Comments | fpb: Do not read this

fpb

Do not read this

Feb 08, 2006 14:02

All readers are warned: if, in spite of my clear statement that what is behind the cut is offensive and contains a thoroughly unpopular attitude, you still go and read it, do not dare, afterward, write angry or offended comments or e-mails. They will be not only deleted, but replaced with appropriate comments on the absurdity of such attitudes. I ( Read more... )

catholic doctrine, sinister contemporary trends, sexual revolution, articles by others, sexual morality

Comments 15

Whoa. patchworkmind February 8 2006, 16:48:45 UTC

That's a remarkable account. While reading of the author's experiences I was reminded of many instances where gay and lesbian friends of mine, several of them close and long-time friends, have relayed the same fears, disappointments, and gripes of "the lifestyle". Many of them were the same, almost to a tee. It's sad to know friends are going through such an existence, and it's all the more saddening to know, by accounts such as this one, the ordeal is so widespread. A while back I reasoned that it was so, but seeing it or hearing it recounted to you... It is really quite disturbing, regardless.

At the risk of receiving hate emails, something to which I am not unaccustomed for my views, I believe it's good of you to post this account.

Re: Whoa. fpb February 8 2006, 17:02:20 UTC

His experience is worse than mine. But apart that I do not imagine that the two male and one female couple with which I lived over a matter of years told me everything, I think it can at the very least serve as a corrective for the sanitized picture of homosexuality that is constantly placed before us, and that most LJ users, especially of the younger generations, take for unarguably true.

Re: Whoa. patchworkmind February 8 2006, 17:54:20 UTC

Yes. People believe the things they want to, by and large, and the desire for acceptance, to rationalise one's existence and decisions, should never be underestimated. Neither should the force and guile with which they will present their views. Nobody wants to think of themselves as marginal. Everyone wants to be a part of the big slice of the bell curve, and unfortunately that's just not possible.

Again, great post.

(The comment has been removed)

Can you do no better? fpb February 8 2006, 18:35:37 UTC

Half your response has no real argument at all; and what there is of argument is quite remarkably inept for such an intelligent person, and a scientist to boot. To begin with, a scientist of all people ought to feel the significance of Mr.Lee's description of the sneak-strategy of the homosexual movement - not present an argument for debate, but make it so much a part of the landscape that it comes to be accepted independently of any real value it may have. This was exactly the kind of strategy that the scientific community in the United States had to fight in the all too recent bad old days of Creationism, when a considerable amount of extreme Protestants tried to convince the court that the mere existence of a Creationist body of opinion was reason enough to grant it "equal time" in schools and colleges. The similarity of the strategies, as well as Lee's clear and convincing exposure of the leading advocate's bad faith, should have rung all sorts of alarm bells in your mind. Instead of which, you indulge in unscientific and ( ... )

Can you do no better? - continued fpb February 8 2006, 18:36:44 UTC

But what you really should have avoided is the moral equivalency argument, also known as tu quoque (in French, toi aussi). "...if you go to a heterosexual club, it's about as sordid. And it's not like heterosexuals don't read/watch porn." This is a disastrous argument for two reasons. First, it concedes the opponent's essential thrust: that bathroom-type promiscuity is bad and squalid, and that it is typical of the gay lifestyle. All you can find to say is that, well, straight people do it too. And that is the second point: that it is inherently weak. It amounts to looking to points in the "opposition" where the "opposition" is most like the accused party. Lee's point, however, is that this is typical of all the gay lifestyle: and that what should be seen in opposition to it should be the whole straight lifestyle - all the happily or unhappily married people, all the single people who live as celibates by choice or otherwise, all their main concerns in life. Are you seriously willing to say that pornography, ugly quick ( ... )

Thread 6

Thank you!! brightly_go February 8 2006, 19:40:01 UTC

This article was, seriously, wonderful to read from start to finish. It is giving me a lot to think about, because while I have been a supporter of 'same-sex marriage' -- I have worried/wondered about stray comments pertaining to the gay lifestyle (the off-handed comments about bath houses, for instance . . . I may be naive, but am unaware of a heterosexual equivalent that enjoys the same acceptance). It has always seemed to me that, bottom-line, if two people wanted to commit themselves to each other, the intent of fidelity and monogamy ought to be supported. Mr. Lee's comments, though, imply that goal is, in reality, a side issue -- and may even be unattainable for the majority of those within the gay community ( ... )

Re: Thank you!! fpb February 8 2006, 21:13:09 UTC

I am particularly glad that you, seeming to come from what one might call the opposite side of the debate, nevertheless found this article so full of interest. As I indicated in my response to dreamer_marie, I do not feel that Mr.Lee's experience is as fully representative of the life of every homosexual as he seems to imply; some homosexual men of my acquaintance disliked the whole homosexual "scene", on account exactly of its meat-market nature. Nonetheless, I do not think it is wrong to suggest that if you are to have a homosexual environment at all, then that environment is bound to be as squalid and as loaded with brute sex drive as he describes it. The reason for that is that people are brought together by their taste in sex. Sex and the greed for sex will be in the air; everyone will be conscious that everyone else is measuring them up; everyone will be reminded of sex, much more than they would be in an ordinary environment. I do not think that a gay environment can be created that will not quickly degenerate into a bathhouse ( ... )

rubix1229 February 8 2006, 19:48:31 UTC

Excellent article. Where did you find it?

fpb February 8 2006, 20:38:03 UTC

I receive daily e-mails from a pugnacious little conservative Catholic magazine called the New Oxford Review, which seems to value itself according to the number of enemies it can make. A great many of its articles are of great interest, although I do not always agree with its positions.

rubix1229 February 8 2006, 21:42:23 UTC

I just subscribed. =)

rfachir February 8 2006, 19:58:04 UTC

People treat each other like tissues. Maybe if we had more gay/straight discussions, we’d realize what a rare miracle it is to be in love with someone who loves you back, whatever the orientation. Maybe then we’d be more gentle with each other.

fpb February 8 2006, 20:52:04 UTC

I would not say this is not an admirable sentiment, but I do feel that you underrate the power of lust, not only to dominate the human mind, but even to distort the process of thought and perception till the person who has given in to it is literally incapable of seeing his/her actions for what they are. "Discussions" are, in my view, simply not enough to enlighten a mind in the grip of lust, because, in their case, the faculty of reason and argument becomes simply an instrument of the lust itself. This is, in my view, what happened to the clerical writer mentioned by Mr.Lee, Father McNeill: after a certain point, investigation into theology ceased being a challenge to the truth for its own sake, and became a continuous effort to defend, justify and conceal the fact of lust in action. His theological studies, like Wilhelm Reich's psychological studies, had become purely the tool of an obsession ( ... )