Wednesday, July 6, 2011

My Views on Homosexuality

I do not intend for homosexuality to become a major topic of this blog.  However, there are a few things that I would like to discuss related to that subject (which I will discuss further in subsequent posts). 

I would like to see homosexuality become irrelevant (in the context of identity).  I do not see why it has to be a big deal; and, for many people, it isn’t.  I wish that I would have known that growing up.  However, I still see homosexuality being made a big deal of, especially by gay people themselves.  Unfortunately, in order to reach the goal that I have, I see it as necessary to bring attention to.  I thank everyone who has contributed to this effort already.  I will try to do what I can, in my own selfish way. 

When discussing this subject, I tend to be brash.  My goal is not to offend people, but that may be a necessary by-product that I am more than willing to risk.  I recognize the distinction between people and their ideas and values.  Those ideas and values are my ultimate targets.  I respect that people have views that differ from mine, and I believe in Ronald Reagan’s attributed philosophy that “any person who agrees with me 80% of the time is my ally.”  I try to be tolerant of people that do not fit that criterion.  However, if you are not tolerant of me, there is no way in hell that I will be tolerant of you. 

Edit: To clarify what I am trying to say in this post, I am reluctant to discuss homosexuality because I would like to see it become irrelevant.  However, I feel that it is currently necessary to discuss because one's sexuality is still an issue (i.e. it is not yet irrelevant), and in order to make it irrelevant, it must be discussed.  In other words, I believe that the more people know about the true nature of homosexuality (i.e. that it is not a definitive aspect of one's identity) the more irrelevant it will become.  

And, a side note: I very much encourage criticism.  This is a learning experience for me, and will continue to be.  


  1. I'm not sure I follow. Your goal is to see homosexuality (or sexual orientation in general, I suppose) become irrelevant. But in order to do so, you must keep talking about it. Is that it? I think it will cease to be an issue when everyone stops talking about it.

    On that note, why oppose gay marriage if homosexuality should be irrelevant? If a church is willing to do it, and two gay people are willing to do it, why get the government involved?

  2. I agree that it will no longer be an issue when people no longer talk about it. But, that is not currently the case. I think that I should speak out against the orthodox "gay community" because I see many gay people making their sexuality a big part of their identity (gay pride parades are an example of this), and I see this as counter-productive to my goal. Does that make sense? Also, I did not intend for this post to be my final post on this subject. I see now that I failed to mention that. I will add that.

    I oppose gay marriage because I don't think that the well-established institution of marriage should change just because a group of people thinks that it is unfair. However, I support alternatives, such as civil unions.

  3. Obviously what I do with consenting adults in private sexually is not something that I am comfortable drawing attention to - let alone politically - but neither am I going to lie and pretend.

    It's a tricky path. I tried to walk it with a previous blog (Born Again Redneck) that I did for 8 years because most of my regular readers were straight Christian conservatives who were attracted by the "born again" in the title. I eventually gave up and started an unapologetic "gay" blog. BTW I loathe the term "gay." I'm a homosexual.

    Like you, I'm not a proponent of "gay marriage" but neither am I an opponent. It's a free country and it's what some gays want. It's not easy being a true classical liberal.;)

    Thanks for the link, Naamloos. (BTW being an Afrikaner I know that naamloos means anonymous.)

  4. In addition, I do not really believe that government should be involved in marriage.
    Like I said, I would support some form of alternative. If a church wants to call it marriage, then that church would have to answer to its members, I suppose. And I am not saying that I think gender should be irrelevant, only sexual orientation. There are fundamental differences between male and female that do not exist between heterosexual and homosexual. I would be happy to go into more detail or to clarify anything.

  5. Aardvark, to be honest, I don't like the idea of sexuality being a major theme in my blog; but, I also have strong opinions on the matter. Hopefully, I can get some things, relating to homosexuality, out of the way soon so I can focus on other things later.

    On a related note, I am writing a post on nomenclature (of homosexuals). May I ask why you do not like the term "gay"?

  6. You: May I ask why you do not like the term "gay"?

    Me: Yes; it's stupid, disrespectful and undignified. Are we men or simply sex-crazed moronic muppets with drooling dicks? I actually prefer "androphile" but that sounds too pretentious.

    You: Hopefully, I can get some things, relating to homosexuality, out of the way soon so I can focus on other things later.

    Maybe - but you may have to settle for something less tidy. Life's never perfectly neat. I look forward to watching you unfold and find your voice.

  7. I was unaware that the term "gay" had that sort of connotation. That is definitely something to consider; maybe I will have to rethink some of my wording.

    Technically, the word "androphile" is less accurate than "homosexual" because it also applies to straight women. But, obviously, if you use it self-referentially, that would be irrelevant. Personally, I prefer technical terms, regardless of whether they may be considered pretentious (even though I don't always use them; mostly for the sake of either brevity or expedience).

    I may have to settle for something less tidy. My goal was to have a blog that is simply "conservative." However, given that most of my blog's visitors were directed through GayPatriot (to a post in which I mentioned my sexuality, no less), I feel myself deviating from that original goal. I'm not complaining though.

    By the way, I would appreciate it if you refrained from using inappropriate language (i.e. drooling...) when commenting on my blog. I do appreciate your comments, though.

  8. The word "gay" was first used by British Victorians to describe the lowlife of prostitutes, (male and female) sailors, drunks and druggies. Sadly the urban gay scene is still pretty lowlife.

    I also prefer homosexual but it makes it seem that I only love men for sex. There's a lot more to it than mere sex.

    I did a post about "Androphilia by Jack Malebranche" here:

  9. I see what you’re getting at. I don’t think sexuality is irrelevant but it is receiving too much uncritical press focus from one side of politics.

  10. Ben, I don't think sexuality is irrelevant, per se. Obviously, being a homosexual will have some effect on my life. I apologize for not being more specific... I only think it is irrelevant in the context of identity. That is, just because I am gay, it should not be assumed that I am a whiny, effeminate liberal. And, that is the case for many other people as well. How I view it is that people bringing attention to their difference (i.e. their homosexuality) is supporting the generalizations people may make about homosexuals. I hope I didn't make that more confusing.

    I agree with you on the press.


I will not tolerate irrelevant or inappropriate comments. Any such comments will be deleted. Please do not use sexually explicit language.