Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Letter to My Gay Friends
June is widely recognized as “Pride Month,” and I’m sure we’ll see lots of reminders of that over the next few weeks. Most people aren’t aware that the Pride movement was inspired by, and is in part to commemorate, a specific series of events, the Stonewall Riots in New York City in 1969.
Like members of many other minority groups in American history, homosexual men and women faced discrimination, both legal and cultural, that was overcome only slowly and often at great personal cost. But it was overcome: today people who experience same-sex attraction have the same rights as heterosexuals and enjoy widespread public acceptance.
While the acronym “LGBT” (often with additional letters appended) is now ubiquitous, some in the gay community recognize, correctly I think, a problem with the inclusion of gender identity (trans, etc.) in what has traditionally been a gay rights movement. While the LGB movement sought equality and acceptance, the trans movement attempts to demand more than that and does so in ways that many people reasonably find objectionable.
Many of us don’t want to be told what to say, what pronouns to use, that our daughters must compete against biological males in sporting events, and share locker rooms with them in school. We also reject the seemingly nonsensical notion that we should pretend a boy is a girl simply because the boy declares that he is a girl. We resent the myriad circumlocutions increasingly required to avoid recognizing simple sexual reality: such nonsense as calling mothers “birthing people,” for example.
Beyond that, the trans movement is fundamentally hostile to the notion of basic human sexuality, and in particular of womanhood. It represents the final denial that men and women are different in important ways, in favor of a fictitious equivalence that, predictably, tends to serve men well at the expense of women.
I think there is a growing awareness among some in the gay community that there will be pushback against the increasingly extreme and unacceptable demands of the trans movement, and that, to the extent the gay movement is seen as inextricably bound to the trans movement, that pushback may undermine and threaten legitimate gains made by gay rights activists. It’s perfectly reasonable to encourage tolerance and understanding of people who are different; it isn’t reasonable to demand professions of belief and unacceptable accommodations (e.g., in athletics) based on a fanciful reimagining of human sexuality.
I think it would be prudent to begin to question whether being strongly allied with the so-called “trans” movement is in anyone’s best interests.
Published in Culture
Routinely. And I say a bunch of other politically unacceptable things too. Homosexuality is abnormal, but fairly common. It’s much easier for women to feel same-sex attraction and to act on it, because there’s not as great an impact to their identity, women generally being submissive in sexual relations. Transgender is a fad, and a very destructive one to young ladies. Men and women are different and have pretty consistent gender roles, and women would be better off if they were treated like ladies and men would be better off if they acted like gentleman. Men should pay for meals and open doors. Women should appreciate how valuable sex is and refrain from giving it away too casually. Women derive far more satisfaction from raising children and should do more of it, and men should bear the burden of providing for their families.
I say the same things everywhere, online and in real life.
How does one “go along” with same-sex marriage?
I don’t call people in same-sex relationships married, and I don’t refer to them as husband or wife. I just called them partners. I was opposed to the redefinition of “marriage,” and think that was a mistake, but the court has spoken and we’re stuck with it.
But that has nothing to do with my tolerance of gay people. Nothing about letting homosexuals live homosexual lives requires that I pretend to believe something I don’t believe.
I approve of sodomy. The sexual practices that destroy society are heterosexual incest, polygyny unwed procreative sex and the sexual abuse of children and teenagers. I can’t see anything to bother about with gays as long as they don’t get to raping Angels.
I think you have a pinched and somewhat dysfunctional understanding of the human condition. But you probably already know that.
Only if they are doing it badly.
Are you sure that the human race is all that good? How would homosexuals spawning more children make the human race better? We don’t all need to breed to make sure the human race continues. Priests and monks for for millennia been living as celibates to elevate humanity in their own way. Homosexuals decided to make the American Musical.
How is my understanding of the human condition pinched with regard to matters of sex? There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that polygamy and incest are bad for people.
Every single time, taking back the language.
“Pride” is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Homosexuality is not.
So, I can’t help but think that this Pride Month thing is really, really misguided.
Does your sex robot have that feature?
Serious question: How do you square homosexuality with Darwinism?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but homosexuality is entirely about one’s personal preference for a love and/or sex partner at the current time.
I mean, it’s not like gay men can’t physically have sex with women; they just prefer not to. Right?
Given that, exactly how is a personal preference legally actionable?
Well we all start off as female and then hormones kick in and the vast majority of us XY people become male. The current theory is that some estrogen in the case of males and testosterone in the case of females alter their sexuality. Homosexuality has also been observed in insects, and lions and other animals. The idea is that in a minority of animals. Something goes off. Additionally, some believe that insects who engage in homosexuality do so because they mistake the other as being female.
Given the incredible complexity of any multicellular organism, it’s not surprising that some behaviors aren’t quite programmed in the maximally Darwinian way.
Every system has its’ own inefficiencies. As long as most sex within the species is efficient, the species will survive.
What about pretending to be families that raise children, usually through adoption?
My favourite theory is the presence of an androphilic gene. When present in men they are gay and don’t pass the gene on. When present in women they’re popular and have more kids than the norm – enough to more than make up for the gay siblings. When everybody has more children because farming needs the labour the effect on the population is minimal. When smaller families become the norm the effect is more apparent.
In short: there really are more gay men than there used to be, and the gay gene continues to spread.
For lesbians I got nothing.
It seems like adoption is better for the kid than being with idiot heterosexual couples. However, I do oppose homosexuals who want to impregnate a surrogate Mom or become pregnant by a surrogate Dad. These gay parents yearn for a biological connection to their children but would deny that same yearning to the child. Them’s my two cents.
Maybe ladies are just hotter? I mean it’s so obvious.
Well you need, in some circumstances, to treat these couples as equal to other couples – even if you don’t believe it. It seems similar to using female pronouns for trans women, even if you don’t believe they’re women.
Maybe to be consistent, rather than doing both, he does neither?
Please elucidate that sentiment Zafar. Do you really think that Mr. Racette needs to call someone with a penis a woman? Does being nice to homosexuals and trans people include forcing them to say things they don’t believe?
This is where the slippery slope argument against gay marriage has legs. When gay marriage was passed then the left immediately went to forcing polite Christians to bake them cakes. It’s freedom and resect towards the favorable minorities at that time and censorship towards those who might resist the Woke agenda.
Yes, I’m trying to understand why he sees the two things so differently.
Being nice to a lot of people can involve that. It’s almost the point of manners?
Practically McCarthyist. No wonder it looks familiar.
You shouldn’t use government force for that. Do check out the cartoon I posted. It makes my point beautifully.
Do you truly think that we will all be forever called to “Celebrate!” others sexual preferences and quirks?
For the most part, that’s preservation. We like to distance ourselves from sick people, too.
And I know, that’s insensitive and homophobic to compare gay and trans and bisexuality to sick people.
But given the shaky science in “born that way”, I’m still not convinced it isn’t entirely right. Most homosexuals I have met have sexual trauma somewhere in their childhood or really screwed up mothers with serious boundary issues. There’s a deviancy here. And separating healthy people (youth) from deviant sexual inclinations is a preservation mechanism for a culture and society.
You evidently don’t know what that is given your list of disapproval’s.
Teenagers are curious and confused people. They tend to not be the brightest bulbs. There is something called sexual imprinting. Our first sexual interactions tend to define our future sexual interactions.
A bad Hetero or a favorable homo or some kind of sexual abuse before sexual maturity all have impacts on how we view sex. The favorable atmosphere surrounding homosexuality and sexual identity makes it far likelier that kids who weren’t going to be gay may end up gay. That’s partly why queerness is sky rocketing in the youngest generation. It seems Munchausen by proxy is on the rise, too, with mothers wanting queer kids more than straight kids. There’s a socially acceptable attention racket available.
This is all backed by experiments that came out of the Frankfurt School where they were experimenting on children on how early introduction to sex lowers sexual inhibition and natural boundaries as they mature. Aldous Huxley wasn’t making it up, it was actual research being done.
Now, we have sexual deviancy (sodomy) being taught to some elementary students in our school system. It’s a pattern attempting to normalize (in the TRUEST statistical sense of that word) sexual deviancy.
You mean the sex acts in Sodom and Gomorrah? I know of them. Sodomy is not used to refer to attempted rape of Angels far as I know.
I never considered the act of sodomy strictly a gay man thing. I saw homosexuality as wrong because of its use of sodomy, where sodomy was bad for people and that was the only mechanism for homosexual couplings.
In other words, the sin in homosexuality IS the sodomy and the prohibition extends to heterosexual couples, but is less obvious in practice.