October 15, 2003


'Gay fatigue' claims another in its grip (STEVE BLOW, October 11, 2003, The Dallas Morning News)

I think I have "gay fatigue."

Don't worry, it's not catching. But I suspect that many of you have contracted it, too.

Let's talk.

Remember a few years ago when there was lots of talk about "compassion fatigue"? The news confronted us with so many problems, so the theory went, that our ability to feel compassion simply wore out.

If nothing else, it made a nice excuse for indifference.

But to some degree, it also made sense. And that's why I think I'm now suffering from gay fatigue. I'm just feeling kind of overwhelmed. [...]

Let's face it. Society is in the midst of enormous change on this issue. It's no wonder nerves are frazzled. The deal we once made with gays was this: You stay invisible, let us pretend you don't exist, and everything will be OK.

It's not surprising that once gays did kick open the closet door, they were more than a little miffed – and clamoring for attention. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it," as the chant went.

Maybe now it's time to simply reply, "You're gay, OK, we get it."

Sadly, Mr. Blow doesn't get it at all. This isn't about being allowed to engage in homosexuality in private; it's about forcing people to at least pretend in public that such transgressive behavior is perfectly moral and healthy. It's an attack by the minority on the majority.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 15, 2003 8:56 AM

It must be catching. Ben Shapiro says the same thing at TownHall, dated today. Both are on the occasion of "National Coming Out Week." Ben also has had his awareness heightened sufficiently, thank you.

Posted by: Dave in LA at October 15, 2003 11:05 AM

How unfortunate his name is Blow.

Posted by: pchuck at October 15, 2003 11:08 AM

In the link, you have this to say about homosexuals:

"It is precisely because they have so radically alienated themselves ... "

Unless, of course, they were completely passive. Just like the Egyptian boys are completely passive with respect to being siamese twins.

If your fundemantal basis for your reasoning is completely wrong, does that make your conclusions wrong?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 15, 2003 12:33 PM

I'd assume pederasts are similarly predisposed to molest children--that does not excuse them.

Posted by: OJ at October 15, 2003 12:39 PM

Adults behaving like children who feel no need to comport themselves in accordance with the feelings and morality of the greater society will tend to alienate themselves from that society.Homosexual tendencies among people are not the problem. Unchecked self-destructive behavior and the demand that such behavior be approved of and consequences paid for by the larger society is. The radical wing of the so-called gay lobby is out to lunch and deserves no acknowedgement or respect. Polite and private homosexuals have always existed and been respected as individual human beings within American society, spoiled children tend to be avoided.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at October 15, 2003 1:41 PM

Bravo, Tom

Posted by: Peter B at October 15, 2003 6:01 PM


Let me get this straight: it isn't homosexuality itself that is immoral, but rather some way it is expressed?

Kind of like heterosexuality?


Of course it doesn't, any more than a natural predisposition towards heterosexuality justifies rape.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 15, 2003 9:22 PM


Finally we agree. Despite being predisposed by nature to do so, heterosexuals should not rape women, paedophiles shouldn't have sex with children and homosexuals shouldn't have sex with each other. Morality is more important than our natures.

Posted by: OJ at October 16, 2003 12:43 AM


You've many times stated your opposition to homosexual activity, but I've never seen you post any logical reason WHY it's immoral, except that you don't like it. Perhaps I missed it.
Elevated health risks don't make it immoral.
Your concept of dignity doesn't make it immoral.

Does your distain also extend to lesbians ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 16, 2003 7:04 AM

What Michael said.

Of rape, paedophilia, and homosexuality, one is significantly different than the others. With this clue see if you can identify which it is:

Willing consent of adult participants.

In terms of passing moral judgment, that just might make a difference.

Oh, and one other thing. Your contention that being a heterosexual male makes one predisposed to rape is chapter and verse out of Susan Brownmiller's "Men, Women, and Rape." For a conservative, you can be awfully left wing at times.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 16, 2003 7:28 AM


All sex may not be rape, but it establishes dominance.

Posted by: oj at October 16, 2003 8:10 AM


I'd say sex establishes sex, but dominance is a far trickier issue. How many out there in the viewing audience believe that sex leads to husbands dominating their wives? Vice versa?

Besides, so what if it does?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 16, 2003 12:37 PM

The capacity of men to physically dominate women is a mere fact of nature. The need of some men to dominate or be dominated by other men is a psychological pathology.

Posted by: OJ at October 16, 2003 1:21 PM


Okay, let's say it is. (Your argument is twisted, though. Gay men, despite their homosexuality, are still stronger than women, and still have the capacity to physically dominate them.)

In what way is that relevant to anything, particularly any moral conclusions?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 17, 2003 7:42 AM

Dominating or being dominated by another merely for the sake of such requires us to treat each other as mere objects. It reduces men to animals, which likewise use buggery to establish dominance.

Posted by: oj at October 17, 2003 10:17 AM


I hold homosexual activity to be immoral. I also believe that human beings are imperfect, struggling creatures dealing with various demons.I would be loathe to judge others for failing to perfectly handle or deal with their personal weaknesses. Is it too much to ask that the feelings of others be respected as well? The radical gay left couldn't care less and I am simply reciprocating.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at October 17, 2003 10:56 AM


In just the same way we use dominance to reduce women to mere animals? Well, in some cultures, I suppose that's true. Not in any one I want to be part of, though.

Never mind that none of the gays I know see it in anywhere close to those terms. But since they are hindered by only having first hand knowledge to go on, clearly there is no point listening to them.


Is your heterosexuality a personal weakness?

If so, then you must view asexuality as the only moral sexual orientation.

If not, then why is it that homosexuality is any more a weakness then heterosexuality?

I'm curious if it is possible to provide some sort of general litmus test what constitutes an immoral act (other than On Account of the Bible Said So, for there are too many collisions between what the Biblical and contemporary Christian morality for that to serve), and have that test include monogamous homosexuality, while simultaneously excluding monogamous heterosexuality.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 17, 2003 4:00 PM


Yes, Nature has designed things so that woman submits to man.

Posted by: oj at October 17, 2003 4:10 PM


If all sexuality is relative as you seem to suggest, then the natural abhorrence or distaste that one feels should be disregarded? Nature itself is then something a healthy heterosexual should be determined to overcome? I don't think so. The natural arrangement is pretty clear and no amount of desensitization or political propaganda will have much of an effect except at the margin. Thousands of years of human history counts for something, no?

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at October 18, 2003 8:41 AM

The question here is whether monogamous homosexuality is immoral, and by what general standard that wouldn't also include monogamous heterosexuality.

The natural arrangement for sexuality is that which is a product of nature, not that which conforms to your particular yuck factor.

Thousands of years of human history is worth acknowledging, but not using as a rigid guide. Or do you think history is sufficient justification for, say, the divine right of kings?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 18, 2003 3:57 PM

The yuck factor is in fact Nature's guide to morality.

Posted by: oj at October 18, 2003 4:07 PM

Some heterosexuals may feel said "yuck" factor, but clearly, homosexuals do not.
Why is a non-participant's "yuck" more valid than the participant's "non-yuck" ?

It's quite clear that the "natural" order of things is to breed. However, why is it immoral to NOT breed ? As has been pointed out many times, it's impossible to consign homosexuality to the "unnatural" bin without also throwing in those who use birth control, and the celibate.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 18, 2003 7:08 PM


Why should bestiality be frowned upon? I mean, there's no wider societal fallout, right? Who's it hurting? One's man's yuck might just be another guy's moo?

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at October 18, 2003 7:11 PM

Peter Singer, the most influential moral philosopher of the Academy, argues that you can have a loving consensual sexual relationship with an animal. By the rules folks like Jeff enunciate it certainly isn't immoral.

Posted by: oj at October 18, 2003 7:28 PM


The yuck factor is the point of the whole exercise--it's meant to degrade.

Posted by: oj at October 18, 2003 7:30 PM

Such is your bigotry.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 18, 2003 9:26 PM


You've said that the same is true in heterosexual relationships, as well; The male establishes dominance. So, again, how is it moral in those circumstances, and immoral in these ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 19, 2003 12:44 AM

Ask Nature--it designed it that way.

Posted by: oj at October 19, 2003 5:40 AM

Nature, of course, makes no moral judgments. So asking it would be futile.

Never mind that Nature apparently designed homosexuality.

I find it really odd that, OJ & Tom, in your minds it is merely one short step from homosexuality to bestiality. As if heterosexual males haven't trod that particular path at least as often as their homosexual counterparts.

Yet bestiality somehow illuminates the immorality of homosexuality, but not heterosexuality.

OJ, by the rules you enunciate concerning heterosexuality's morality, bestiality certainly isn't immoral.

Unless, of course, the morality of sexual congress with animals has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of sexual congress between consenting adults.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 19, 2003 6:21 AM

Sex can only be moral between a male and a consenting female who love each other. No beasts allowed.

Posted by: oj at October 19, 2003 6:26 AM