I had a conversation with Anissimov, Bayne, and Mandrake on homosexuals. So I thought I’d write some.
Obviously, homosexuality is a sin and a perversion. That’s clear in the Bible. A man committing homosexual acts or lusts should stop, repent, and fall on the mercy of Christ.
On a societal level, ideally, homosexuality would be illegal, but the social mores and laws would make the privacy of individuals and the ability of police intrusion into the home and workplace so constrained that unless men were riding each other on the side of the street, nobody would get arrested for it. In fact, this is my position on most degeneracies, be it drugs, pornography, drunkenness, masturbation, gambling, prostitution, etc. Technically illegal, but as long as you keep it private there’s no way you could get charged..
This is not because I hate homosexuals (or johns or druggies or gamblers, etc.), but because it is what it best for society as a whole and for homosexuals. For society, these sorts of degeneracies tear at the edges of civilization: civilization is the family and sexuality is meant to bring husband and wife together to produce families and civilization.
For homosexuals, this behaviour is self-destructive. I don’t really have to explain the prevalence of AID’s and STD’s. But even just beyond the physical problems, the acceptance of this behaviour is psychologically destructive. I wrote on identity recently, when homosexuality is publicly accepted, as it is now, a homosexual can’t just be a guy who privately has sex other men, he must be out of the closet displaying his pride. It’s not that disconcerting, at least on a societal level, that some men like sticking their dicks in other men’s anuses, but what is is that these men base their identity, their sense of self, their spiritual sense of place, around the fact that they take hedonic pleasure is sticking their dicks in other men’s anuses. This is the true personal horror of the homosexual movement, that it pushes men into reducing themselves to their base hedonic tastes rather than identifying themselves with something more valuable.
(As for those who argue homosexual “marriage” will tame these effects, most don’t get married and most homosexual “marriages” are open. So, the impact is minimal, if it even exists.)
On a personal level, as I’ve written of clinical pedophiles, being predisposed to a particular sin is just a predisposition, and I don’t judge people for thought crime. As for friendships with homosexuals, I’ve answered this on Ask.fm before, it depends on their beliefs and how they go about it. If they are non-Christian I wouldn’t care as long as they kept it to themselves and weren’t annoyingly ‘flamboyant’ or creepy about it; Christ hung-out with degenerates. If they were Christian it would depend on their position: if they accepted it was sinful and were struggling with temptation I would support them and nothing would change. If they started to accept it as non-sinful I would cut Christian fellowship with them (after requisite admonitions). Although, I may still hang out with them in secular contexts (given the earlier caveats on flamboyancy), although, I’m not sure on this.
This is not entirely theoretical. When I was younger, I had a Christian friend come out as gay. At first, nothing really changed; he accepted that gay sex was sinful. Sadly, he slowly went down the dark path of acceptance. He let his whole identity get wrapped up in his homosexuality, to the point it was probably his main identity and he was alienating himself from others. He then started saying it wasn’t the sin. It got to the point where the friendship ended more or less mutually (he lost a number of other friends around the same time). He is the only gay I’ve ever really known.
In regards to (neo)reaction, I have no problems with a person who has predisposition and resists it being a part of, or even a leader in, (neo)reaction (assuming they didn’t act effeminate). Someone who is acting on a predisposition it can not be a leader, but as long as they aren’t promoting it, aren’t letting it taint their work, aren’t causing other troubles, and are keeping it private, I wouldn’t necessarily boot or shun them. For example, I read and respect Jack Donovan, despite his homosexuality, because he mostly keeps it to himself. I didn’t even know he was gay until some time after I had already read his work. I still wouldn’t follow him though.
Anybody who is trying to turn (neo)reaction pro-gay or is trying to normalize homosexuality should be immediately booted. There is a difference between tolerating or over-looking a personal degeneracy and accepting or promoting said degeneracy. The line can not be crossed.
As for working with those outside (neo)reaction I am willing to make limited alliances with useful homosexuals, just as I am willing to make limited alliances with anybody useful. An example mentioned was Milo. He’s not a close ally and I wouldn’t trust him elsewhere, I would consider him a loose ally on the issues of Gamergate and Sad Puppies, which may include linking to or retweeting him on that issue and trying to avoid attacking him unnecessarily.
So, there it is. My current thoughts on homosexuality.
It may be interesting to compare your view of gays and fornicators…
E.g. i suppose you wouldn’t have problem if someone who’s not married but lived with his girlfriend was some kind of neoreaction leader, would you? (I’m not part of NR but I think I can quite safely assume there are such people).
Did you cut christian fellowship with all of your friends who live in sexual non-marital relationships? Would you be unsure if you should hang out with such people in secular context?
My point is that many Christians are very vocal about their opposition against homosexuality (and I mean really homosexuality per se, not homosexual “marriage”) but opposition to fornication seems like a fighting ground they completely abandoned for lost and it’s not because one is more sinful than other but just because fornication is so common (>90% in lifetime) that they would look like complete idiots to fight against it in such manner they do with homosexuality, but with something that is problem of <5% of population it's way easier…
Do you think that is the mainstream view in NR? Or is it more like something
(usual disclaimer about English not being my native language)
P.E.,
In answer to your question you could read this book from the Archbishop with a section detailing how some sins are more grievous than others, those sins specifically. http://www.anglicanbooks.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=59&idcategory=11
A.J.P.
I don’t think “in the closet” tolerance is going to be a workable strategy. John Stuart Mill, the arch-liberal, listed homosexuality as the only vice which couldn’t be tolerated in a liberal society (under the euphemism of “the decadent vice”, of course) and necessitated criminalization and some level of real enforcement. While most vices are done for the pleasure of the vice, homosexuality alone is a vice which makes one miserable the more it is practiced. Mill claims that it progresses in four stages:
First, the homosexual blames the law for his misery, and campaigns to have his vice decriminalized. When this is done and he is still miserable, he blames the stigma against homosexuality. When this is reversed, he blames the lack of recognition (or equality) given to homosexual relationships. Finally, when given this recognition and he still finds himself miserable, he blames society for failing to praise and participate in his vice. Even when this is done, the homosexual is still miserable, but has shared his misery with others. Nothing is capable of removing the miserable character of homosexuals except abstaining from the vice.
Mill ends the narrative here, but remember that Mill is 1. an (or possibly the) arch-liberal and he is still admitting these facts, and 2. writing this in the late 19th century, the previous homosexual epidemic. Homosexuality is unique as a vice and does deserve the extra scrutiny it gets from Christians because of its virulent harmful effects. All sin is equal but some vices are more damaging to society than others, and claims of special animus against homosexuals are bunk. More harmful vices deserve more scrutiny.
Pilgrim @ I don’t mean to sound like an apologist for fornication, but I think there is an important difference between fornication and homosexuality that FN implicitly recognizes in this post. Fornication remains something that a person does, and has not become something a person is. In the general culture we have Fornicator Pride Parades (Slut Walks), young people “come out” as Fornicators (announce that they are “sex positive?”), and there is what we might call a Fornicator Rights Movement (Sandra Fluke), but I’m not aware of young Christians rocking the churches with demands for Fornicator (or even Fornication) Acceptance. If you read Dalrock, you will know that he thinks Christians sold the pass on this question when we accepted the romantic construct of “dating,” “boyfriends,” “girlfriends,” etc. He’s probably right that these terms are very often euphemisms for fornication, and that Christians are far to willing to wink at sin by using them, but euphemisms (like hypocrisy) are a “tribute vice pays to virtue.”
I am old enough to remember when a homosexual man were called a “bachelor” and the man he lived with was called his “roommate.” These were euphemisms like “boyfriend” and “girlfriend.” Of course it wasn’t altogether fair to heterosexual bachelors who shared an apartment, just as the euphemistic “girlfriend” isn’t altogether fair to the chaste and literal girlfriend, but this is the way normal societies uphold their moral standards and accommodate reality. And this is how Christian churches operate. We are all sinners, and we can accept that so long as a sinner does not conspicuously embrace his sin and begin to demand that it be counted as no sin.
So yes, many young Christians fornicate, but many of these feel guilty about it, and almost all of those who don’t feel guilty, at least pretend to feel guilty. And among those who only pretend to feel guilty, a fair number come to feel guilty later in life. So, as of yet, there is no big push for us to accept Sex Positive or Polyamorous Christians. (I know there is a small push. It should be squashed.)
It may very well be that we are incubating the foot soldiers of such a movement in our present regime of hypocrisy, euphemism and winking at sin, so I am not defending that regime. I’m only saying the position of Fornicators and Homosexuals in the churches is not identical.
FN, I will say that I (mostly) agree with you, and very strongly agree with your last point. I do, however, have one point of disagreement.
You say that closeted homosexuality (along with other vices) should be technically illegal but never actually punished. One of the major problems with our society is that we have so many laws that only exist on paper and are inconsistently enforced. (Think illegal immigration, drinking at sporting events, speed limits, marijuana, and concealed carry.) I must say that I am a Formalist, and if you’re going to arrest people for doing X, you should make it clear, and if you’re not going to arrest people for X, you should make that clear.
@Alan J. Perrick:
if you can’t be bothered to reword the argument yourself, it probably isn’t good enough. Anyway, it’s quite ridiculous to suggest someone he pays to be proved wrong.
@JMSmith:
You are turning it into church context specifically, whereas FN was more general.
That said, there is no difference between someone who is cohabiting with his “girlfriend” and someone who is sodomizing his buddy privately.
FN laid out the argument in a way that your interpretation is not viable –
Pilgrim @ I’ll admit that I was guilty of cohabitation, many, many years ago. I was a non-believer then; but I have since sincerely repented for this. And not just formal repentance for what my church (RC) defines as a grave sin, but genuine remorse and reorientation.
You seem to imply that Christians wrongly elevate buggery to the supreme sexual sin, and in this I think you may be right. In fact, I think the fixation on buggery has caused Christians to grow carelessly permissive when it comes to other forms of sexual misconduct. But this is at least partly due to the fact that gay liberation is being used as a club with which to beat orthodox Christians and orthodox churches, and the beating is far from finished.
You compare a cohabiting couple with a homosexual who is sodomizing his buddy. In that case, one might argue that the cohabiting couple is in a worse position, so far as sin is concerned. They are not only sinning, but are also, by renting and furnishing an apartment, expressing their intention to go on sinning. They have embraced their identity as Fornicators. The two boyfriends, on the other hand, may have fallen in an ongoing struggle with sin.
I understand FN to be saying that we should act with charity so long as the sinner is genuinely struggling against the sin, and I think this is correct. Acting with charity is, of course, very different than encouraging them to believe that their sin is, in fact, no sin.
Strong post as always, one thing I enjoy about your blog is that you take clear moral stands without coming across as unrealistic or blindly overzealous. I think your diagnosis and prescriptions are dead on. The point about how homosexuals compound the moral issue by strongly identifying with their sin is worth emphasizing. As C.S. Lewis points out in Mere Christianity, sexual sin is by no means the most serious kind, and God knows all about the strong biological forces that can tempt man in that direction.
No, the worst sin is Pride, and one common expression of pride is to declare that we, not God, are the arbiters of right and wrong, and who do you think you are to judge, anyway? “It’s who I am, bigot!” The reason this is so serious is that it entrenches one in a position where repentance is almost impossible, and is easily extended to cover other types of sin we don’t feel like giving up. I don’t know for sure but I have my doubts whether God will forgive sins that we refuse to accept as sins, even when confronted with them. “In the end there are only two types of people: those who say to God ‘Thy will be done’, and those to whom God finally says, ‘thy will be done'”.
I freely acknowledge that people who fornicate and deny the sin of doing so are in the same position. Trying to navigate this in a way that is both pragmatic and true to Biblical values is one of the many delicate balances a modern Christian has to strike (on the other hand it’s not like anyone is throwing us to the lions).
Bonus points for recognizing that non-gays who shill for gays are in the end just as problematic. The pride issue is still there, as they are brazenly denying the black-letter text of Scripture (not to mention natural law and common sense) in favor of decadent modern fashion.
You would make masturbation illegal? Most of the male population would be in jail.
we should really invest money in investigating gay rams and possible viral culprits. the likeliest cause of obligate male homosexuality is some pathogen affecting sexual targeting that strikes in utero or early age.
it’s honestly the biggest bang for the buck NRx project I can think of.
Essentially, we are in agreement here.
However, FN, it is worth noting that even as you say, legal penalties concerning things that can very easily done in private are rarely enforced anyway, we must flesh out what the Reactionary State would look like culturally on this issue, and why then any kind of brash intrusion into people’s private lives by authorities would be unnecessary.
In a Reactionary State, the people themselves would exhibit traits that would severely curtail the practice of sodomy, no state involvement required.
1) Being in the public space would not be safe for such people because there might be vigilante violence and discrimination against them mainly perpetrated by common men. This affects all kinds of things, especially employment and housing, and is a natural phenomena.
2) Fathers would be HIGHLY invested (especially in their male heirs), and so one of them practicing sodomy and thus not only staining his family’s name but jeopardizing his chances of creating further heirs down the line, would be tantamount to rejecting the family, and as such the person would be outcast by his or her family members.
Obviously, society will always have some that engage in this practice, with some getting away with it and others not being so lucky. And this isn’t a problem. It has always been with us, just like rape and murder. However, if the laws are right and the culture follows where those laws point, the problem shrinks to a barely noticeable annoyance. And this analysis applies to the general practice of sodomy.
When it comes to the ‘Pride’ movement, and as you say, this Modern push to turn depraved sexual habits into an actual identity far more meaningful to people than (as your anecdote suggests) even their religion, or indeed their ethnic allegiances, that needs to be stamped out with brute force. There is an absolutely zero tolerance policy in the Reactionary philosophy for this kind of insanity.
Homosexuality is unique among sins (I think) in that it is the only one in which the sinner is proud of the sin and wants to let the world know about it. But rare is the adulterer who takes pride “pride” in their adultery. Are there others?
@Robert – fornication to some degree, especially among the youth who have been corrupted by the sexual psychological theories of men like Kinsey. Formal hatred against God of the Stephen Fry caliber may also be an example of prideful sin. Unique about the sodomites, is that there is now an endemic and INSTITUTIONALIZED pride in this sin. The sin of sodomy today, can ONLY be viewed through the lens of pride, according to our cultural elites of course.
Given the divorce rate marriage is cohabitation and fornication
@Mark Citadel,
Very apt description: “institutionalized sin”.
No such thing as “homosexual man” or “gay man.” This is incredibly subversive language. Men are not sexually averse to females nor sexually attracted to males nor are they sexual narcissists.
“John Stuart Mill, the arch-liberal, listed homosexuality as the only vice which couldn’t be tolerated in a liberal society (under the euphemism of “the decadent vice”, of course) and necessitated criminalization and some level of real enforcement.”
Im sorry but could you tell me where in Mills writings I can look it up?