The film is set in the 1960's which is something I didn't know until recently. Societal opposition to homosexuality would be even more pronounced in that context.
We both know such marriages have happened and continue to happen and will continue to happen. Why oppose their open and exclusive homosexuality, while attacking their sham with these wives? Your position boils down to one calling for either compulsory reeducation or eradication of homosexuals. That's completely untenable.
My statement has little to do with re-education of homosexuals and has nothing to do with eradication of homosexuals. You imply that because I assert that because both homosexual behavior and adultery is immoral, my statements are untenable.
Your use of the word eradication implies that I am hateful and bigoted. "Kill them all!" is what eradicated means, after all, and knee-jerk accusations of bigotry are a tried-and-true method to suffocate debate. I did not imply that; you have inserted it into your comprehension of my words. My assertion is a criticism of the morality of the film's expositions, evocations, and implications.
Once these men made a commitment to others in marriage, they must deny participation in all former relationships. To do otherwise is adultery. This is true for any marriage, and to espouse an immoral liaison for any reason - which is what the film attempts to evoke - is an illegitimate suggestion. This film asserts a moral relativism that is common and fashionable today, of course, but which is nevertheless unacceptable. Sexual orientation cannot legitimize adultery.
Apparently, you conclude that to obtain a valid argument, I must either approve of homosexual behavior as morally equivalent to heterosexual behavior or somehow rationalize adultery into a practical and acceptable expedient. In that case we must allow the men to be closeted within their marriages, discounting the betrayal of their vows to their wives as a necessary, practical solution for their desires. However, the ends never justify the means. A lie or betrayal is never justified by personal desires.
I did not address what society must do about homosexuals, but since you have suggested that I did - by claiming I must espouse compulsory re-education or eradication of homosexuals - I will suggest a reason for your assertion. I think your assertion that my position assumes forced re-education or eradication of homosexuals rises from an assumption that homosexuality is of biological origins (which, even if that were a scientific fact, would not affect moral constraints in the use of sex in any case). What if homosexuality is not biological at all, or if it simply is evidence of a predisposition of choice?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.Interestingly, the leading proponent of the normalization of homosexuality in 1973 (Dr. Robert A. Spitzer) has published a paper that confirms sexual reorientation therapy [Spitzer Study Published: Evidence Found for Effectiveness of Reorientation Therapy]. While Spitzer's findings are qualified and limited to a small portion of the homosexual population, it is an admission of a prominent psychologist (who happens to be homosexual) that homosexuality is not purely biological in all cases, and in those cases how else it be called anything but a psychological disorder?The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
...
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:
It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made."
The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.
That the MSM does not covey all the facts, or even get the ones they report substantially correct is a valid and great doubt. But the left-leaning MSM philosophy certainly has no objections to advancing the gay agenda. It is part and parcel of the me-generation's philosophy.
There is another consideration. What if homosexual behavior is inherently harmful both to homosexual individuals and to society?
[A Commentary on The US Surgeon General's Report on Sexual Health]
If outsiders' "anti-homosexual attitudes" were the cause of negative outcomes among persons engaging in same-sex attitudes, then one would expect to see fewer negative outcomes in counties and cities where these attitudes were less prevalent. But a recent study from the Netherlands (Sandfort 2001) reports that prevalence of a number DSM-III-R Disorders, including mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders, was significantly higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals--even though, as the authors admit: "Compared to other Western countries, the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been, and remains, considerably more tolerant." (Sandfort 2001)
Or
Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.Or
Anal intercourse increases the likelihood of anal cancer 4000%
...there are substances in seminal fluid called 'immuno-regulatory macromolecule' that send out 'signals' that are only understood by the female body, which will then permit the 'two in one flesh' intimacy required for human reproduction. When deposited elsewhere, these signals are not only misunderstood, but cause sperm to fuse with whatever somatic body cell they encounter. This fusing is what often results in the development of cancerous malignancies. (See "Sexual Behavior and Increased Anal Cancer," Immunology and Cell Biology 75 (1977); 181-183.)
Or
The researchers note that when the American Psychiatric Association debated in 1973 about whether or not to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, many psychiatrists supported deletion because of the supposed "equality in mental health status of homosexual and heterosexual people." Yet there is now substantial disconfirming evidence of that equality in mental-health status, the authors say, and "recent studies applying a more rigorous methodology" show that there is "substantial support" for the idea that gay men and lesbians are, indeed, less psychologically healthy than heterosexuals.Sandfort et al. list other studies which support their findings. In one, "young people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation were found to be at increased risk of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse/dependence, and suicidal behaviors."
In another study, "middle-aged men who reported ever having had male sex partners were at higher lifetime risk for various suicidal symproms...even after controlling for substance abuse and depressive symptoms."
In yet another study, homosexually active men were found to be at greater risk of major depression and panic attack syndromes, while lesbians were more likely to be dependent on drugs or alcohol.
The authors of the Sandfort study suggest a number of possible reasons for the difference in mental-health status. They suggest loneliness, difficulty in finding and keeping longterm partners due to the lesser stability of gay relationships, different social norms of the gay world (i.e., the acceptance of promiscuity), and the stress of social stigma--although the latter is, the authors admit, considerably less of a factor in The Netherlands (from which they drew the study population) than in other Western countries.
The point is that objecting on moral grounds to homosexual behavior is not implicitly a hateful act, which is what I think you suggested by saying that my objection to the blatant immorality of Brokeback Mountain is untenable. My statement is simply a recognition of the agenda of the film, and that evocating sympathy for the subjects of the film tends to obscure the immoral nature of their betrayals. This is especially easy to do when one accepts unconditionally the fashionable but unsubstantiated claims that homosexuality is biological and not harmful to the homosexual individual or society as a whole.
There is a very unpopular but growing body of work that confirms the harmful effects of the homosexual lifestyle. One might conclude that unqualified and uninformed support for the homosexual agenda may be more harmful to individual homosexuals than one can possibly imagine. By making it normative, and by branding anyone questioning the current fashions of psychology a bigot, one may be denying someone treatment for a potentially serious psychological malady. Trying to suppress debate or dissemination of knowledge by crying "Bigotry!" helps no one.