The State of Our Unions (Cancel My Subscription To the Wall Street Journal)

Wall Street Journal ^ | Wednesday, October 8, 2003 | ANDREW SULLIVAN

[presidio9]

It didn't take long for many social conservatives to ponder the long-term implications of the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down all antisodomy laws in the U.S. Moves are afoot to advance a constitutional amendment that would bar any state's legalization of same-sex marriage; next week is "Marriage Protection Week," in which the alleged danger of Lawrence v. Texas will be highlighted across the country. This push toward blanket prohibition, however, sidesteps a basic point about the post-Lawrence world. Whatever you feel about the reasoning of the decision, its result is clear: Gay Americans are no longer criminals. And very few conservatives want to keep them that way. The term "gay citizen" is now simply a fact of life.

[AAABEST]

I guess it would be possible to reduce that percentage through massive repression and Taliban-like levels of legal and physical intimidation, but that hardly seems worth it.

Not true at all. You should think things through more thorougly if your intention is to get at the truth. I've noticed the latest pop_new-think item is to throw "Taliban" at those who desire a higher standard.

For the record I don't support legal or physical intimidation against gay people. Now that you've forced me to take time to undistort my argument, back to the subject at hand.

Gayness really wasn't much of an issue until very recently in Western culture. It's not an issue at all in many cultures that don't have a Taliban. These cultures have a collective ethos (as ours did until very recently) that determines what's healthy and unhealthy in society. This by it's nature protects and keeps the integrity of the collective which is why it's compassionate.

Yes there's a very good reason why they used to not let pregnant teens on the cheerleading squads and there's a very good reason why homosexuals that couldn't repress their urges kept to themselves, as opposed to frolicking in bathhouses and giving seminars to school children.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you really do think that you're a forward thinker and that the pain and mistakes made by our ancestors is irrelevant. Such a philosophy dictates that we're much smarter and more evolved than they were and now we have figured out a way to codify abberative (is that a word?) and destructive behavior and not suffer their consequences. Even though they scream at us through the ages to look to their example, we arrogantly ignore them and their gift to us.

I won't mention biggest element of all.... God, as I gather you don't want to go there.

[ffusco]

The op-ed is the first thing I read in the WSJ every morning. Not to be missed.

[gridlock]

I'll go with God. Absolutely.

Didn't mean to call you a Talibani. I guess you're right, that's the reducto ad Naziim of the modern age.

I was just trying to suggest that there are a large number of people who will make counter-cultural choices simply because they are counter-cultural.

We have a very liberal society which accepts a lot of things that previous generations would have found unacceptable. This is a great strength to our culture, but also a vulnerability as you point out.

My point is that government intervention will only lead to the victory of those you oppose. Cultural and religious wisdom should be preserved by cultural and religious institutions. The Boy Scouts should hold the line. The Catholic Church should preach doctrine to the ends of the Earth. The Protestants should fight the tide.

But the government will never be their ally. The government will side with the modernists, every single time.

[iranger]

"Sullavan is Gay he is also consevative It's rare but quite possible Sullivan is usually quite honest in his opinions .... as is conservativism"

I prefer to think of Sullivan as a gay guy who has conservative tendencies.

[Elle Bee]

LOL

.

[CDHart]

"The only way to save the institution of marriage is to separate it as much as possible from the government."

Much as I hate to admit it, you're right. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it shouldn't be up to the government to bless or condemn it as long as individual rights are preserved.P>Carolyn

[green iguana]

"Did you know that in many cultures there is no such thing as gay?"

Source please. I've never heard of a culture that does not have homosexuals as a small minority.

[green iguana]

"There are many legal, noncriminal minorities in society toward which social conservatives have a "negative social policy"."

You don't have to bring social conservatives into this point. When I read this op-ed in the WSJ, the line "if homosexuals are no longer criminals for having consensual private relationships, then they cannot be dismissed as somehow alien or peripheral to our civil society" just leapt out at me. This is a specious argument that Sullivan bases his whole piece on.

There are many non-criminal behaviors which can be readily dismissed as "peripheral to our civil society." For example, the two ladies that I have known who each lived alone with over 30 cats (and I like cats) are both very peripheral to society.

[AAABEST]

My point is that government intervention will only lead to the victory of those you oppose.

I can't stress enough how much I agree with you on this. I wouldn't contend otherwise.

I'm glad we got a handle on each other's position. :)

[robertpaulsen]

"You don't have to bring social conservatives into this point."

I didn't -- Andrew Sullivan did when he asked the question, "Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy?".

I just answered it.

"There are many non-criminal behaviors which can be readily dismissed as 'peripheral to our civil society'."

I agree. And homosexuality is one of them, legal or illegal, criminal or not. And that's where I like it -- on the periphery.

[AAABEST]

I worked with a vietnamese guy (great friend) who was over 30 years old that told me honestly that he never heard of homosexuality until he came here. To be fair I told him that I was sure there were gays from his homeland, they just didn't make themselves known.

Not too long ago many Americans and most children in America wouldn't know what "gay" or homosexual was. It wasn't an issue because gays were few and far between and open gays for the most part didn't exist.

You certainly wouldn't see openly gay men prancing around on mainstream TV shows giving other men makeovers or taking positions of leadership. Whether rampant homosexuality is the symptom or a contributor to societal decay (or both) there is no doubt about the fact that where you find one, you'll find the other.

Now I should rephrase my statement to say - as you allude to - that in most cultures there is usually small minority of gay men (in or out of the closet) but in many you won't hear of it, so the societal pollution factor is irrelevant.

[neverdem]

From my Vietnamese dictionary the noun for homosexual and homosexuality is expressed as follows in the Roman alpabet:
Nguoi dong tinh luyen ai - although that "string" of syllables lack the necessary diacritical marks above or below the vowels which tell the reader various inflections that need to be applied to the vowels.

That dong is in there is just a co-incidence.

Hand holding between friends of the same sex while walking in Viet-Nam is normal and doesn't mean they are homosexual. The reaction this elicited in new GI's was funny. This is a common custom in many countries.

[AAABEST]

Thanks for the informative post and FReepmail.

[waRNmother.armyboots]

"Is sodomy a prerequisite for same-sex marriage?
Yes. "


Actually no...I took care of a homosexual in a "committed relationship" and he stated that he believed you had to be masochistic to want anal sex. He thought it was perverted, but he and his partner practiced oral sex.

Now you can go vomit.