Posted on 02/19/2009 11:41:26 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
Warning: This article contains sexually explicit language.
I’ve been a libertarian my entire adult life. Libertarianism, as I’ve been an apologist for it, is a philosophy promoting individual rights, civil liberties, and the freedom to have manifest destiny over one’s own life and property. I am opposed to the government telling people what they can do with their minds and bodies. I am consistent on this whether the issue is consensual intimate relations between adults, or the freedom to self-medicate and self-entertain oneself using the agricultural or pharmaceutical product of one’s choice, or the responsibility of parents to choose what their children are taught about how the human race came to be, or whether it’s regarding the decision of a woman not to carry a fetus to term in her womb.So when I have to explain to my daughter, who phone-banked in the November 2008 election against California’s Proposition 8 by which the California electorate voted to amend their Constitution restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, why I’m opposed to California courts overturning the vote she lost, it requires an explanation of my grounding principles and my firmly grasping sharp ideological nettles.
Let there be no mistake. I favor absolute equality in law for adult individuals who prize the liberty to have intimate relations with, fall in love with, and make life commitments to other individuals of their own gender. I favor laws enabling institutions to grant equity to same-sex couples in matters of habitation, inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation and fiduciary decision-making. If there are to be civil rights laws forbidding discrimination in employment, housing, and use of common facilities, and laws forbidding hate crimes, on the basis of race, color, religion, or ethnic origin, then I see no reason why gender preference is worth either less or more than these other collective categories for receiving grants of legal protection.
But none of that means I’m going to favor up-ending constitutional principles to favor a specific group’s pleadings, nor do I think a struggle for civil rights entitles one to thuggery, nor am I willing to embrace hypocrisy, the destruction of language, rewriting history, and lies just because some people have justifiable grievances.
Let’s start with the lies contained in the use of two common terms: “homosexual” and “gay.”
There is no such thing as “homo” sexuality, unless by that term you are referring to sexual relations between two members of the species homo sapiens.
Sexuality refers to the natural biological processes by which living organisms reproduce. In mammals, primates, and homo sapiens, this natural process requires gametes supplied by both males and females. Gametes supplied by two males will not cause reproduction. Gametes supplied by two females will not cause reproduction. Only gametes supplied by the copulation of males and females will cause reproduction – and you can teach whatever propaganda you like in taxpayer-funded and politically decided “sex education” curricula and no children will result from the attempts of the students to copulate otherwise.
This is not to say that everything that heterosexuals do with each other is sex, either. It isn’t. The term “oral” sex is also a misnomer, as I’m sure former President William Jefferson Clinton would be happy to inform you. Neither is “anal” sex a biologically correct term. Despite parental or church propaganda, sticking a penis in either a mouth or an anus cannot lead to pregnancy. If Juno had given her boyfriend a blowjob there would have been an entirely different movie.
Non-progenitive behavior is sex play, power play, love play, or molestation, depending on the intents and consent of the participants. But inasmuch as no reproduction can result, these are not sex acts and those engaging in them are not defined by their acts as “sexuals,” homo, hetero, or else wise.
In my 1983 novel, The Rainbow Cadenza, I invented a neologism to describe men who were physically attracted only to other men. I called them “andromen” using the Greek root for male. I’ll continue using my own term for the remainder of this screed. The term “lesbian” needs no redefinition and I’ll continue using it as well.
From the standpoint of reproductive biology, andromen and lesbians are chaste. They may cohabitate, and love each other. They may pair-bond into brotherhoods, sisterhoods, or families. But unless they find a partner of the opposite sex to mix their gametes with, they are not sexually active. Any condoms they use are solely for the purpose of preventing the spread of diseases, which not only are sexually transmitted but also non-sexually transmitted through intimate encounters that exchange bodily fluids. But these condoms are irrelevant to preventing a pregnancy, which can not result from these intimacies.
So let’s put another lie to bed. AIDS is not only a Sexually Transmitted Disease; it is also a Non-Sexually-Transmitted Disease. I would dare say that it would be hard to find a case where the HIV virus was ever transmitted through a sexual encounter in a San Francisco “gay” bath house -- unless one of the participants was a female pretending to be a male and the male partner was somehow manipulated into inserting his penis into her vagina and ejaculating therein.
Since males who are attracted only to other males are sexually abstinent, they are perfect candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood, which requires their priests to be celibate – that is, to refrain from marriage. Likewise, lesbians – being sexually abstinent – are perfect candidates to be nuns, since their “marriage” to Christ need never be physically consummated. For some reason I’ve never been able to fathom, neither the Roman Catholic hierarchy nor the activist movements for andromen and lesbians are comfortable with this obvious lifestyle perfection.
And, in my opinion, the unwillingness of “gay” organizations to stand up for Catholic priests when they are caught engaging in non-sexual acts with other males is the sheerest hypocrisy and poltroonery.
While we’re at it, let’s dispose of the label “gay.” It’s false-to-fact propaganda. Being physically attracted only to members of one’s own sex does not make one happier than being physically attracted to members of the opposite sex. If anything, the social stigma has tended to cause a great deal of unhappiness. Being expressively flamboyant, liking Broadway show tunes, being artistically creative, and liking gourmet cooking may indeed make one gay. By those definitions I am gay. But I’m not willing to stick my penis into another man’s anus or mouth, or have another man stick his penis into mine, to complete my initiation.
I understand that scriptures deriving from the Hebrews – Jewish, Christian, and Islamic – have been interpreted as being harsh toward same-sex couplings. I’ve read the Bible and I understand why ancient nomadic tribes, being low population and economically marginal, placed a high utility on reproductive behavior -- and why their cultures reflected an understandable hostility towards gangs of thugs sneaking into their camps and molesting their men. I just don’t think God’s instructions to these ancients was specifically applicable to men who set up housekeeping in West Hollywood or the Castro.
But it’s offensive to me when a church service is invaded by something that looks like the cast of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. It’s offensive to me when an old lady holding a cross at an anti-Proposition 8 protest has the cross ripped from her hands and stomped on. I understand the long-standing provocations but this grudge match between Queers and Bible Thumpers has got to stop.
What also has to stop is the attempt by andromen and lesbians to norm social acceptance of their lifestyle preferences by pretending that marriage is a civil right they are being denied. Marriage has always required consummation and this they cannot do with each other.
Nor is it right that in their hunger for social acceptance they are willing to corrupt the judicial system such that a state’s attorney general and state judges sworn to uphold a state’s constitution – and deriving whatever legitimate authority they have from that constitution -- are demanded to ignore a polity’s majority vote to enshrine a millennial-old custom in their state’s constitution, and stage a political coup to overturn it.
My darling daughter.
You want to disestablish marriage as a legally regulated institution entirely? As a libertarian, I’m with you.
You want to amend the California constitution so that any two or more adults who want to get married – including groups of men and women in any number and mixture – may legally do so … I’ll cross the border from my home state of Nevada to help you campaign for it.
But don’t tell me that “gays” have a greater right to marriage than Mormon-offshoot polygamists. That sort of special pleading that ignores the historical discrimination against others just revolts me. If you want your daddy to line up with you to defend someone’s civil rights, then they’re going to have to respect the civil rights of everyone else and not expect more political privileges than any other homo sapiens – whether we homos arrived on this planet through the good graces of God or Charles Darwin.
# J. Neil Schulman is a libertarian writer, activist, and filmmaker.
That title has some double entendre’s apparently. I figure if all gays would straighten up, no one would be gay.
MEGoody wrote: “Making the claim that God’s word does not apply to people today is certainly in direct opposition to what scripture teaches. From a scriptural perspective, the writer of this article would be much more like the false teachers scripture warns of than Jesus. Therefore, calling the person who said this writing was ‘of the devil’ a Pharisee shows a complete lack of scriptural underestanding.
“Annie’s behavior is much more readily likened to that of Jesus or one of the apostles than a Pharisee.”
Scripture means “writing.” Scripture is written. The writers were human beings. The translators were human beings. The readers and interpreters are human beings.
The Reformation that distinguished Protestant Christianity from the Catholic Church was precisely on the right of individuals to read and interpret scripture free from the dictated interpretations of a self-anointed and self-perpetuating clergy.
God gave me the power to read, write, interpret and think. I am neither more nor less empowered by God to read and contemplate the meaning and applicability of scripture than any other human being gifted with an independent soul and a free will by our Creator.
Those who deny this freedom are, as I said, committing the same sin the Pharisees did when Jesus taught them a new interpretation of existing scriptures.
Neil
“The problem Lot was having is not that the Sodomites were andromen”.
50sDad said it better that I, but what I am getting at is that in the Genesis passages the crowd of Sodomites takes on a life of it’s own. It’s almost like a ravenous beast. It won’t listen to reason and it won’t be thwarted until it gets what it wants - the satisfaction of it’s lust. If violence is necessary, then so be it.
“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them... “
This is the collective nature of the sodomites/andromen. That same nature is evident in their collective actions in the current day and may become more so as events progress.
The Bible describes that collective nature as demonic.
Mr. Schulman is straining credulity to only consider as sexual, those acts which are, or are designed to be, pro-creative. Seems terribly silly to me for someone to try to push that notion. If an action involves the use of ANY sexual organ, it it a sexual act, plain and simple.
Because of this notion, he's twisting the meaning of celibacy. Yes, one definition is someone who remains unmarried, but the definition used by the Church in dealing with priests, or men and women in the committed religious life means not having sexual relations with anyone, whether those relations are pro-creative, or not.
Neil, it’s been so long since I’ve seen one of your posts, I’d forgotten that you post here. Nice seeing you again. It’s been a while since I read “Stopping Power”.
They're called "Wills, Contracts, and Power of Attorney". Look into them sometime.
L
L
“...my firmly grasping sharp ideological nettles.”
That’s hysterically funny.
Matters of inheritance are dealt with by a legal instrument known as a "Will".
Medical care decisions are dealt with by a legal instrument known as a "Power of Attorney".
Neither one of these legal instruments requires the State or Federal governments to become involved in the question of what is or is not a marriage.
L
Lurker,
Thanks!
For myself, I wonder just what marriage accomplishes that can’t also be accomplished by a well-drawn up living trust with living will provisions.
Neil
Personally I don't think the State should be involved in it one way or the other. It's none of their business to whom I chose to bond myself religiously, assuming of course that all parties involved are doing so willingly and are of the age of majority.
We as human beings allow the State to intrude far too much into matters that are quite frankly none of their damned business.
Frankly I'm pretty much fed up with it.
I found your article to be very good in its logic and construction. I really have only any nit to pick with it.
As a libertarian I find abortion to be an almost completely unjustifiable act of violence against a totally innocent third party. To my way of thinking it's completely contrary to Libertarian principles. Once they zygote has attached itself to the uterine wall you have, scientifically speaking, a human being.
Killing it as a matter of convenience is abhorrent to me.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Thanks for the article. It's good to see the voice of reason around here from time to time.
L
What do you make of the distinction between “marriage” (religious) and “civil union” (legal)? That would at least seem to accomodate the fact that the government (or, ideally, other institutions filling its current role in keeping the peace and settling disputes) has a different role than religion (specifically, that the former has obligations to be just and evenhanded that are not binding on the latter).
Lurker,
I incline to the original belief, unrevised by the biological sciences of gestation, that one becomes a human being when the soul enters the body at first breath.
I find it ironic that so many “fundamentalist” abortion opponents do so on the basis of a modernist biological view that either ignores the question of ensoulment or holds to the absurdity that a soul can fuse with an undeveloped zygote.
Neil
It’s not so much what I believe that’s at issue but what those with the agenda of extending marriage to same-sex couples wish to accomplish. California already had domestic partnership laws on its books when they pushed for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples. The agenda to norm the acceptance of same-sex coupling won’t stop at the government marriage license bureau but is being pursued as vigorously toward acceptance on the church altar.
thefrankbaum wrote: “How exactly do you deal with issues of inheritance, medical decisions, etc.?”
Living trusts which contain provisions for powers-of-attorney and living wills.
See above - intestacy issues? It is a nice thought, but people often do not have updated legal arrangements in place.
I didn’t say the guy was the devil....stop lying.
Yes, I saw that warning - thank you. And, I stand by my comment regarding this tripe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.