One of the more ridiculous side effects of the debate over gay marriage is the way it has tended to sexualize politics on both sides. To the majority of liberal activists and to an ever-increasing number of social conservative activists, a consensus has emerged that human sexuality should be part of a political litmus test.
Thus, when leading social conservative activist Ken Blackwell says “homosexuality is not conservative,” that is considered completely reasonable by his followers on the right, and it is music to the ears of the left.
I think people need to carefully consider the implications of such an idea. Regardless of why people become gay, whether they are born gay, whether they developed that way during childhood, or whether they just one day decided to be gay as adults, to decree that a person’s sexual desires constitute “leftism” is a major logical error, and one which I think will result in much mischief.
Especially if we consider that objections to homosexuality are grounded largely in religion.
I realize that to many religious people, homosexuality is sinful. But there are other sins, including those listed in the Ten Commandments, which does not list the sin of homosexuality, but does list adultery. Many Christians also consider fornication to be sinful, and Jesus condemned divorce. So if we apply the political litmus test to homosexuality and proclaim it to be a left-wing behavior which belongs in the Democratic Party only, then why not apply it to adultery, fornication, and divorce?
Resolved, all sexual sinners belong on the left.
How well is that going to work? Many sexual sinners hate socialism, many of them believe in a strong defense, oppose big government, and hate higher taxation. Many of them are young, and many of them have friends. If they are all consigned to the left, might that not be expected to have an effect at election time?
Or is homosexuality to be consigned to leftism simply because it is perverted as well as sinful sex, whereas normal sexual sins are not leftist because they are not “perverted”? OK, so how about heterosexual bondage, S&M, fetishes, cross-dressing, etc.? Why aren’t they leftist practices forever preventing the practitioner from being conservative? I’m all ears.
Sarah Palin was recently taken to task by angry conservatives for her perceived willingness to allow a group of gay conservatives at CPAC. The objection was grounded in the belief that “traditional marriage” is “conservative”:
…the interview raised the ire of APP’s President Frank Cannon, who demanded answers from Palin on Monday.
“The concern of conservatives is over the participation of a group whose stated goals run at odds with that of core conservative principles, not over debate over those issues,” Cannon said in a statement.”Governor Palin should clarify her comments by letting us know whether in her definition, traditional marriage is a core component of conservatism.”
Aren’t some major assumptions being made there? Depending on what is meant by “traditional marriage,” the above is a clear attempt to claim “it” as “conservative.”
Does that mean all heterosexual couples have now become conservative and that by being in a traditional marriage, they are in a state of political opposition to same sex marriages?
Who knew?
I don’t think it is Sarah Palin who needs to clarify her comments, but I think this Mr. Cannon does. He appears to be saying that those things he deems to be “core conservative principles” are not subject to debate, and that “traditional marriage” is one of them. Since when is a major assumption like that not even subject to debate?
Beyond opposition to same sex marriage, what does the phrase “traditional marriage” mean? Are cohabiting couples in violation of core conservative principles? How about divorced people?
The merits of gay marriage or homosexuality aside, I think it’s very sloppy political logic to be doing this.
The philosophical implications go far beyond the apparent goal.
MORE: Out of curiosity earlier, I clicked on a link I probably should have left alone, but which discussed “10 Crazy Sexual Practices We Were Totally Unaware Of” and I saw some interesting preferences I hadn’t known about.
But as these things are political, the important thing is to determine where they fit on the political spectrum.
I’ll just list a few, and let you decide!
Robot Fetish. Similar to mannequin love is robot fetishism or technosexuality. Robot fetishists get excited by people acting like or dressing like robots. “You stay right there, I’m just gonna slip into my robot suit.” And scene.
Liberal? Or Conservative? (I’m thinking a robot fetish might be a libertarian practice…)
Teratophilia. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Tetrophiliacs, people who are only sexually attracted to deformed people, live by that credo. I once had a weird crush on a guy with a deformed arm. But he was super hot otherwise. Does that count?
Liberal? Or Conservative? (Because this fetishizes the disabled, might that violate the ADA?)
Armpit Sex. Raise your hand if you’re sure … you want a peen in your armpit. Sometimes referred to as “pocket of paradise.” What? All hands down but Brit’s?
Liberal? Or conservative?
Nyotaimori. Do you really like sushi? Than you may like it even better when eating it off your lover’s naked body. One question: is it appropriate to use chopsticks in this scenario?
Liberal? Or conservative?
And the last one is the dirtiest of them all:
Salirophilia. As Christina Aguilera would say, “If you ain’t dirrty, you ain’t here to party.” Salirophiliacs would strongly agree. They get erotic pleasure from soiling their partner by ripping their clothes, messing up their hair or makeup, or covering them in mud as Adrien Brody is in this picture. OK, I’m starting to see the appeal.
Liberal? Or conservative? Either way, it sounds like dirty politics.
UPDATE: Sarah Palin has responded to the demand that she clarify her remarks, and Glenn Reynolds links the story:
SARAH PALIN: Gays Should Be Welcome At CPAC. I don’t know why anyone’s surprised at this — her record as Alaska Governor was pretty gay-friendly.
(Her gay-friendly record comes as no surprise here.)
Of course (as I just told a friend in an email) the left will still call her a bigot, while the anti-gay right will probably accuse her of “betrayal.”
I can’t blame reasonable people for getting annoyed by politics.
Comments
19 responses to “When political “principles” are sexualized, perversions have a political price!”
The politicization of preference.
Having a more libertarian bent, I view my preferences as quite simply, mine. But exposing the illegitimacy of legislating preference may best be illuminated by thinking about the equities markets.
If Stock A reflects the values of a company that is growing, well-managed, providing quality goods and services, experiencing good cash flow and strong returns, chances are I should buy Stock A.
If the research and development department of the company is headed by a lesbian, should this change my decision to purchase this stock? If the guy in charge of shipping and receiving likes wearing women’s undergarments, should I avoid this stock? If the CEO is thinking about a sex-change, should I avoid this stock?
Regardless of the sexual views of these people, would altering (fixing) them increase or decrease the value of the stock? What would your view of the stock be if you found out that forty percent of the employees had been divorced? What would the value of this stock be if it were determined that twenty percent of the employees were living with someone without the benefit of marriage?
I might prefer that all the employees were candidates for sainthood, but would that affect the value of the stock positively or negatively? What I might prefer is of no importance to other buyers and sellers of equities. In fact, my portfolio would be distorted if I let my personal preferences determine the choices I make. For one thing, I don’t think I’d be able to invest in any equity.
At the same time, I don’t want to be told that I can’t choose to live according to the preferences I hold. If I prefer not to share an office with a gentleman who acts the flaming queen, I believe that is my right. It might be argued that this is an imposition of my preferences on others, but this is akin to legislating that I must like all people. Sure, it would be nice having all those friends, but it is neither reasonable or practicable.
It is more, an act of courtesy.
If my flaming queen office-mate learned that his behaviours were off-putting, I think it might be an act of courtesy for him to tone-down his behaviour. Becoming accomodating, one might say. Just as if my chain-smoking offended him, I might reduce my smoking. Or choose to smoke at another place.
Preference, courtesy, accomodation. Traits that are instilled in youth and practised in life. But are they the proper values of either our state or national legislatures? Perhaps not.
.
This is to OregonGuy.
Look up the Cambridge Homosexual club, and then ask yourself if it makes a difference whether or not your people in charge of National security secrets are Homosexual or not. You might also look up Bradley Manning who sold out the United States because he had a spat with his transexual lover.
While we’re at it, the Nazi Party started out as a homosexual meetup club.
Godwin in the very second comment, AND got the facts backwards. Wow.
I don’t really see conservatives insisting that all sexual sinners belong on the left. They just have a fear-based politics that demands a steady supply of enemies. It’s out of fashion to whip up hysterical fear and hatred of Jews or blacks, it’s out of fashion to see a Communist under every bed, so for the next several years it’s going to be a steady diet of anti-gay and anti-Muslim hatred. When the anti-gay thing is no longer useful, they’ll drop it and move to another enemy.
“To the majority of liberal activists and to an ever-increasing number of social conservative activists, a consensus has emerged that human sexuality should be part of a political litmus test.”
I can’t help but notice that it’s also a political litmus test for libertarians in general and for you and Simon in particular. So what’s your point again?
When the anti-gay thing is no longer useful, they’ll drop it and move to another enemy.
Maybe they can take a leaf from the lefts playbook and take up the anti-white-male position?
Resolved, all sexual sinners belong on the left.
Resolved, straw-man arguments are just plain stupid.
“I can’t help but notice that it’s also a political litmus test for libertarians in general and for you and Simon in particular. So what’s your point again?”
Erm – I see a difference between saying “X is good” or “X is bad” and saying “X is none of my business, which I believe is the general tone of both Eric and Simon.
So, I suppose that not wanting to regulate is a litmus test, but not quite the one you are trying to imply.
Yes, DL, there are gay traitors, and the Rosenbergs were Jews! A lot of gays and Jews are Commies! I think there were Mormon traitors too. We can’t be too careful!
You are right Kathy. A lot of non-homosexuals see the gay issue as a general litmus test of freedom. They think that the kind of people who care about other people’s homosexuality are quite likely to butt into our lives on other issues.
Those who are turned off by that mindset are by no means limited to homosexuals, but they tend to see them as a sort of canary in the mineshaft. To the extent gays are tolerated, they feel safer about their own privacy. A lot of people have something to hide, and they’re not about to tell you what it is.
Eric,
I had no idea you wrote this. But my next post deals with this very subject. Up in a few minutes. Our not so unusual synchronicity at work again. I blame the zeitgeist.
DL,
Look at all the Jews who promoted socialism and communism. Many still do.
Something needs to be done.
Look at all the Christians who fell in with the Nazis despite their homosexual origins. And in a Christian country. Their Jew hatred was perfectly rational though. See Luther, Martin.
BTW to blame a group for the evils of some of its members (heh) is a blood libel.
Kathy,
You got the essence right but I’m a little more radical than that. Not only is it none of my business. It is none of anyone’s business when it comes to government favor or disability.
And to all my friends who are afraid gay marriage will lead to polygamy – I say what is wrong with that? Polygamy is a traditional value.
BTW I still trying to figure out which traditional values you are allowed to hold and on what basis. It just seems like an incoherent mass of prejudice to me.
MSimon writes:
BTW to blame a group for the evils of some of its members (heh) is a blood libel.
You and I have a difference in perception regarding Homosexuals. I lump them into the category of people with serious psychological issues, (Mentally ill.) and you lump them in the category of race or religion. Blacks, who have suffered more in this country than any other race, REJECT this equivalence.
When homosexuals are regarded similarly to schizophrenics, it doesn’t seem peculiar to exclude them from positions of extreme national security importance. People with this particular psychological disorder have a long track record of being traitors, though they make up something like 1.2% of the population as a whole.
The Vast majority of Governmental officials felt the same way for most of this nations existence. Your theory requires all of them to be wrong. Unlikely.
Wow, thanks DL for enlightening me about my serious psychological issues! I had no idea! I’ll run right down to the doctor and get my lobotomy (or castration, whichever you think would be more effective). Or, since I’m obviously a traitor (or likely to become one), perhaps I should just hang myself in the bathroom.
Geez.
Nobody regards homosexuals similarly to schizophrenics except, apparently, you.
I should know better, but certain idiocies are too much.
People with this particular psychological disorder have a long track record of being traitors,
Closeted gay people are often very blackmailable because of the intolerance of people like those who list it as a mental disorder.
I wonder if those two facts might be related as any foreign agent would be most happy to exploit such a person.
Assuming of course that your “fact” is actually factual.
Veeshir, you have an habit of hitting the nail on the head. Yep “closeted” is the key. Anyone who can be blackmailed is a security risk.
No, strike that — all of us can be blackmailed. ANYONE WHO CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY BLACKMAILED is a security issue. I bet you converso families in the peninsula, when the inquisition was raging COULD be blackmailed and therefore were security risks.
Eliminate the taboo, eliminate the risk.
When it comes to who does what to whom, how often and in what manner, unless the person is a friend (and then ONLY if they’re either asking advice or I feel the need to relieve my anxiety over them, i.e. being everyone’s bloody mom again) I simply assume it’s none of my business. Because other than the occasional tasteless joke, which is okay, I’d bite the head of anyone intruding in my life that way.
Also, marriage should be taken out of the hands of government (I MIGHT have said this before.) And Simon, you actually mean “Poligamy is its own punishment” right? (Eh. I have heard it works for some people, but for me that would fit.)
Nobody regards homosexuals similarly to schizophrenics except, apparently, you.
John S. · February 10, 2011 3:55 PM
Sorry to disabuse you, but prior to 1973, EVERYONE regarded Homosexuality as a Psychological disorder because it was registered as a Psychological disorder by the American Psychiatry Association. For most of this nation’s existence homosexuals were institutionalized. In earlier times, they were just executed. (Thomas Jefferson authored a law to change the penalty from execution to castration in an effort to be more humane.)
Furthermore, Homosexuality wasn’t removed from the List of Psychological disorders because doctors discovered they were mistaken, it was removed because an army of violent “gay” activists showed up at an American Psychology Association meeting and Demanded it be removed, and threatened everyone present if it wasn’t!
Assuming of course that your “fact” is actually factual.
Veeshir · February 10, 2011 4:32 PM
By all means, research this issue yourself. The fact that you need to question this makes me wonder why you thought you could offer any useful input.
The Cambridge club was not the least concerned with blackmail. They did it because betraying their country felt deliciously wicked.
If a person is willing to throw off a fundamentally principle of normalcy, then what of lesser principles of normalcy?
(such as loyalty to country.)
Assuming of course that your “fact” is actually factual.
Veeshir · February 10, 2011 4:32 PM
By all means, research this issue yourself. The fact that you need to question this makes me wonder why you thought you could offer any useful input.
The Cambridge club was not the least concerned with blackmail. They did it because betraying their country felt deliciously wicked.
If a person is willing to throw off a fundamentally principle of normalcy, then what of lesser principles of normalcy?
(such as loyalty to country.)
Yes, that was, as you stated, PRIOR TO 1973. Our understanding of many things, and of psychology in particular, has advanced dramatically since that time. People used to think that homosexuality resulted from a domineering mother and a distant father. Well, aside from studies showing this not to be true, I myself am evidence that it’s not true. My father (a Lutheran pastor, by the way) was definitely the dominant parent, and after my folks got divorced, I lived with him.