Why conservatives should be opposing gay advocacy

I often get asked by angry gay advocates why conservatives and Christians are so interested in resisting the gay legal agenda, which most gays think is harmless, if not beneficial to humanity in general.  To them, we are hateful, judgmental people, pathologically focused on them, trying to withhold civil liberties from them, with absolutely no good reason.  They aren't hurting anyone, and giving them such things as marriage rights will not harm society.

But epidemiology, nature, and the scriptures say otherwise.  Here are the main reasons why conservatives are interested in and oppose gay advocacy. 

This is just an outline, but each point links to articles that discuss the bullet more fully.  Why be interested in the homosexual discussion, or oppose homosexual advocacy?

1. it is one of the civil rights movements of our time
2. it is of current theological importance, as we see entire denominations splitting over it
3. it is and always has been a questionable moral behavior which is finding, if not pushing for, increased acceptance in public policy. Public policy on such matters is a topic for all citizens to discuss.
4. the legal and social acceptance of homosexuality as a norm has potentially serious negative implications for our children, the family, and society
5. the legal acceptance of homosexuality has religious liberty implications
6. biblically speaking, the acceptance of homosexuality brings God's judgement upon a nation
7. hate speech laws are an infringement on free speech, and a dangerous totalitarian tactic and known in other contexts as blasphemy laws

Of course, many will disagree with these, but those are the reasons that conservatives and religious conservatives would give for being interested in homosexual advocacy (we don't care what you do in your bedroom).

Comments

[Louis]

we don't care what you do in your bedroom

Quite frankly, I don't believe you. Only recently were we liberated from sodomy laws by the Supreme Court, a decision decried by conservatives in general and the religious right in particular. You pose as a reasonable advocate, but your real agenda is the suppression of gay life in general, forcing us into the closet/coffin once again and invading our personal lives with invasive laws and pseudo-science. Your very arguments regarding epidemiology and social standards will be used, once again, to brand us as social deviants, dangers to society, spreaders of disease, seducers of children, and enemies of God. The only protection we have is the so-called "gay legal agenda" which, by law, will protect us from such as you and the entire religious/political right-wing which is intent on imposing its extremist agenda on us all. Only the secular state and secular humanism can protect gay citizens from your agenda.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to impose them on the rest of us through legislation. We are citizens too, and are entitled to full and equal protection of the law, especially from religious fanaticism.

[seeker]

Only recently were we liberated from sodomy laws by the Supreme Court, a decision decried by conservatives in general and the religious right in particular.

Well, I have stated my position, which I believe is the majority evangelical position, that sodomy laws should not be. What religious leaders have wanted to keep them on the books? I'd be interested to see who they are, outside of Fred Phelps, of course.

You pose as a reasonable advocate, but your real agenda is the suppression of gay life in general, forcing us into the closet/coffin once again and invading our personal lives with invasive laws and pseudo-science.

I am not posing at all, I am giving my principled position on the matter. I am not against equal protection in employment, harassment, and housing. I don't think we should criminalize it (sodomy laws).

On some issues, like gays in the military, I am undecided. On gay marriage, I am against it because, while it gives some valid privileges, it also validates homosexuality officially, and that has significant impact on religious liberties, childhood education, and perhaps on the family, etc.

Your very arguments regarding epidemiology and social standards will be used, once again, to brand us as social deviants, dangers to society, spreaders of disease, seducers of children, and enemies of God.

Yes, I do see that my conclusions on the matter do produce some of these negative perceptions, or stigmas. (However, I have never implied child seduction). The fact is, however, that though such conclusions do stigmatize, if they are correct, then such results are unavoidable - unfortunate, but true.

Think about alcoholism. Does the identification of it as an illness stigmatize alcoholics? To some extent, yes.

As far as being dangers to society, there are two kinds - greater and lesser. Violent and murderous people, or drunk drivers are greater dangers because they pose a direct threat to the life of others.

Obesity and homosexuality are a lesser dangers - they pose no direct threat to the lives of others, but they do pose a threat to those who are obese or homosexual, the increased morbidity and mortality of these lifestyles puts a strain on our economy and our society, and teaching that they are really safe and OK is bad, esp. if we teach such to children.

My implication that homosexuality is "dangerous" to society should be seen in the context of other similar, non-lethal behaviors. I think this is responsible, and not ethically wrong as long as we are not giving the impression that homosexuality is one of the "greater" dangers.

I understand that the deleterious affects of homosexuality are less conclusive (though as I say, epidemiology may point that direction), but the benignness of homosexuality is at BEST questionable, and I am for limits on how much government sanction and blessing we should give on questionable ethical and moral issues.

The only protection we have is the so-called "gay legal agenda" which, by law, will protect us from such as you and the entire religious/political right-wing which is intent on imposing its extremist agenda on us all.

Well, as I said in The Civil Rights Movements of Our Time, there are some good things about the gay agenda, as there were about the other movements. But all of them, conservative or liberal, can be tempted to overstep their bounds, and this is what concerns me with the gay marriage issue.

So I think that such movements, including the religious right movements, need a counterbalance to keep them from being extreme. So while I think conservatives should resist the gay rights agenda, I don't think it should be destroyed, just kept in check, just like secularists keep religion in check, and vice versa. When religion gets too much ascendancy, it can overstep and do things like create sodomy laws.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to impose them on the rest of us through legislation.

Again, I am not imposing, but require that on some matters, the government should remain neutral. At worst, I seek to LIMIT what you are doing, not PROHIBIT. Those are not the same thing at all. And because all ethics and morality are "imposed" in legislation, the fact that you want positive legislation sanctioning homosexuality is in essence forcing your opinion. I think that my position is actually more ethically and principally correct - neutrality on questionable matters.

[Louis]

As I said above, I don't find your protestations believable. Gays, through sad and painful experience, have had to be suspicious of such arguments as you raise above. Once you get power, what will you and your kind do? Sorry, but I still don't trust you and your camp (especially after reading your posts over the past years). Your arguments against gay rights imply the return to the bad old days, and your belief that granting full citizenship rights to gays will post a danger to our society proves to me that I am right to disbelieve your statements to the contrary.

btw: if the gov't were to be truly neutral, it would not favor heterosexuals over homosexuals in any arena. Gov't. sanctioned marriage would be ended and civil unions established for all, leaving marriage to the various religious entities. What you want is the continuation of hetero privilege. It may be that you don't favor the "hang 'em high" mentality of the past, but you are still not trustworthy. I still don't believe you (and by "you" I mean organized and orthodox religious).

[Louis]

Another brief thought: an "extreme" gay agenda would seek total separation from hetero society. I sometimes find this seductive. Why bother to engage with people who despise us? Why not surround ourselves with our own kind and return hatred with hatred? I have argued for a different strategy (as does Andrew Sullivan and our old friend, Josh). Seeking acceptance and assimilation into the greater society is a moderate position - something you cannot fathom, apparently.

[seeker]

You may gain acceptance through changing people's opinions, perhaps teaching them to overcome the natural gag reflex (no pun intended) at the apparent unnaturalness of it all.

But that unnaturalness that we are overcoming may be something that is MEANT to keep us from such self-destructive and gender-rejecting ways.

But that's where the contention is - is the "natural" disgust for it learned, or incorrect, or does it exist for a reason?

I never did complete my posts on the biology of disgust, but it is relevant to the discussion.

And I think that redefining marriage goes beyond acceptance to approval.

[Louis]

So, now you are reduced to the "gag reflex"?

I gag that Asians eat bugs, yet they do. These are entirely socially and locally learned responses, and not universal.

I gag at the stupidities that xians believe. So what? It's a matter of taste. Believe whatever nonsense you want, just don't inflict it on me.

[seeker]

I gag that Asians eat bugs, yet they do. These are entirely socially and locally learned responses, and not universal.

Well, that's part of the whole discussion of disgust. Some of it probably is learned, but that doesn't mean all of it is. Studies indicate that some things are learned, while some are not, which is not surprising - in behaviors such as disgust (or homosexuality), ideologues on either side want it to be all nature or all nurture, but usually, it is a combination.

While you may have some superficial disgust at such a discussion, the fact that you so easily dismiss what is potentially a complex subject shows that you are not interested in the truth of the matter, but in a predetermined position - or so it seems.

[Louis]

What a sly dog you are, seeker! You insinuate unsupported nonsense about me without really knowing much at all. For instance, "ideologues on both sides." And, of course, I'm not really interested in the truth in the matter because I'm really an ideologue.

Stop projecting your more unsavory characteristics onto others.

[seeker]

As I said, due to the incomplete nature of the current evidence, those who want to preach that homosexuality is *surely* either entirely nature or nurture are what I consider ideologues with agendas.

[Louis]

One could say the exact same thing concerning heterosexuality. The above statement is without intellectual content and amounts to little but name-calling.

[seeker]

One could, except that there is no evidence that heterosexuality is abnormal, so such arguments would be specious.

[Wise One]

Seeker,

Why don't you just get over it and have some hot gay sex? You wouldn't even have to come out of that closet that you're so far inside that even frickin' mice are asking to get the hell out.

Maybe then you'll stop obsessing about it. Aaron, why do put up with this clown?

[seeker]

I've had my chances, and am just not interested. To me, the words "gay" and "hot sex" don't go together - it is rather disgusting to think of such things, kind of like the smell of manure - in fact, I guess that's probably what it smells like, since you are invading the outlet for crap.

Hot sex is sexual attraction and enjoyment inside of the hetero marriage bond. Everything else is sexual sin, which leads to death. Sin is pleasurable for a season, but in the end, it brings death.

So Aaron, perhaps you can tell the "man" why you put up with me.

[Louis]

Well, seeker, I've tried to maintain an objective and cordial stance, but this just tops it all. Why discuss this topic with someone as bigoted and vulgar as you? Of course, it's impossible. You are beyond reason here; indeed, way over into the radical fringe. You don't deserve cordiality. The main reason I finally rejected xianity is its record of treatment of gay people. You couldn't possibly do anything more to confirm my opinion of your religion. You're an excellent advertisement for atheism.

[seeker]

Disgust with gay sex is, unfortunately, both natural and real, and such things, while they can be unlearned, do not necessarily have to be learned because some disgust is a natural and healthy reaction to what is bad.

For example, our natural response to the odors of decay (manure, for example) is not learned, and it is a good thing. Our disgust with dismemberment is a good thing. The same types of healthy, natural disgust exist within the moral arena. And while not all moral disgust is appropriate, and may have been learned, to say that all of it is learned is not correct.

Disgust for gay sex (or anal sex in general) exists because (1) it is unnatural and unhealthy, and (2) it involves an abuse of the body.

The fact that anal penetration involves putting things INSIDE the anus, when it is clearly designed for one way transport of waste, should elicit disgust in the healthy person.

[Louis]

Well, that's your opinion (to which you are entitled), but that's all it is - opinion. I, on the other hand, have a disgust for heterosexual sex (i.e., sticking my dick into something which could be home to any number of bacteria and/or viruses and/or yeasts, and from which blood flows regularly). You will, of course, dismiss my opinion, but that's by the board. Your problem is that you try to make matters of personal taste into abstract moral principles. And, of course, it all comes down to your religion, which not all of us share.

The world is larger than you and your opinions. So, pardon me if I disregard them and live freely as a free citizen.

[Aaron]

Save it Louis. Everyone knows that people like seeker LOVE anal sex with their wives. It's only the fact that we do it with MEN that they have a problem with.

[seeker]

sticking my dick into something which could be home to any number of bacteria and/or viruses and/or yeasts, and from which blood flows regularly).

I would wager that the bacteria in the anus are much more dangerous than those in the vagina. So your disgust seems to be applied illogically, if not selectively. Additionally, the vagina has natural lubricating glands for the purpose of sex (no ky jelly needed), which should make it obvious that such is natural.

Regarding blood, it is probably good that men don't have sex with women during menstruation - not sure if there is a medical reason, but their might be. It was prohibited for Israel.

But again, I'd say that disgust plays a valid biological function (or even 'evolutionary' function if you like), and that while some disgust may be learned or unlearned, this does not take away from the hypothesis that some disgust is biological and functional.

While these are hypotheses, they are not just opinion if we can apply scientific scrutiny to them, which has been done. But my contention stands, biological disgust is meant to protect us from the abuse of biology, and things that are dangerous. Whether you think this is selected for biologically or created is another discussion.

Is disgust an instinctive reaction or are we taught to be disgusted?

Disgust From Wikipedia

[seeker]

Everyone knows that people like seeker LOVE anal sex with their wives. It's only the fact that we do it with MEN that they have a problem with.

Actually, I am one of many evangelicals who think that such things are perverse - in fact, the term "missionary position" comes from the traditional Christian view that even other positions for sex are somehow irreverent, if not debased and sinful. I see no problem with other positions for hetero vaginal sex, since they don't violate the use of the sexual organs.

But anal sex, even oral sex, I find disgusting, and probably unholy. And I would wager a significant portion of mature believers do as well.

However, since scripture does not prohibit oral sex (nor does it condone it, though some say that song of solomon alludes to it), nor anal sex (though it does arguably prohibit homosexual sex in such words as arsenokoites, which literally means "male coitus"), I would say that ultimately, that is up to each beleiver.

But Aaron, I think that your assumption that Christians have no problem with anal sex is probably incorrect. We are not being duplicitious, but consistent. Myself, I think my position is defendable logically and historically.

But for those Christians who try to justify hetero anal sex while condeming it among gays, they admittedly do have a tougher justification.

[seeker]

BTW, Probe Ministries, an evangelical group, has some articles on this topic - they believe that oral sex is fine within hetero marriage

Is Oral Sex a Sin?

[Louis]

You could wager, but I doubt you'd win. Vaginal sex poses as many dangers as anal sex. It's all a matter of personal taste, whether innate or learned. And you don't get to impose your personal tastes on me. As to the "nature" argument: it doesn't fly. Whatever occurs in nature is, by definition, "natural." Since gays exist within what we refer to as "nature" - we don't live in other dimensions, after all - and other animals also practice homosexual sex, it is entirely natural. You don't get to merely assert your opinions as universally true. There are plenty of us who demur.

As to disgust: I am disgusted with much of Christian doctrine, especially that of blood atonement, but I don't propose to make it illegal (although I wish it would go away).

[Aaron]

"Aaron" please don't use my name to make slurs. It is childish and silly. If you want to make moronic comments, be man enough to do it under your own name or at least use your own pseudonym.

[seeker]

It's all a matter of personal taste, whether innate or learned.

I'd say that such a simple hypothesis could be tested, and we could get real numbers. I'm sure you would like it to remain just a matter of personal taste, and perhaps numbers would not dissuade you, but that doesn't mean that the risks of anal sex can not be quantified and compared to other sexual activity.

In fact, here's a nice article from Slate entitled Ass Backwards: The media's silence about rampant anal sex. For instance, here's some stats showing that you are 5 times more likely to get HIV from anal sex than from vaginal, and 50 times more likely than oral sex.

Because anal sex is far more dangerous than oral sex. According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math. Oral sex is 10 times safer than vaginal sex. Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex.

In fact, the article goes on to quote the CDS and just WHY anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal:

A CDC fact sheet explains the risks of anal sex. First, "the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the [HIV] virus to enter the body." Second, "condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex." These risks don't just apply to HIV. According to the new survey report, the risk of transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases is likewise "higher for anal than for oral sex," and the risk "from oral sex is also believed to be lower than for vaginal intercourse."

Of course, this does not mention monogamous relationships, except to say that the thin lining of the anal wall probably makes it unsuitable for sex (i.e. not designed for it), and there are other diseases associated with anal sex, including rupture of the rectum (rare but life-threatening), Heptatis A (lethal, and transmitted via contact w/ feces), and anal cancer, to name a few.

Of course, the risks for both hetero and homo go down when promicuity is removed,
but anal sex poses some unique and significant risks that seem to indicate that it is not healthy.

Whatever occurs in nature is, by definition, "natural."

That is not a valid argument. It's just a quibble over words. The use of the word "natural" has two meanings - one is "anything that occurs in nature." But when used in the "argument from/against nature," we are talking about what leads to life and health.

And are you arguing that because animals do it, it is ok for humans to do it? I doubt it.

[Louis]

Well, my view is that humans are about the most "unnatural" species ever to walk, swim, or slither on the earth. In fact, one could make the argument that "nature" evolved humans precisely to be unnatural. Need I enumerated the various and multitudinousness ways in which humans violate nature's predilections? From airplane travel to trips to the moon; from artificially lengthening life via everything from antibiotics to surgery to public health to personal hygiene; from longings for immortality to suicide; and, most cogent here, sex for just about everything aside from procreation. Nature just doesn't figure in. In fact, you are imposing an artificial definition of "natural" on the topic because you have a religious ax to grind. As humans, we create our own definitions of what is natural. If we hadn't, we'd still be naked on the veldt. So your brandishing your boogie-man "natural" holds no water and is a genuine bore.

And, yes, there are risks to promiscuously engaging in anal sex. I, for one, don't. But in more responsible circumstances, there's little to none. The problem is promiscuity and irresponsibility. I suspect that if you could get past your visceral disgust we'd agree more than not. I also suspect that you hold a distorted view of most gays' lifestyles.