Family Values Still Threaten GOP

[william.scherk]

Regarding homosexuality itself... there is another seldom mentioned factor, and that is the trauma of childhood sexual molestation and its ability to imprint the victim with the sexual identity of the perpetrator through the victim's own emotional reactions to being violated.

[...]

Childhood sexual molestation is the foundation upon which homosexuality rests.

This is completely unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, and itself evidence of profound ignorance.

Just check the logical entailments of Greg's sweeping generalization. He is first of all making a causative claim -- that in each situation where male homosexuality found adult expression, we can trace back each life and find an instance of sexual abuse on that male child by a male, an abuse that caused future homosexuality. Each homosexual will show this history.

Then consider lesbians. Each future lesbian in Greg's general theory of sexuality will have a history of child sexual abuse by a female.

Edited June 5, 2014 by william.scherk

[moralist]

There is no path from the current state to a laissez faire society. Everything points to more of the same and worse, until and unless we establish a libertarian enclave, free of external government, which is an occasion for adopting a new system of law.

Your most excellent vision is not out of reach, Wolf...

For the first place to begin to build "Galt's Gulch" is in your own life. As a personal expression of being a free man... first free yourself. And that freedom will grow to include your loved ones who are within your sphere of personal influence. All it takes is for you to be the first one to set the moral tone, and the world in your immediate surroundings will graciously acquiesce because it answers to exactly the same moral law to which you are answering.

Thermonuclear war might be the only hope of achieving it, but I think it slightly more probable that social collapse will come first, not unlike the scenario of Atlas Shrugged.

...all the more reason to build your own Gulch. It's not so much a literal place as taking a moral stand in your dealings with others. Doing what is morally right offers protection from the evil in this world. It's referred to in the Bible as the "breastplate of righteousness" (not to be confused with self righteousness which offers no protection at all, and even worse, draws evil to you)

Perhaps I should reconsider my objection to Ed Hudgins' efforts to liberalize the Republican Party and thereby destroy it. One-party rule by welfare state looters and moochers would hasten social collapse and inspire more families to expatriate.

What you described is already happening, as people get the government they deserve for demanding it to make others pay their bills.. But I don't believe the solution is to run away in defeat... but rather to establish a beach head right where you are... right now. For disaster is never totally uniform, so it's your own personal responsibility not to become collateral damage.

Greg

[moralist]

This is completely unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, and itself evidence of profound ignorance.

Nevertheless, it is my view that childhood molestation causes homosexuality when the emotional trauma is not internally resolved in adulthood. It's the dirty little secret of which no one dares to speak. So there... I've just said it again.

I couldn't care less what you or anyone else says, because morality is not determined by popular collective societal consensus. Leftist political correctness has no relation to morality other than to be a fake version of it, tailor made for fools who worship consensus.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Perhaps I should reconsider my objection to Ed Hudgins' efforts to liberalize the Republican Party and thereby destroy it. One-party rule by welfare state looters and moochers would hasten social collapse and inspire more families to expatriate.

What you described is already happening, as people get the government they deserve for demanding it to make others pay their bills.. But I don't believe the solution is to run away in defeat... but rather to establish a beach head right where you are... right now. For disaster is never totally uniform, so it's your own personal responsibility not to become collateral damage.

Wolf, Greg recommends obeying reality. He understands that righteously campaigning against gay marriage by Republican presidential candidates is not optimal for a party that wants to win the White House. He would happily vote for a gay-marriage-supporting candidate and has already done so in the past.

It is striking that Ed's argument has been consistently misread and poorly translated. It's main points have been re-articulated several times. Can it be that Wolf does not understand that it is the population as a whole and Republican consituencies themselves that have "liberalized"? That the entire younger generation of Republicans is out of step with elder party cadres on the topic of gay marriage, gay adoption, anti-gay discrimination?

Okay, so the argument is misunderstood. At the great risk of hammering a hole through the drum, let me spell it out as simply as I can, in the form of a riddle:

The Republican Party platform is strictly opposed to gay marriage;

It's top ranking hopefuls have campaigned against gay marriage

(some individual Republicans have put on their kooky pants)

The general population (especially the young) is not so strictly opposed.

IF the GOP insists on campaigning against gay marriage nationally

The 'other party' will exploit this issue

Some 'swing voters' will swing away from the GOP because of this issue

What is the Republican Party to do, to win, given the state of play ... ?

Now, I understand that Wolf is philosophically disabled from voting, but he might still solve the riddle. Greg might help Wolf to see wisdom, to appreciate the stance of a prospective voter calculating political reality -- and the politically necessary response.

Put aside Greg's 35-year partner-in-capitalism handshake with the gay hotelier. Put aside all the vile sexual abuse said hotelier perpetrated upon the next generation of gays. Put aside the gay sexual abuse he suffered. Put aside all such odd and nasty things and look at this stinking world practically, in political terms.

Wolf, if you could vote, would you advise the party to stress opposition to gay marriage, at the risk of the prize of office?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A civil union places a relationship under family law.

I can understand why people would want that (for inheritance reasons, etc.).

A marriage is basically a public commitment to love, honor and cherish the spouse until death in obedience to the sanction of some authority or other.

To think that people fight for the right to do that.

Well, if that's what they want...

Michael

[william.scherk]

This is completely unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, and itself evidence of profound ignorance.

Nevertheless, it is my view that childhood molestation causes homosexuality when the emotional trauma is not internally resolved in adulthood.

Yes, your view is unsupported by any evidence. Yes, you don't care about evidence or what I or any other reasonable person might bring forward to counter your assertion.

This is hilarious in a way. On a forum where most folks -- Objectivist, Objectivish, or not -- value reason most highly, a righteous voice proclaims a wildly implausible theory of homosexuality, says evidence be damned, suggests he alone holds the truth and that further rational inquiry is unnecessary. I have to hand it to Greg. He has killed his own argument dead without external aid.

I couldn't care less what you or anyone else says.

Well, yah, I think we get the picture. An irrational idea impervious to reason, fingers stuffed in ears, mouth grimly set. That kind of thing.

Edited June 5, 2014 by william.scherk

[moralist]

Wolf, Greg recommends obeying reality. He understands that righteously campaigning against gay marriage by Republican presidential candidates is not optimal for a party that wants to win the White House. He would happily vote for a gay-marriage-supporting candidate and has already done so in the past.

Exactly.

There are far more important moral issues than homosexuality. To jeopardize those overriding issues for the sake of seeking the fantasy of ideological purity is just plain stupid.

Put aside Greg's 35-year partner-in-capitalism handshake with the gay hotelier. Put aside all the vile sexual abuse said hotelier perpetrated upon the next generation of gays. Put aside the gay sexual abuse he suffered. Put aside all such odd and nasty things and look at this stinking world practically, in political terms.

Your imagination of the situation is highly inaccurate to the point of lying. You do much better describing your own point of view than misrepresenting the views of others. That bespeaks a certain weakness.

Buildings cannot be evil because they are inanimate objects Only people can do evil. The sexual abuse, violence, and murder was perpetrated solely by homosexuals to other homosexuals, as each deserved the other.

Greg

[moralist]

Well, yah, I think we get the picture. An irrational idea impervious to reason, fingers stuffed in ears, mouth grimly set. That kind of thing.

You follow the popular collective societal consensus of what is right and wrong... while I do not.

It's as simple as that.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

The Republican Party platform is strictly opposed to gay marriage;

It's top ranking hopefuls have campaigned against gay marriage

(some individual Republicans have put on their kooky pants)

The general population (especially the young) is not so strictly opposed.

IF the GOP insists on campaigning against gay marriage nationally

The 'other party' will exploit this issue

Some 'swing voters' will swing away from the GOP because of this issue

Wolf, if you could vote, would you advise the party to stress opposition to gay marriage, at the risk of the prize of office?

Exceptional circumstances tempt people, from time to time, to do the wrong thing. My wife and I voted for Sarah Palin in 2008 because it was an historic opportunity to say yes to an unscripted, spontaneous, fundamentally decent, intelligent, courageous gal from Alaska. Our votes were cast in the slim hope that McCain would die in office. Winning or losing was not important to us.

In a similar way, I vote with my pocketbook. My daughter and I attended a private fundraiser and donated money to Lt. Col. Allen West's reelection campaign. Two motives: to support another unscripted, spontaneous, fundamentally decent, intelligent, courageous individual, and to show my daughter that members of Congress are just like ordinary people. It was a civics lesson that turned out very nicely. When Col. West ascended a stairway to speak, he called for all the kids in attendance (of which there were three) to join him, and my daughter stood next to him for 20 minutes and heard him talk at length about cutting the size and scope of government, rather than burden the next generation with mountains of debt. It was not important whether West was reelected, and in fact he was skunked by redistricting.

Now we come to the case of Ed Hudgins likewise doing something wrong in exceptional circumstances. If it were done openly and honestly, in defense of prominent homosexuals at TAS, that would be okay. But his stated reasons for championing "civil war" among Republicans is a bizarre argument for expediency and pragmatism in flagrant contradiction to the principles of Objectivism. It was also pointless. Hudgins is not an important voice as far as Republican voters are concerned. At best, it's another olive branch of tolerance offered to left libertarians.

Brant said it best. Marriage is not a hot button issue. Incapable of moving public opinion of Ayn Rand's ideas from negative to positive, Hudgins saw an opportunity to spill some electronic ink and pretend that Ayn Rand's legacy is really "social liberal" after all, just as pragmatic and callow as Barack Obama who finally saw the light on gay marriage.

----------

IN "SOCIAL LIBERAL" NEWS: Really, sometimes you just can't make this shit up.

CHICAGO - LGBTQ students at the University of Chicago are circulating a petition objecting to slurs that gay rights activist Dan Savage used during a exchange at the school's Institute of Politics event last week. They said they were made to "feel uncomfortable" by a "transphobic slur" used during Savage's presentation.

"Hex" and others met with the IOP Executive Director Steve Edwards, who reported on the meeting to the Chicago Maroon:

The incident occurred when, according to several sources, Savage and [the event hostess Ana Marie] Cox began discussing [savage's] personal history as a gay man. According to a first-year student and member of the LGBTQ community who asked to be identified as Hex, Savage used the slur t—– as an example in an anecdote about reclaiming words. Cox then added, “I used to make jokes about t—-ies,” audience members recounted.

“That was one of the most hurtful parts,” Hex said, explaining the perceived insult was that Cox used the slur to refer to the group of people she joked about. “In that context, it was like being applied to all transgender people,” it said. (“It” is Hex’s chosen pronoun.)

But the meeting did not result as the offended expected, so they set up a petition drive on Change.org, asking the IOP organizers to avoid offensive language and terminology being used in presentations in the future.

“We listened openly and sympathetically to the concerns about language and about the dehumanizing effects of language and expressed our desire not to be a place where dehumanizing language is used,” Edwards said. “At no time did we characterize the language from the event itself.” They also praised the students for standing up against what they perceived as an issue.

Edwards said the IOP is working with the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Student Life to develop future training for staff and the board.

[Brant Gaede]

This is completely unreasonable, unsupported by evidence, and itself evidence of profound ignorance.

Nevertheless, it is my view that childhood molestation causes homosexuality when the emotional trauma is not internally resolved in adulthood. It's the dirty little secret of which no one dares to speak. So there... I've just said it again.

I couldn't care less what you or anyone else says, because morality is not determined by popular collective societal consensus. Leftist political correctness has no relation to morality other than to be a fake version of it, tailor made for fools who worship consensus.

Greg

Some homosexuality? Most? All?

I'd think it would most likely screw up normal heterosexuality but not to the extent of making a heterosexual homosexual. In any case, how do you know what you think you know? Not dealing professionally with these matters, all I have are my own extremely limited experiences and observations. Freud couldn't deal with female patient after female patient relating sexual experiences as children with adult relatives so he came up with a lot of false memory explanations. I can imagine that leading to Lesbianism and male hatred, but don't know if it did or to what extent. As for boys, who comparatively did not report to Freud as men, how would their molestation lead to male hated (self hatred?) or homosexuality, even if they were victims of males, instead of driving them further into female arms? Because it was pleasurable? In that case take the boy to a whorehouse when he turns 18 and undo the damage. Ten visits ought to do it.

Homosexuality is not bad as such for homosexuals, but can turn bad when society and family dump on them and they flee to a ghetto, San Francisco (or a hotel). It can be worse for guys than gals for guys are generally quicker to get it on with each other than guys and gals--and gals and gals don't penetrate each other so easily, lacking the biological equipment.

If you "couldn't care less" why do you keep replying?

--Brant

[anthony]

Nobody mentioned the Kinsey Report? Wiki has an article worth reading, that seems accurate to my recall of it. The 7-point Kinsey Scale may be of interest. On its continuum, by his theory, many of us might not be as straight as we think we are...

[Brant Gaede]

Nobody mentioned the Kinsey Report? Wiki has an article worth reading, that seems accurate to my recall of it. The 7-point Kinsey Scale may be of interest. On its continuum, by his theory, many of us might not be as straight as we think we are...

Those who are are not "as straight as we think we are" then made a moral choice to be straight and are just "as straight as we think we are."

Genetics is not the only imput into sexual orientation. The ratio between nature and nurture is different in everyone. While sometimes nature overwhelms nurture regardless respecting orientation, ambiguity leading to choice leading to a commitment can lead to a 100 percent result and that should be respected for it's real. Teenage hormones are so powerful boys can fuck sheep. I doubt they keep that up for very long.

--Brant

[anthony]

Nobody mentioned the Kinsey Report? Wiki has an article worth reading, that seems accurate to my recall of it. The 7-point Kinsey Scale may be of interest. On its continuum, by his theory, many of us might not be as straight as we think we are...

Those who are are not "as straight as we think we are" then made a moral choice to be straight and are just "as straight as we think we are."

Genetics is not the only imput into sexual orientation. The ratio between nature and nurture is different in everyone. While sometimes nature overwhelms nurture regardless respecting orientation, ambiguity leading to choice leading to a commitment can lead to a 100 percent result and that should be respected for it's real.

--Brant

Quite. By "moral choice", you mean by rationally-selfish choice I am sure.

Why would it be any less rationally self-interested to choose to not be hetero?

At a point of sexual ambivalence, since choice is not engraved in stone, the choice might be self-repressive, I'm thinking. A choice is actually 100's of choices made a day.

[dldelancey]

Nobody mentioned the Kinsey Report? Wiki has an article worth reading, that seems accurate to my recall of it. The 7-point Kinsey Scale may be of interest. On its continuum, by his theory, many of us might not be as straight as we think we are...

Those who are are not "as straight as we think we are" then made a moral choice to be straight and are just "as straight as we think we are."

Genetics is not the only imput into sexual orientation. The ratio between nature and nurture is different in everyone. While sometimes nature overwhelms nurture regardless respecting orientation, ambiguity leading to choice leading to a commitment can lead to a 100 percent result and that should be respected for it's real.

--Brant

Quite. By "moral choice", you mean by rationally-selfish choice I am sure.

Why would it be any less rationally self-interested to choose to not be hetero?

At a point of sexual ambivalence, since choice is not engraved in stone, the choice might be self-repressive, I'm thinking. A choice is actually 100's of choices made a day.

If one believes survival is dependent on living as a heterosexual, it would not be rationally self-interested to live as a homosexual. Still, one can only be whatever one is. A man may date and have sex with women because that is what allows him to survive, but that does not change the fact that he doesn't gain any happiness or satisfaction from it if he is actually a homosexual.

[Wolf DeVoon]

 

A man may date and have sex with women because that is what allows him to survive, but that does not change the fact that he doesn't gain any happiness or satisfaction from it if he is actually a homosexual.

 

 

A psychopath may struggle to obey the law and hold a job because that is what allows him to survive, but that does not change the fact that he doesn't gain any happiness or satisfaction from it if he is actually a pederast, stalker, misogynist, and ax murderer.

 

Bryan Singer Accuser -- I Was Repeatedly Raped At Hollywood Orgies

 

Enough wiggle room for a sailor's shore leave in Bangkok. Let's agree that private life is private, that Hollywood has pool parties and gay teenage slaves, and that bad things like murder happen in Democrat-controlled Detroit and Chicago daily. The question is whether the Republican party should be indistinguishable from Democrats on gay marriage -- i.e., agnostic?

 

Old Potato Face said: Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

[Brant Gaede]

That was horrible, Wolf. But why are you examining a moral sewer to get at gays and not another moral sewer to get at straights, or have I missed something? As for the Dems vs Reps, it's fascists from the left vs fascists from the right, only do they really fight?

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

That was horrible, Wolf. But why are you down in the moral sewer to get at gays and not down in another moral sewer to get at straights, or have I missed something? As for the Dems vs Reps, it's fascists from the left vs fascists from the right, only do they really fight?

--Brant

I was trying to stay on topic (Ed's thesis). Personally, I'm on record in agreement with Wendy McElroy, that voting is immoral.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Good rational sense there. The prerequisite of a healthy and vibrant society can't be any other way I can see, then that "men are free from their brothers" - free, in order that they may then be able to respect and appreciate other people, one by one. Freedom does NOT presuppose that "groups" of others have the automatic right to your approval and acceptance, which is where progressivism leads us. You can think and feel what you want about e.g. gays, so long as you leave them alone (for instance I've some unease about gay adoption in general -although I've thought it worthy in the few cases I've observed - but to forbid it based on collective statistics or on one's feelings would be unjust).

Tony,

Although I would prefer to treat people as individuals, there may be no practical alternative to basing certain decisions on statistical analysis. One area in which it is almost universally agreed that people should be treated as members of groups is age-of-consent laws. Although one would ideally judge the sexual maturity of individuals, there is no practical way to do so from a legal standpoint, so we have statutory rape --- if a person above a certain age has sex with someone below that age and their ages are far enough apart, the older person is considered to be guilty of rape, regardless of whether the younger person consented or not and regardless of whether the younger person was capable of consent or not.

Another place where statistical analysis might play a role is immigration. It is a statistical fact that most immigrants vote for Democrats and for socialistic policies, so allowing immigration to occur too rapidly undermines individual rights. Restricting immigration might be unfair to people that want to enjoy the fruits of liberty in this country, but there is no practical way to protect the rights of the individuals already living here while allowing a large number of people to move here and become citizens.

Darrell

It is also a statistical fact that people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats 100% of the time. Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote? Allowing people to vote however they want might mean they vote in a way that we think is threatening to individual rights. Also, we should imprison anybody who disagrees with our politics in public. After all, if they are allowed to spew their anti-individualist propaganda, people might be convinced to vote for socialistic policies and would thereby become a threat to individual rights. Surely, there is no more 'practical' way to protect individual rights other than having the state do everything it can to protect individual rights from individuals.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote?

It would be nice to disenfranchise welfare recipients and government employees (school teachers, bureaucrats, cops, firefighters).

[Brant Gaede]

It is also a statistical fact that people who vote for Democrats vote for Democrats 100% of the time. Why don't we just make it so that people who vote in a way that we don't like lose the right to vote? Allowing people to vote however they want might mean they vote in a way that we think is threatening to individual rights. Also, we should imprison anybody who disagrees with our politics in public. After all, if they are allowed to spew their anti-individualist propaganda, people might be convinced to vote for socialistic policies and would thereby become a threat to individual rights. Surely, there is no more 'practical' way to protect individual rights other than having the state do everything it can to protect individual rights from individuals.

Right on!

--Brant

you go, girl!

[Brant Gaede]

That was horrible, Wolf. But why are you down in the moral sewer to get at gays and not down in another moral sewer to get at straights, or have I missed something? As for the Dems vs Reps, it's fascists from the left vs fascists from the right, only do they really fight?

--Brant

I was trying to stay on topic (Ed's thesis). Personally, I'm on record in agreement with Wendy McElroy, that voting is immoral.

This has caused me a little confusion. Nice to know you aren't breaking any lances for the Republican Party.

--Brant

[dldelancey]

So now we're equating homosexuals with psychopathic axe murderers. That has to be some kind of corrollary to Godwin's Law. Someone please call Nazi so that we can end the ridiculousness of this thread.

[Wolf DeVoon]

So now we're equating homosexuals with psychopathic axe murderers. That has to be some kind of corrollary to Godwin's Law. Someone please call Nazi so that we can end the ridiculousness of this thread.

No equation or comparison offered. It was mockery of your argument, that people do the right thing unhappily and dissatisfied.

[Mikee]

Wolf announced days ago he doesn't see the necessity of being truthful. I get the impression not being a liar is being naive to Mr. DeVoon. I don't see the usefulness of discussing any subject with him. Well, unless you are maschocistic.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf announced days ago he doesn't see the necessity of being truthful.

Try to get the facts straight, son. What I said was:

I don't get the categorical imperative of truthfulness, however nicely decorated with situational exemptions like having a gun put to your head. Being absolutely candid and forthcoming in private should be reserved for a spouse and one's children (tailored to their developmental progress and timely benefit). Everyone else should properly get an edited version of the facts as you understand or recollect them. There is no public right to know anything that you currently believe to be true, not even under oath in a court of law.

The decision to confess or profess something close to the truth is fraught with consequences, which I know from personal experience as an author and public personality of modest intelligence. I blab far too much. On occasion it resulted in death threats -- and they weren't kidding or blustering. Bob was on the right track when he said that spies can't (and shouldn't) tell anyone the truth. In the past, when I advised a client, the first thing I advised them was to say nothing. I cultivate, so far as possible, the habit of forgetfulness.

The job of living is dynamic. What you think you know today pales in comparison to what you will discover about yourself, about the world, about moral philosophy and constitutional rights in the future. At a certain age, the learning slows. But learning remains a potential opportunity provided that you aren't foreclosed to it by stubbornly insisting on THE TRUTH as you perceive it at this moment in time.

If you think Ed Hudgins speaks 100% truthfully, with no hidden agenda or blind spots, you're a damn fool.