Holland where the gay lifestyle has been totally embraced, don’t change on drug and alcohol addiction and sexual diseases amongst gays, far higher than among heterosexuals. You see, with heterosexuals there is always a chance for full union, even in our aberrant culture.

Doughlas Remy said...

Gil (the other Gil),

Stories of NAMBLA and the early days of the gay liberation movement have historical interest but are not very relevant to the issue that I raised about stereotyping, except insofar as they are often used in an effort to smear and stereotype gays and lesbians. Of the tens of millions of gay and lesbian people in this country, few have likely even heard of Harry Hay, and fewer still would retrospectively endorse any part of his agenda that promoted sex with underage boys.

So, I’m happy to hear that you would not recount the history of the Black Panthers to an African-American unless he self-identified as a Black Panther. I hope you will accord me and other gay individuals the same courtesy, then. Bringing up Harry Hay reveals a socially inappropriate assumption, on your part, that we advocate man-boy love.

And you wouldn’t try to convince your Catholic friends that priest sex abuse of children is wrong. That’s good, too. It shows that you do not assume that being Catholic means approving of sexual abuse of children by priests. But you would remind them that these priests were mostly gay.

As for the woman who assumes that you, being a man, must see eye-to-eye with Hugh Heffner, you would politely distance yourself from Heffner’s views of women. I suspect you would also recognize that she had made an unwarranted assumption about you, even if you didn’t point this out to her. Excellent.

Now we can move on to whether the particular kind of gender identity issue you’ve described—that of transgendered persons—is “pathological.” You’ve once again chosen to focus on a very tiny part of what we loosely call the “GLBT community.” (The APA estimates about 1 in 10,000 biological males belong in this category.) Nevertheless, let’s take a look.

Transgenderism is a very large and complex phenomenon, partly because there are so many varieties of it. There is as yet no scientific consensus about its origins, though it has been attributed to biological factors (genetics, pre-natal hormones) as well as early life experiences.

As far as I have been able to discover, neither the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association classifies transgenderism as a “pathology,” though the first of these recognizes a category of “gender identity disorders.” Transgendered individuals often have serious issues because (1) their gender identities are not as clear and fixed as yours or mine, and (2) they are often misunderstood and stigmatized for this reason.

I would urge you to visit both of the APA sites for a better understanding of transgenderism. The sex-change operations that you mention may seem repugnant to you, but they are often helpful in resolving these identity issues. I personally know a post-op individual who has successfully been living as a woman—and married, I might add—for nearly twenty years.

What is not helpful to transgendered people is to hear themselves described as “pathological” and their medical procedures as “grotesque” or “medieval.” What is medieval is the behavior of the mob converging on anyone who is significantly different from themselves and whom they therefore fear. I feel the greatest sympathy for anyone who faces gender identity issues and who then has to endure such taunts. I sincerely hope you may someday learn to do so as well.

Doughlas Remy said...

And finally, I would like to return to Gil B’s assertion that “the statistics on the pathologies and dangers of a homosexual lifestyle are staggering and irrefutable.”

Neither you nor Gil B has shown that there is, in fact, a “homosexual lifestyle” for which such incriminating statistics exist. To do so, you would have to first identify behaviors that are common to all homosexuals but that are not shared by heterosexuals. There is no such behavior. Many homosexuals are celibate and therefore have no discernable homosexual “behaviors.” Among those who are not celibate, there is only one trait distinguishing them from heterosexuals, and that is their sexual and affectional orientation toward members of their own gender. Neither anal sex nor pedophilia nor sado-masochism nor narcissism nor any other behavior is peculiar to homosexuals or necessarily any more prevalent among them than among heterosexuals. Your opinions about homosexuality are just that—opinions. And they are unsupported by the scientific evidence, which I believe we should all respect until we can offer something better.

And a minor point: You said “I never used the term ‘homosexual lifestyle’ in my life.” But in fact you used it in the first sentence you wrote on this thread, and you used the term “gay lifestyle” no less than four times.

the other Gil said...

The reason that the Gay Movement embracing NAMBLA before the UN condemned it has significance is that there were no objections from anyone in any gay community before the UN’s condemnation. It is equally significant that the lesbian communities before the UN condemnation criticized the man-boy theme and refused to be a part of gay pride parades, which had no impact at all on the gay leadership. They wouldn’t budge.

I don’t know what is more pathological: a person wanting to alter through surgery, implants and hormonal alteration what millions of years of evolution created, or the scientists involved in accommodating that person.

Why would you want to label yourself “gay” without even investigating how it is defined by the persons who have established it as an ideology? Perhaps because you understand, as did Hannah Arendt, that ideology is always a substitute for empirical reality? A homosexual is simply a person whose libido attachment is fixated on someone of the same sex. But a gay person is someone who embraces deluded views of reality. Such as:
The Big Lie, or myth, that having a homosexual orientation is genetic. No gene has been sought with more energy and funds than the “gay gene”. There is none. Blacks have identifiable features because of genetic information passed on. But there is no gene that determines they will become Black Panthers, just as no gene will determine that a man will automatically and exclusively have a libido attachment to a person of the same sex. Comparing blacks and gays is absurd.

In the early ‘70s I did extensive research into sexuality, and I coined a word: omnisexual. Based on the complex psychosexual development of any person, he/she will end up with one, two or many libido attachments. Should we really continue investing money to find the gay gene, the transgender gene, the bisexual gene, ad infinitum, or should we simply acknowledge that a person’s psychosexual development is so complex that we should at the very least not discriminate against anyone because of their sexual attachments and get on with it? Gay ideology grew out of a simple desire to be left alone in one’s privacy and one’s special clubs. It grew, as ideologies tend to, into a political movement, and in this case one that established a sexual identity, something that doesn’t exist, but which one can pretend exists. At least you, Mr. Remy, seem to be grasping this at some levels.

Then there is the famous gay philosopher Michel Foucault’s argument that the leadership in the Gay Movement made a serious mistake in inventing the gay gene theory, because it implies that a person is not free to choose a direction for the development of libido attachment. He argued that a person can be trapped in a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation but could choose to travel elsewhere and over time have a different libido attachment by a sheer act of the will. He proved this to himself in his own way of living. And his theory has proven correct. And now neuroscientists have discovered that thoughts and behavior can alter the brain. In other words, if a person who has a homosexual orientation begins thinking and behaving heterosexually, his brain will alter and over time become more and more heterosexually oriented. That’s a scientific fact, not an ideological assumption. But none of the persons who chose this course will be allowed to appear on Oprah any time soon.

the other Gil said...

We can pretend all we want that there is no gay lifestyle, but to keep ourselves honest we will have to stay away from all the gay literature and films. We will have to convince ourselves that no one should listen to any of the founding fathers of the gay movement and how they defined what a gay lifestyle is. We will have to ban all the queer studies programs from universities. And most importantly, we will have to stop grabbing kids in high schools who have told a counselor they have a same-sex attraction and place them in a gay-support group to learn a lifestyle that will make them feel better about themselves. Two of my daughter’s friends from high school survived the latter horror-story and are now happily involved with girl friends.

the other Gil said...

I can accept the argument that a person who identifies himself as gay can systematically remove himself from important elements of a gay lifestyle until, at some point, he will no longer be gay – just a person who has a homosexual orientation. He could for example, choose not to have anonymous sex, considered by the founding leadership to be an important element of a gay lifestyle, what enhances a person’s gay identity (what the gay ideologue Andrew Sullivan calls a "mystical experience" for a gay person). And perhaps this continual detaching from a gay lifestyle by persons who claim to be gay in the end is what will truly reveal the ideological absurdities of the Gay Movement, and the person with a homosexual orientation can then just go back to being a person.

Doughlas Remy said...

The Other Gil,

In the interests of staying focused, I would refer you once again to Gil’s claim, which prompted me to open this discussion:

The statistics on the pathologies and dangers of a homosexual lifestyle are staggering and irrefutable.

I objected to this claim because it pretends to have a scientific basis when in fact it has none whatsoever.

You’ve now used the term “gay (or homosexual) lifestyle” 12 times without explaining what it is. If there were such a thing, surely you could define it? Nor have you cited any scientific research at all. Instead, you’ve directed me to the Family Research Council’s web site, which carries about as much weight with me as the Human Rights Campaign does with you. Couldn’t you find anything on the web sites of the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association? What about some of the journals? There must be something! Are all these organizations just conspiring to obscure the truth about homosexuality?

I usually try to avoid discussions of gay movement politics, which can be even more fraught and tangled than our country’s Afghanistan strategy. I do not feel tethered to any part of gay history or to any of the various ideologies that gay people embrace. Other gay people can speak for themselves, and I am not bound to respect their views simply because they are gay. I am completely free to form my own opinions about iconic gay personalities in history and the media. I refuse to be drawn into a defense of people with whom I don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye just because they are gay.

You mentioned that you did extensive research into sexuality in the 1970s, and I gather from what you said that you developed a theory of “omnisexuality.” Did you document and publish your research? If so, was it peer-reviewed?

You defined a gay person as “someone who embraces deluded views of reality.” I assume you didn’t mean that we alone are deluded but only that all of us are deluded. But then your example doesn’t apply to all gay people: You seem to believe that we (all of us?) embrace the “myth” that having a homosexual orientation is genetic. The truth, however, is that some gay people do hold that view, but a great many others do not and don’t even care. (I know this to be true because I live in the heart of a major metropolitan gay district and have talked to a lot of gay people.) Because I am not a scientist or researcher, I stick with the scientific consensus, which, though inconclusive, points to a mixture of genetic, hormonal, and possibly environmental factors. I don’t have a stake in any particular explanation because I don’t think the causes of homosexuality really matter. Homosexuality should not be viewed as something that needs repairing or reversing. Self-acceptance is the healthiest course. This view is supported by every mental health and medical association in the U.S., bar none.

If a person who has a homosexual orientation begins thinking and behaving heterosexually, his brain will alter and over time become more and more heterosexually oriented. That’s a scientific fact, not an ideological assumption.

This is news to me, and it seems to be at variance with the findings of the APAs. Could you please provide evidence to support your claim?

You suggested in your final comment that anonymous sex was an important element of a gay lifestyle, but you weren’t very specific. Isn’t anonymous sex an important part of the heterosexual lifestyle, too? And what about rape?

...the person with a homosexual orientation can then just go back to being a person.

I think that’s what we would all like, Gil. That’s why we’re fighting for equal rights.

the other Gil said...

The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions left that is not fearful of publishing valid scientific statistics on the pathologgies and dangers of a gay lifestyle:

And before condemning the Church once again for the priest scandal, keep in mind that many Catholics, myself included, protested the Bishops' decision to allow gay men into the priesthood, men who ontologically defined their very existence sexually.

the other Gil said...

Many gay artists still hold to what they believe is a gay lifestyle. There's Elton John, of course, and many others who persist in promoting what they consider a central ingredient of gay culture: men initiating children into sexual encounters so the children can access their suppressed homosexual freedom. John Cameron Mitchell was the most successful at conveying this in his widely praised and viewed film "Hedwig and the Angry Inch", no doubt an entertaining romp with a very clear gay philosophical message.

Mr. Mitchell puts the child’s age at 15, which has become the mean age in promoting sex with pubescent children by gays in mainstream culture, understanding that these men in no way actually fix the age at 15—they logically embrace the entire range of pubescent children. Hedwig, a man posing as a woman, had previously gotten a botched medical castration for a heterosexual lover but later discovers he can only be complete in his personhood as a gay man. Disguised as a woman, he sexually seduces the child while the child is taking a bath. Gay men who purchase or otherwise access male child flesh commonly give the children pornography with photos of naked women to get them sexually excited, the children having no sexual penchant for men or boys, contrary to the delusion of these gay men, and Hedwig is a masturbatory female photo-image come to life for the child in the tub. The boy in the film then, of course, discovers he is gay via the enlightening involvement with what turns out to be a gay man whose sole intention is to set the child free sexually and artistically. And then the child rips Hedwig off, which echoes the adult gay man’s perennial complaint that the children he engages in sex too often turn out to be villains (a common “sacrifice” in trying to liberate gay children!), when in fact they are mostly street kids who have been corrupted through abandonment and who have no desire to have sex with men, who actually have a resentment towards these men which they use to justify stealing from them. An honest rendering of this condition is in Marc Rocco’s film, Where the Day Takes You, on the hit list of many critics who are on board with the gay filmmakers’ version of the lives of these children.

The point is that even though the vanguards of the Gay Movement will no longer publically proclaim that adults engaging children in sex is a common aspect of the gay lifestyle, gay artists continue the struggle to get it accepted in mainstream culture.

Rick said...

Doughlas said:
"Homosexuality should not be viewed as something that needs repairing or reversing."

When I was in art school I shared two courses with a man who was homosexual. One was sculpture and the other history of film, I think. Anyway, sculpture was my minor so I got to spend a bit of time with him, and he brought some interesting insights to films I thought I knew, not to mention to the person as well who was teaching the class. He was quite a bit older than me. If there were any other men of his orientation during my four years there, they did not leave nearly as much of an impression on me. That's not a criticism of the others. He used to restore pianos in a former life. Was an apprentice at this. A genuine craftsman. He was also Christian and celibate. He wasn't always. It really wasn't something we spent a lot of time talking about as I recall. I suppose I bring it up because I hadn't thought about him in a while. This thread, or the quote above specifically, reminded me of him for some reason. And it seems now I can understand just what it was about him left the impression. I think I can safely say that it was more important, if not most, to get his Christianity right than anything else. We all have to do this. Some crosses are heavier than others. But I believe the men are built for the ones they receive. That is good news if it is true. This is how we are all created equal. I don't know if I could carry his. But I am glad I knew him.

Doughlas Remy said...

The Other Gil,

You’re not really citing the publication “Catholic Education” to me, are you?

Maybe I should just say, “I rest my case” and let it go. With every comment you publish, you demonstrate once again that you cannot answer the challenge of (1) showing that there is a “homosexual lifestyle” and of (2) providing statistical evidence that this lifestyle is pathological and dangerous. When I ask for evidence for your claims, you seem not to even understand what I am talking about. All you can offer are sweeping generalizations based on particular cases. It does absolutely no good for you to point to Elton John or Harry Hay or anyone else unless you can show that they are representative of all gay men, and they are not. If you are telling these abuse stories for my benefit, you are wasting your breath.

Reading your comment, I found one sentence that serves as the lynchpin and summation of your entire “argument” (such as it is):

Adults engaging children in sex is a common aspect of the gay lifestyle...

If we look at this closely, we can watch it fall apart.

By “gay,” I assume you mean homosexual? So that would include lesbians, right? You are claiming that lesbians commonly engage children in sex? No, you couldn’t mean that, could you? It’s just too ludicrous.

I think we can all agree that around half of all homosexuals are not interested in sex with children. That leaves the men.

So do you mean that all gay men commonly engage children in sex? Well, obviously they don’t, so perhaps you mean that some gay men commonly (repeatedly) engage children in sex? Or perhaps you mean that a lot of gay men engage children in sex?

I am going to take the liberty of assuming that you mean that a lot of gay men engage children in sex. I believe that is probably what you meant.

First of all, do we even need the word “gay” there? Couldn’t we just say, “A lot of men engage children in sex?” Possibly, but we don’t know what “a lot of” means. One percent? Five percent? Fifty percent?

It is certainly true that both gay men and straight men engage children in sex. Do gay men do so more than straight ones? Is the incidence of child sexual abuse proportionately higher among gay men than among straight ones?

If gay men engage children in sex more than straight ones do, is the difference significant, like 10% as opposed to 5%? If it is, then what conclusions are we to draw from this? Should we conclude that male homosexuality is pathological and dangerous?

Well, no—not unless we could show that virtually every homosexual man engages children in sex.

And what if the difference is not significant? Or worse, what if we discover that heterosexual men engage children in sex more than gay men do? Should we conclude that male heterosexuality is pathological and dangerous?

I think you can see why your argument falls apart. You’ve tried to suggest that Elton John and Harry Hay are representatives of homosexuality and that all homosexuals share their interests in boys. But this is patently untrue, as a moment’s reflection will show. I know for sure that it is untrue because I know lots of homosexuals and can assure you that you are trafficking in negative stereotypes.

I just finished reading some statistics about violence against women, so I decided to re-write that lynchpin sentence of yours. See how this sounds:

Men battering and raping women is a common aspect of the heterosexual lifestyle...

Does that sound like something a visitor from Mars might say? Yep, it does.

Doughlas Remy said...

Rick, thanks for that story, which is a refreshing antidote to (the other) Gil’s tales of horror—and I hope he will read it. Your art-school friend sounds like a very good man, and I have known many like him. I gather from what you wrote that he had chosen celibacy because his sexual orientation was in conflict with his Christian beliefs. Such a choice might work for some people, but it is a very difficult path. The problem is that celibacy can be really unhealthy for some men and women and certainly not all are suited for it. Pathologies can develop around frustrated sexual urges, as we’ve seen in the cases of many priests in recent years. I believe this is one area where the Catholic church needs to change its teachings. Everyone will benefit from such a change.

the other Gil said...

When you write, "By 'gay,' I assume you mean homosexual? So that would include lesbians, right?" it is clear you have not grasped the heart of what I have been writing. No, I do not mean homosexual when I use the word "gay". If you want, you can return to my other posts for what I kept repeating on this. Also, I do not view lesbians as gay. Lesbians themselves refused the label "gay" until they accepted a coalition with gays after the latter dropped its relentless support of man-boy love and its relentless misogyny.

Secondly, you call yourself gay and insist that you have nothing to do with gay activists who have very specific agendas, especially the agenda in schools in sex education classes, normalizing deadly sexual practices and equating same-sex union with heterosexual union. It's like a member of the NRA telling persons he is opposed to anyone having guns, including himself. If you said you were homosexual and not gay, that would be different. But when a person calls himself a Marxist, I assume he embraces most of what Marx wrote. If a person is a capitalist, I assume he embraces most of what capitalism stands for. So when you say you are gay, I assume that you embrace most of what the founding fathers of the Gay Movement called a gay lifestyle, what actually defines what gay is.

I sometimes feel like a kid in a story about a Gay Pride Parade titled "The Emperor’s New Clothes"

the other Gil said...

Mr. Remy - You write, "Men battering and raping women is a common aspect of the heterosexual lifestyle..." in an attempt to parallel the logic of what I wrote: "Adults engaging children in sex is a common aspect of the gay lifestyle..."

The problem is no group I know of representing heterosexually oriented men ever came out supporting men battering and raping women, but large segments of gay leadership have and still do promote adults having sex with children. Throughout gay history gay men have bragged of having sex with children and they have been fully supported by the vast majority of the gay community. I mentioned John Cameron Mitchell earlier, as well as Elton John and George Michaels raising money to get lawyers to lower the age of consent between an adult and a child. I can’t hear a single gay voice out there in mainstream media passionately condemning the actions of these men. As a gay man who is deeply offended by other gay men engaging children in sex, why not vehemently speak out against them? It would have a major impact. You can start with famous gay authors like Fernando Vallejo who penned “Our Lady of the Assassins” and who has bragged of having sex with over a thousand children (Perhaps even boycott their books and films?). True, you are protesting the gay priests who engaged children in sex, but there are lots of gay men out there outside the Catholic Church who need to experience your wrath as well.

the other Gil said...

I would agree that the spiritual beauty of celibacy for those called to live the life of Christ to the degree that Christ lived it, as a celibate, is not a calling for everyone, and certainly is not for gay men who, again, ontologically define themselves with a sexual identity. For them it is certainly true what Doughlas Remy writes: "The problem is that celibacy can be really unhealthy for some men..." To be homosexually oriented does not mean one has to engage in sex, but to be gay one does have to engage in sex, for his very identity is defined sexually: to be is to act. This was the horror story of gay men trying to be celibate priests: they were living a contradiction. And it was the Bishops who allowed them to become priests who must take some responsibility, for they ignored the Church's teaching of the nuptial understanding of our faith.

the other Gil said...

And finally, you ask Mr. Remy: "So do you mean that all gay men commonly engage children in sex?"

No. I mean that I don't hear a single outcry against the horror being inflicted by gay men on children from members of the gay community. What of the Germans who did know what the Nazis were doing to Jews? I'm talking about the Germans who didn't march the Jews to the ovens and burn them to death but knew it and just couldn't muster any outrage. The only difference between those Germans and the gays who are not passionately speaking out against the John Cameron Mitchells of the Gay Movement is that the Germans could hide in an excuse that they feared they would be sent to the ovens if they expressed their outrage.

Sexual abuse and exploitation of children is the 2nd great modern Holocaust after abortion.

Doughlas Remy said...

To the other Gil: The following is what I mean by statistics. (They are from various sources.):

Fact #1: 17.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. Of these, 21.6% were younger than age 12 when they were first raped, and 32.4% were between the ages of 12 and 17. (Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November, 2000)

Fact #2: 64% of women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. (Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November, 2000)

Fact #3: Only about half of domestic violence incidents are reported to police. African-American women are more likely than others to report their victimization to police Lawrence A. Greenfeld et al. (1998). (Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends. Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ #167237. Available from National Criminal Justice Reference Service.)
Fact #4: The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.

Fact #5: In the National Violence Against Women Survey, approximately 25% of women and 8% of men said they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date in their lifetimes. The survey estimates that more than 300,000 intimate partner rapes occur each year against women 18 and older. (Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November, 2000)

Fact #6: The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study estimated that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 college women experience completed or attempted rape during their college years (Fisher 2000).

Fact #7: Men perpetrate the majority of violent acts against women (DeLahunta 1997).

Fact #8: Every two minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) calculation based on 2000 National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice)

Fact #9: One out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. (Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998)

Fact #10: Factoring in unreported rapes, about 5% - one out of twenty - of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. 19 out of 20 will walk free. (Probability statistics based on US Department of Justice Statistics)
Fact #11: Fewer than half (48%) of all rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (DOJ 2001).

Fact #12: Sexual violence is associated with a host of short- and long-term problems, including physical injury and illness, psychological symptoms, economic costs, and death (National Research Council 1996).
Fact #13: Rape victims often experience anxiety, guilt, nervousness, phobias, substance abuse, sleep disturbances, depression, alienation, sexual dysfunction, and aggression. They often distrust others and replay the assault in their minds, and they are at increased risk of future victimization (DeLahunta 1997).

Fact #14: According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, more than 260,000 rapes or sexual assaults occurred in 2000; 246,180 of them occurred among females and 14,770, among males (Department of Justice 2001).

(more to follow...)

Doughlas Remy said...

Fact #15: Sexual violence victims exhibit a variety of psychological symptoms that are similar to those of victims of other types of trauma, such as war and natural disaster (National Research Council 1996). A number of long-lasting symptoms and illnesses have been associated with sexual victimization including chronic pelvic pain; premenstrual syndrome; gastrointestinal disorders; and a variety of chronic pain disorders, including headache, back pain, and facial pain (Koss 1992).Between 4% and 30% of rape victims contract sexually transmitted diseases as a result of the victimization (Resnick 1997).

Fact #16: More than half of all rapes of women occur before age 18; 22% occur before age 12. (Full Report of the Prevalance, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November, 2000)

Fact #17: In 2000, nearly 88,000 children in the United States experienced sexual abuse (ACF 2002).

Fact #18: About 81% of rape victims are white; 18% are black; 1% are of other races. (Violence Against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.)

Fact #19: About half of all rape victims are in the lowest third of income distribution; half are in the upper two-thirds. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.)

Fact #20: According to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS), a national survey of high school students, 7.7% of students had been forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to. Female students (10%) were significantly more likely than male students (5%) to have been forced to have sexual intercourse. Overall, black students (10%) were significantly more likely than white students (7%) to have been forced to have sexual intercourse (CDC 2002).

Fact #21: Females ages 12 to 24 are at the greatest risk for experiencing a rape or sexual assault (DOJ 2001).

Fact #22: Almost two-thirds of all rapes are committed by someone who is known to the victim. 73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger (— 38% of perpetrators were a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 28% were an intimate and 7% were another relative.) (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005)

Fact #23: The costs of intimate partner violence against women exceed an estimated $5.8 billion. These costs include nearly $4.1 billion in the direct costs of medical care and mental health care and nearly $1.8 billion in the indirect costs of lost productivity and present value of lifetime earnings. (Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, Georgia, March 2003).

Fact #24: Domestic violence occurs in approximately 25-33% of same-sex relationships. (NYC Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, October 1996.)

Fact #25: Boys who witness their fathers' violence are 10 times more likely to engage in spouse abuse in later adulthood than boys from non-violent homes. (Family Violence Interventions for the Justice System, 1993)

Fact #26: An estimated 50,000 women and children are trafficked into the United States annually for sexual exploitation or forced labor. (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, 2000)

Fact #27: Somewhere in America a woman is battered, usually by her intimate partner, every 15 seconds. (UN Study On The Status of Women, Year 2000)

(More to follow...)

the other Gil said...

Mr. Remy - Re: your list of facts. I have been outraged and active in speaking out against the crimes you list. I have written to legislators and to major newspapers demanding that tougher prison sentences be imposed on men who do violence to women, including men who stalk women. But you failed to list the heterosexual groups that are involved in extensive propaganda and legal actions to legalize domestic abuse, rape and other acts of violence against women.

Doughlas Remy said...

The Other Gil:

You’re blowing steam. Your claim that you have made clear distinctions between the words “homosexual” and “gay” is simply untrue, as a quick search on these words in the thread will show. See your comment about the “big lie.” You used the words interchangeably until I pointed out the glaring error in your assertion that “Adults engaging children in sex is a common aspect of the gay lifestyle...” As you are aware, the terms “gay lifestyle” and “homosexual lifestyle” are used interchangeably in the conservative media, and both terms are meant to include lesbians. Lesbians, however, are not known for engaging children in sex.

In your second paragraph you have totally mischaracterized my position. I have never said that I have nothing to do with gay activists. I am one myself. I read Andrew Sullivan almost every day. You have been visiting the Family Research Council’s website and for too long. They would have you believe that all gay activists promote sex with children. This is libelous propaganda, and you have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

I have never said that deadly sexual practices should be normalized. This is simply a slander. I believe in age-appropriate sex education for all the reasons that I have stated time and time again on this site. I do not believe in teaching children to do things that will harm them in any way. Why would you make such an outrageous charge about me without any evidence whatsoever—and in the face of so much evidence to the contrary? (See my comments on this blog site for the past two years.)

Your understanding of gay identity is bizarre beyond belief, and it could only have come from sources like the FRC. I am not a “member” of the Gay Club or the Gay Church or anything of that sort. “Gay” simply means having an affectional and sexual attraction toward members of one’s own sex. It does not start with signing on some dotted line. In its more restricted definition, it applies only to men. I don’t care a fig about the history of the word, and neither do most other homosexuals. Etymology is not destiny.

Your assumption that I embrace most of what the founding fathers of the Gay Movement called a gay lifestyle is just that—an assumption (and an unwarranted one). Very few homosexuals these days even know or care about what the “founding fathers” thought. We are not a country, or a religion, or a club. If some gay men want to form clubs to honor Harry Hay, that is their right, and I’m sure you will be on hand to remind them of Hay’s views about children. Good for you. Keep it up. I applaud your activism. It is not my area of specialization, so I’ll leave it to the experts.

You were not able to think of a single group of heterosexual men who ever supported battering and raping women? Think harder. Think back through history, especially the history of warfare. Think across the globe to Africa and the Middle East. And think of child rape, which happens virtually every time a Muslim man takes a child bride. These are heterosexual men, they believe in what they are doing and point to their prophet as an example, and they support each other in this odious practice. And speaking of Muslim culture, who do you think is stoning women and engaging in honor killings and other horrors? You can blame this on a demented religion, but don’t forget that it is religion ruled by heterosexuals and that they are doing these things.

If no group of men in the U.S. dares to publicly support the mistreatment of women, that seems not to have deterred many men from battering and raping their wives, girlfriends, and daughters. You will have seen that, I hope, if you read my fact sheet, above. Does it really matter whether these men “publicly support” their own crimes?

Doughlas Remy said...

Your claim that there are no gay voices in the mainstream media condemning pedophiles is unsubstantiated. If it is true, then that is certainly a problem that needs addressing and I would encourage you to keep speaking out. A word of advice, however: You’ll be more effective if you will substantiate your charges. Evidence is always the first thing that most thinking people want to see. I would suggest visiting “The Daily Dish” to see what Andrew Sullivan has to say, and I think I can already promise you that Andrew has spoken out—and passionately—on thousands of occasions. Also visit some of the Web sites of major GLBT organizations like the Human Rights Campaign to find their positions on pedophilia. It’s time to step out of the FRC bubble and find out the truth about this for yourself. If you are going to be an effective activist, you don’t want to start sounding like a billboard for the FRC or the Catholic church. Find some objective sources for your claims about sexual practices if you want to sound credible.

As for me, I have decided to focus mainly on the lies and slanders about homosexuality that I find on religious blog sites. That is my area of strength and expertise, and my time and energy are limited. My purpose on this particular thread was to show that Gil’s claim about the “homosexual lifestyle” being pathological and dangerous were baseless, and I think I have succeeded in showing that.

One reason I can speak with such total conviction about this is that Gil’s claim is, by extension, about me and my partner, and the idea that there is anything pathological or dangerous about our lives is just facially preposterous, both to us and to those who know us. And there are millions of others like us.

the other Gil said...

Mr. Remy – I can see clearly that you have not understood the substance of my arguments here. Let me clarify:
Before the gay movement, sexual designations referred to a person’s sexual orientation. For example, if someone called himself a homosexual, it would simply mean that his sexual orientation was towards persons of the same sex; if heterosexual, the orientation was toward a person of the opposite sex. In neither case was an identity established. A sexual identity as a social phenomenon was established in America with the founding of the Gay Movement. If a homosexually oriented person chose to take on a sexual identity called “gay”, he would consult with all the specialists who established it. The implications of this are complex. But one thing is certain: there is no heterosexual movement establishing a sexual identity for heterosexually oriented persons. John Cameron Mitchell understands this and actually made a film, “Shortbus”, to encourage heteros to embrace a sexual identity. And keep in mind that if one chooses to take on a sexual identity, the person will not exist if he can’t be who he is in public. Thus the origin of Gay Pride Parades and sexual activity in public parks and restrooms. In fact, George Michaels said he wanted to be remembered for beginning the process of legitimizing sexual activity for gays in public places. He, like John Cameron Mitchell, understands what sexual identity actually means: if you can’t be who you are in public, then you don’t exist. So the strategy John Cameron Mitchell employed in trying to get heteros to take on a sexual identity was to encourage them to begin having sex in public, which is the point of the film “Shortbus”: he claims that the persons actually engaging in sexual acts in the film, which includes heteros, is not pornographic because it is simply a casual establishing of a sexual identity.

Let’s look at how this plays out socio-politically. You believe heteros have a sexual identity, but they don’t (there are exceptions, those afflicted with pathologies). So when a hetero male has anal intercourse with a woman, he does it simply for the sadistic sexual delight he experiences, and if the woman experiences masochistic sexual delight, it works for both of them. But that hetero male would never entertain the thought of having that behavior sanctioned in law as a legitimate expression of intimate sexual union between him and a woman. Thus it was gay organizations, including Lambda, the nation's oldest and largest legal organization working for the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, that spent lots of time and big money to overturn sodomy laws, and getting a final victory at the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas 2003, where anal sex was essentially declared a normal act of sexual expression and thus a fundamental right, which gave the green light to teach children in schools of its value as an act of sexual intimacy. From what you have written it seems you are appalled at this, especially teaching children in schools that the disgusting, destructive and pathological act of anal intercourse is a normal expression of intimacy.

Do you get it? Homosexuals and heterosexuals don’t automatically embrace a sexual identity, but the whole point of being gay is just that: taking on a sexual identity. And once you establish a sexual identity, why would you want your life, your very being, to be nothing more than a particular sexual expression? That’s why the literature, films, queer theory and a host of other constructs defined in the context of a gay lifestyle have been developed by the founding fathers of the Gay Movement, and why gay activists continue to elaborate on that lifestyle in every realm of social interaction. For you to deny a gay culture with a complex gay lifestyle and call yourself gay is in fact reducing your ontological sense of yourself.

the other Gil said...

Mr. Remy - I don't think you have succeeded in discounting the gay lifestyle as being pathological and dangerous. What you have done is demonstrated that you adamantly refuse to accept scientific facts if they don't come from your pre-approved websites. Where you get your facts, gay websites or anywhere else, is irrelevant to me. Facts are facts. What you are failing to see is that your data-collection is ideologically driven.

the other Gil said...

Mr. Remy - I am surprised that you hold Andrew Sullivan in such high regard. I thought he went the way of Kevin Jennings, Harry Hay, John Cameron Mitchell, Elton John, Allen Ginsberg and the many other gay cultural heroes that have promoted a pathological gay lifestyle. But keep in mind that Andrew Sullivan embraces much of what he considers part of a gay lifestyle that you obviously reject, including the "mystical experience" of anonymous sex and infidelity as not infidelity at all, but a higher form of intimacy that is greater than what heterosexual unions can enjoy.

Oh, and I get the bulk of my information about the gay lifestyle not from the Catholic Church or the websites you believe I get it from. I get it from established gay theorists and artists.

the other Gil said...

A question: Because the Gay Movement is ideologically driven and must rely on unreality to cover its pathological tracks, is it possible for a gay artist to be honest in his artistic endeavors? Yes. Simply because we are all sinners. For example, one of the great cinematic artists of the 20th century, Rainer Werner Fassbinder. He came out as gay earlier than most, and if one wants a taste of his genius and beauty as an artist, I always recommend my favorite from him, In a Year With 13 Moons. One interesting thing about Fassbinder: as much as he was immersed in a gay lifestyle, he never lied about it.

Then there is Tennessee Williams’ great confessional play, Suddenly Last Summer, where he addresses the horror the horror of what he and many of his friends had done, engage children in sexual acts.

The point: it is not being gay or heterosexual that will make any ultimate difference in our lives. Only the truth will set us free. That's what great artists have taught us, including gay artists.