- Conservative “orientation”?
The reality of homosexual recruitment.
The invention of “sexual orientation.”
Equation of “sexual orientation” with race.
Disagreements among homosexuals themselves
about the nature of homosexual behavior.
Unproven claims and biased research on
the biology of homosexuality.
Use of self-assessments as evidence to the
nature of homosexual behavior.
Use of violence and intimidation to force
acceptance of homosexuality.
Efforts by homosexuals to obstruct people
seeking relief from homosexual impulses.
Promotion of homosexual lifestyles via
propaganda and sentimentality.
Invention of homosexual “ethnologies.”
Conflation of ancient homosexuality with
Equation of bias against homosexuality
with other prejudgments; e.g., race, sex,
The sociologically dysfunctional nature of
The moral confusion inherent in homosexual
Spiritual and physical pathologies intrinsic
The absence of moral courage in the face of
The social and individual benefits resulting
from suppression of homosexuality.
Questionable “outings” of historical figures.
Existence of open homosexuality as a motive
for hatred of America.
The reduction of objections to homosexuality
to simply matters of ignorance, bigotry . . .
The “personal to political” motivation under-
lying gay activism.
The worldview implications of embracing
homosexuality as normal.
The reality of homosexual recruitment.
If homosexuals are “born not made,” then why do individual homosexuals admit to and engage in recruitment?
How does the claim that “genuine heterosexuals cannot be recruited into homosexuality” facilitate the mainstreaming of homosexuality into public life?
How does that notion facilitate exposure of children and young people to what would otherwise be understood as recruitment?
How does the assertion of “born not made” respond to parental concerns with public school teachers who are openly homosexual?
How does it justify programs — sometimes mandatory — encouraging young people to question their “gender identity”?
How does it lead to the establishment of homosexual support groups in schools and the referral of troubled youth to those groups for “help”?
The invention of “sexual orientation” as a justification of homosexuality.
Where and why did the idea of “sexual orientation” originate?
Which of the following aspects of life are part of “sexual orientation”?
How many “orientations” can be constructed from the preceding factors?
Which of the preceding “orientations” are grounded in something really real? Which should be “privileged”? Which might suggest impure motives on the part of those who would assert them?
What are the dangers of “reification” — of thinking concepts (e.g., “sexual orientation”) produce effects in the real world (e.g., “frotting”).
Do heterosexuals owe their existence to homosexuality or vice versa?
How can a homosexual orientation ever be ontologically equivalent to a heterosexual orientation? What part of gay activism is driven by deep-seated intuitions of ontological inferiority? Can social acceptance ever ease those dark intuitions?
Equation of “sexual orientation with race.
How does the concordance of sexual orientation among pairs of identical twins compare to concordance for drug addiction? What about unwed pregnancy?
How do twin studies show that homosexuality is not monolithic?
What evidence do twin studies provide for recognition of an “addiction orientation”? Is concordance for sexual orientation among pairs of identical twins greater or less than a fair coin toss?
How can twin studies be used to prove sexual orientation is not really real in the same way that race, for example, is real?
How well do self-reported racial identifications correlate with genetic markers?
How well do self-reported sexual identities correlate with genetic markers?
What degree of correlation would be reasonable if sexual orientation were treated like race?
In light of genetic evidence, why is society so eager to affirm sexual orientation and so wary of affirming race?
Why is the gay community so lacking in moral authority that it must claim kinship with the civil rights movement in order to make a claim on the conscience of the larger society?
What are the requisites of moral authority and how does the gay community stack up against those criteria?
Disagreements among homosexuals themselves about the nature of homosexual behavior.
Is homosexuality a matter of nature or nurture? Chosen or innate?
Is it something to be celebrated or resisted?
What ethic governs homosexuality? How does it differ from heterosexual ethics?
Which form(s) of homosexuality is/are society supposed to accept?
Unproven claims and biased research on the biology of homosexuality.
How much of the evidence in favor of a biological basis for homosexuality comes from “advocacy researchers” — i.e., researchers who have prior commitments to justifying homosexuality?
How much of that evidence has been validated? How much has been shown to be defective?
Why is such research always aimed at justifying homosexuality rather than curing it?
Use of self-assessments as evidence to the nature of homosexual behavior.
How does the human need for a “personal narrative” make self-assessments particularly error-prone?
What’s the chance of “I’ve always felt this way” actually being true?
Use of violence and intimidation to advance mainstream acceptance of homosexuality.
Why do gays find violence and intimidation necessary to advance their cause?
If violence and intimidation are justifiable in advancing gay demands, why aren’t they justifiable in resisting those demands?
Efforts by homosexuals to obstruct people seeking relief from homosexual impulses.
Should homosexuals be permitted to “come out” in response to the “discovery” of their heterosexuality the same way heterosexuals “come out” as homosexuals?
If homosexuals can block attempts at changing gender identity, why shouldn’t heterosexuals do the same?
Why should the change in gender identity from straight to gay always be a “one-way street”?
How much do we know about the causes, prevention, and cures of homosexuality? How much of that information is suppressed by gay activism?
Use of propaganda and sentimentality to promote homosexual lifestyles.
How do gay activists conflate “fact” with “meaning” to promote acceptance of homosexuality?
Would the discovery of a genetic link (fact) for homosexuality necessarily imply (mean) that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted?
How many people know about Matthew Shepard? How about Jesse Dirkheiser?
Invention of “ethnologies” to give homosexuality cultural status.
Does homosexuality really have an ethnology or has it simply existed on the margins of many cultures?
Does heterosexuality have an ethnology? What about celibacy?
Conflation of ancient homosexuality with modern-day practices.
How does ancient Greek and Roman homosexuality compare with present-day sensibilities toward same-sex sexuality?
In light of differences, how can ancient practices be used to justify present-day behavior?
Equation of bias against homosexuality with other prejudgments; e.g., race, sex, and religion.
Is homosexuality like religion and subject to change?
Is homosexuality like race and morally neutral?
Or is homosexuality fraught with moral implications– like the fact of being male or female?
If so, what are those implications?
The sociologically dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships.
Will the channeling of male sexuality into monogamous heterosexual unions unravel in response to the legitimation of same-sex sexuality?
How can a decline in the status of women and children be avoided in the face of that unraveling?
The moral confusion inherent in homosexual lifestyles.
When is a “peeper” not a peeper? ANSWER: When the man in question dresses as a woman and claims the right to use the ladies dressing room.
Since gay sexuality has nothing to do with procreation or child-rearing, how can homosexual morality escape being either (1) a caricature of heterosexual morality (e.g., gay marriage) or (2) its negation (promiscuity)?
In terms of virtue, how do we know a “good gay” when we see one. If the virtue of a horse is in its swiftness and the virtue of a knife is in its sharpness, what is the virtue of a gay? What is the “telos” (end or design) of gayness?
How can gay communities stigmatize bad behavior within their own communities without being guilty of the same hate speech of which they accuse heterosexuals?
On what grounds can the gay community make a claim on the conscience of individuals or society at large?
What offense to moral sensibilities does the “AIDS Quilt” represent?
Do gay activists take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths their agitation caused during the early days of the AIDS virus?
Why do gays “out” their own against the wishes of their victims?
Why have we changed from (1) a society that used to protect children against exposure to homosexuality to (2) one that now confers children on gay couples in order to legitimate same-sex relationships?
Do homosexual marriages give or receive legitimacy through adoption of children? What about heterosexual marriages?
Spiritual and physical pathologies intrinsic to homosexuality.
Should the costs of gay lifestyles (financial and otherwise) be shifted to the general population? Or should gays bear the full consequences of their behavior?
Would such a shift put the prosperity of the larger society at risk?
How is the public good served by making gay lifestyles more attractive and accessible?
The apparent lack of moral courage in those who are silent in the face of gay advocacy.
But first . . .
Is moral courage even possible without moral clarity?
Do gay advocates seek moral clarity? Or rather a different morality?
The social and individual benefits resulting from suppression of homosexuality.
Do people experiencing same-sex attraction live longer, healthier lives in a society that suppresses homosexual behavior or in one that encourages it?
Does a society promote life and health by suppressing same-sex sexuality or by encouraging it?
If equality of real money with play money wipes out the value of money for everyone (counterfeiters included), then why wouldn’t the equality of gay marriage with heterosexual marriage likewise wipe out the meaning of marriage for gays and non-gays alike?
Do humans have natural affections, negative and positive? Do natural affections motivate uncivil responses to homosexuality? Can uncivil reactions be eliminated without undermining natural affections? How does the suppression of homosexuality simultaneously prevent abuse of natural affections AND abuse of homosexuals?
Questionable “outings” of historical figures to make homosexuality appear respectable.
Was the Apostle Paul a closet homosexual because he spoke against same-sex sexuality?
Was Jesus bisexual because he loved both Mary and Martha along with their brother Lazarus?
Who could not be “outed” based on such reasoning?
Existence of open homosexuality as a motive for hatred of America.
Do radical Islamists use the openness of homosexuality in America as a recruitment tool?
What aspect of American life most effectively prevents moderate Muslims from speaking out in defense of America?
The reduction of objections to homosexuality to simply matters of ignorance, bigotry . . .
Is name calling on the part of gay activists a dodge to avoid legitimate questions?
Is criticism of same-sex sexuality hate speech?
If gays claim to “embody” homosexuality as part of their “nature,” how can opponents separate aversion to (1) the “notion” of homosexuality from (2) the “people” who engage in homosexual behavior?
Should the conflation of (1) “ideas” with (2) “persons” be challenged as a disingenuous way of shielding questionable ideas and questionable behavior from critique?
The “personal to political” motivation underlying gay activism.
Does the heedlessness of same-sex sexuality inspire confidence gay activists are seeking the public good in “going public”?
What part does a guilty conscience play in gay activism?
Are gays willing to put innocent people at risk to gain what they want? What about calls for eliminating restrictions on blood donations? What about the forcible “outing” of homosexuals by other homosexuals? What about demands for ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” regardless of impact on national security?
What about unwillingness to “go public” when it comes to public health?
The worldview implications of embracing homosexuality as normal.
In terms of worldview . . .
NATURE OF HUMANITY:
Do manhood and womanhood have essential natures and hence essential virtues?
NATURE OF HISTORY:
Is history being re-written to justify a modern-day ideology of same-sex attraction?
NATURE OF ULTIMATE REALITY:
Is ultimate reality itself by nature homophobic?
SOME FINAL QUESTIONS:
How much of the preceding content is religious in nature? Homophobic? Or more pointedly, how much is grounded in common-sense reservations about hasty acceptance of lifestyles that raise so many unanswered questions?
Is American society more likely to indulge homosexuality or oppress it? If oppress, then why are gay activists exempted from conventional critique?
And finally, does gay activism deserve the indulgence of having its dogmas go unchallenged? Or does it have a lot of answering to do?
Updated and re-posted from 30 Sep 2011
Tags: - Homosexuality, aids, AIDS Quilt, bisexual, bradley manning, concordance, conscience, gay adoption, gay marriage, gay rights, gender confusion, homophobia, jesse dirkheiser, lesbian, marriage, matthew shepard, moral authority, moral neutrality, narth, national coming out day, ontology, race, same-sex attraction disorder, sexual orientation, slavery, ssad, telos, twin studies, tyler clementi