A growing, and insoluble, dilemma for non-liberals in liberal society: homosexual-couple neighbors, with children
last year a reader of The Thinking Housewife
has had several lesbian couples
move to the neighborhood where he and his wife live. How relate to such neighbors? What to do about one’s children playing with their children? How do we arrange our lives in a society where perversion has been normalized and is everywhere?
The problem may not have a solution on the individual level. We all know the saying, “All institutions, not explicitly conservative, turn liberal over time.” Well, given the relentless spread and normalization of homosexuality in our society, it may also be the case that all neighborhoods, which do not explicitly exclude homosexual couples, will have homosexual couples move in over time, and thus become homosexual-couple-friendly, or even homosexual-couple dominated, neighborhoods.
And the same principle would seem to apply to society as a whole. Meaning that only a society that explicitly refuses to normalize homosexual relationships can remain homosexuality-free over time. This is yet another factor that may ultimately push traditionalists to secede from America.
- end of initial entry -
Clayton S. writes:
I read your recent post which was influenced by the Housewife blog on difficulties surrounding homosexual couples moving into a neighborhood and having some possibly deleterious influences particularly on neighboring children, if the couple has adoptive children or progeny by AI.
My reason for sending this is that your comments are the first that I believe I have ever encountered on the internet regarding the fact that the die was cast a long time ago when the culture and the society progressively began to accept this perversion into their midst. It is now, I believe, to late to rectify the absolute damage being done to this society by this acceptance.
I, for instance, have relatives that believe sincerely that homosexuality is an inherited trait and thus one cannot legitimately discriminate against the behavior harshly. There is absolutely no real scientific evidence regarding this thought of inheritance. You will not ever convince these relatives otherwise. This, I feel, is an illustration (albeit, personal) of the degradation of thought of the true reality of this lifestyle among the general population. The destruction on the culture, I believe, is unfathomable.
I might add this. I am a retired physician, and saw the devastation wrought by the lifestyle of these people. I actually witnessed an abdominal operation in which repair was carried out on an individual whose colostomy had been sodomized. The colostomy, of course, was the after result of a previous sodomy. Lesbians, of course, fly under the radar so to speak, with regard to sensational health problems, but they have their own problems.
I, therefore, thank you for stating the obvious.
Jeff C. writes:
I read your note about lesbian neighbors and then read the original entry at thinking housewife.
Like many people, I’m not really understanding a basic point, though I now and then read articles that purport to explain it.
What is wrong with homosexuality? I gather that a small percentage of any population prefers to be intimate with their own gender, and while we can ascribe an action to choice, the preference seems not to be a choice, but is likely to have been solidified early in life, if not in utero.
Males tend to be weakened by the lack of women in their lives, true enough; and I don’t want those men raising children because men are often disasters if they not intimately affected by the longer-term horizons of women. So it seems correct that the stigma attached to lesbian behavior is less than the stigma attached to the equivalent behavior in men.
I can appreciate that people think, “Homosexuality (or at least male homosexuality) is wrong because God said so.” If we can put aside scripture——or at least strive to understand the reasons for its restrictions——can you explain why you think it important for a society “to remain homosexuality-free over time”? And does it strike you as even possible?
My short answer is this: the objection to homosexual conduct is not based only on “God says so.” That’s a superficial view of the matter. It is based on every dimension of human existence: on human nature, on human society, and on religion.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 06, 2010 09:45 AM | Send
Here are some VFR articles/entries on homosexuality and homosexual “marriage,” from the Word document linked on the main page, “VFR articles, arranged by topic.” If you have more questions on the subject after reading some of these, feel free to write back.
How is homosexuality to be understood? [Major discussion, 2003, including consideration of heterosexual sodomy: “By defining the sexual ideal in restrictive terms as heterosexual marriage sans sodomy, a particular argument for the legitimization of homosexual sodomy is closed…. A tentative approach to the problem that I seem to have arrived at is that society should not recognize desires for heterosexual sodomy as legitimate or moral, regardless of how subjectively pressing or “naturally inevitable” such desires may seem to the person himself. Therefore the same restrictions would logically and fairly apply to desires for homosexual sodomy. That is my tentative answer to the problem of subjectivity that I raised.”]
Is it possible to make a religious argument against homosexuality in a non-religious society?
Are homosexual acts right?
Homosexual marriage is a logical and necessary outcome of liberalism
Why homosexual liberation is incompatible with our political order [“Liberty and self-government require a cohesive culture, which in turn requires strong family ties, which in turn require traditional sexual morality…. It’s hard to see how normalization of homosexuality can be reconciled with a free self-governing society.”]
Marriage and homosexual “marriage”
NR waves the white flag at homosexual marriage 
Ponnuru calls conservatives anti-homosexual bigots
Fleming opposes the marriage amendment [Followed by a long discussion on the pros and cons of the amendment, with me continuing to criticize strongly those conservatives who oppose the amendment.]
The diffidence of conservatism, part 978
David Brooks’s NYT op-ed supporting homosexual “marriage” [November 2003]
A talk on homosexual marriage [Notes for the talk I gave on homosexual marriage to the College Republicans Club, New York University, December 1, 2005.]
Beware of Brooks! And, how to criticize homosexuality [A comment by me in 2003 at Lucianne.com warning the L-dotters not to be suckers for the liberal Brooks calling himself a conservative.]
Let the states experiment with same-sex marriage, says Will [In the same week that David Brooks supported homosexual marriage, so did George Will.]
A prayer for our country [written May 2004, four days before Massachusetts instituted homosexual “marriage”
On the brink [May 2004: “I am having trouble relating to politics as usual, to our cultural problems as usual, to the Iraq crisis as usual, and even to the United States of America as usual, when in a few hours this country will be stepping over the brink into official rebellion against the divine and natural order of the universe.”]
Jeffersonian utopian homosexual liberationism runs up against the awful awful reality of America [After passage of anti-homosexual marriage referenda in 2004 election, a young homosexual writes, “I don’t know what country I live in anymore.”]
A traditionalist approach to the marriage amendment
The Times’ response to the passage of laws defining marriage as consisting of a man and a woman [After Prop 8 passes in California, Times says that to define marriage as consisting of a man and a woman is to “enshrine bigotry.”]
Newsweek’s brainless assault on biblical and Christian truth; and, does marriage have an essence? [Includes an extensive discussion about marriage with libertarian reader Mack, who had many basic questions.]