“America needs to stand against homosexuality”
So writes LSU student opinion writer Michael Denton found in the latest issue of The Daily Reveille. After an dizzying mish-mash of pseudo-science, religious objections to homosexuality and quite a bit of uber-conservative political commentary that would make the extreme Right proud, Denton concludes his piece with the following:
America needs to grow in self-confidence on this debate. The homosexual argument is illogical; sexuality is obviously meant for reproduction. Any sexual activity that is opposed to life is intrinsically disordered. Yet we continue to refuse to stand up for ourselves, allowing courts, school boards and speech codes to dictate political correctness to us.
There are few greater debates in America today. The gay marriage issue threatens marriage and the family, which are the very foundations of society. Unless America decides to stand for something in this case, we’ll continue to fall. When we land, we might not get back up.
The irony here is that I would be the first person to defend his right to hold this view (speech codes are indeed unconstitutional), along with his right to freely practice his religion, yet he cannot find it within himself to extend the same to me or anyone else who is gay. Heck, I myself find much to object among “gay activists”. Yet nowhere in the Constitution is there a right for Mr. Denton or even a majority of this country to impose their religious beliefs onto society. If such were the case than interracial marriage would have remained illegal in Lousiana and much of the South for far longer than the late 1960s. It is even more bitter irony that a Catholic of all people would have forgotten exactly what such a zealous attitude in the past meant to his fellow believers at the ‘loving’ hands of some non-Catholics. If it is a debate on religious doctrine and homosexuality that Mr. Denton desires, that is fine and he’ll undoubtedly find someone who’ll accept the challenge. Pharsea (cached version) might enjoy discussing the late JPII’s Theology of the Body as it relates to this matter. Yet his argument in this piece boils down to a religious objection to homosexuality that is irrelevant and blatantly unconstitutional in the public arena. My rights and yours are not subject to the whims of the majority.
(h/t Good As You)
– John (Average Gay Joe)
33 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“sexuality is obviously meant for reproduction.”
This is news to me – and my lovers.
Apparently, I’ve been doing it wrong all these years…
Comment by Vera Charles — September 12, 2007 @ 11:06 pm - September 12, 2007
I agree: ‘Snuff’ activity is intrinsically disordered.
That *is* what Denton meant by “opposed to life”, right? I mean, what other reasonable meaning could there be? Since ordinary sex, whether whether gay or straight, reproductive or non-reproductive, is in no sense “opposed to life”.
That’s a laugh. Whether America will surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq, for example, is a far greater debate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 12, 2007 @ 11:16 pm - September 12, 2007
LOL
Comment by American Elephant — September 13, 2007 @ 12:10 am - September 13, 2007
Osama doesn’t support gay marriage either. But he also doesn’t support gay breathing.
Comment by Attmay — September 13, 2007 @ 12:46 am - September 13, 2007
That article was concise and to-the-point… It is brave for a collegiate newspaper columnist to write something like that.
There is nothing “uber-conservative” or “extreme Right” about this article… It is so short, that the points the author makes are general enough to be those that others in the ideological spectrum would also concur with. Most of the article has to do with discrimination against students and student organizations who believe that homosexual behavior is wrong.
I wish that we could have perspectives, like those presented in this article, appear in collegiate newspapers further north.
Comment by Aakash — September 13, 2007 @ 1:19 am - September 13, 2007
Hey there,
This is Caroline from SocialRank.
I am trying to get in touch with you but couldn’t find your email address.
We’re launching a new Web 2.0 site dedicated to Gay Life and we have started indexing your blog posts as part of our
content filter.
I’d like to send you an invite to a beta preview. Can you get back to me with your email address.
Mine is caroline@queerfever.com
Kind regards,
Caroline
http://www.SocialRank.com
Comment by caroline — September 13, 2007 @ 2:37 am - September 13, 2007
From Denton’s essay:
According to The Washington Post, the Montgomery County School Board in Rockville, Md, has put forth a new sex-education curriculum that promotes homosexuality. Parents have gone to court to halt the curriculum that would teach high school students about the “gay gene.”
A search of the Washington Post web site for the terms “Montgomery” and “gay gene” resulted in zero hits. There are several articles detailing the controversy in Montgomery County, but no characterization of the new curriculum comes from the Washington Post. (The Post does not opine, for example, that the curriculum “promotes homosexuality,” as Denton states in his article.)
Denton certainly has a right to express his views in a school paper, but as a student-written article, this piece is not a stellar example of ethical journalism.
Comment by Phil — September 13, 2007 @ 2:37 am - September 13, 2007
I’m always perplexed by the religious-based political argument against homosexuality, even as a religious person. “We must stand against homosexuality”… well, ok then. Fine. You think it’s a sin and have to stand against it. But what exactly puts homosexuality higher on the list than, say, lieing? Or unbelief? Or, hell, witchcraft? I heard somewhere that Jesus takes a pretty dim view of witchcraft…
I guess I just don’t understand how “All have fallen short of His glory” jives with this hierarchy of sinful activity we need to “stand against”.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — September 13, 2007 @ 7:13 am - September 13, 2007
Seems like he’s gotten confused with ‘witnessing’ and inquisition.
Both the left, and the right, tend to forget that the greatest gift of the divine is free will. That includes the ability to self destruct. My feelings on the matter are elsewhere, so I won’t reiterate. *shrug* I’m not going to impose my herasy on anyone. As to the above, one of my best friends is a witch, and I’m very careful not to disrupt her altar.
Personally, I feel the left is more for quashing free thought, which, fittingly, is the point of the article, IIRC.
Comment by The Livewire — September 13, 2007 @ 7:32 am - September 13, 2007
‘Every sperm is sacred’ sums up ‘Any sexual activity that is opposed to life is intrinsically disordered,’ at least for someone who is described as Catholic.
And notice the interesting parallel in the religious terms used to defend social policy, between today’s believers in God given law, and those of the previous generation. God conveniently supports what they believe, whether in forbidding the ‘mixing’ of races or stopping gays from gaining any of the civil rights which blacks have earned after a generation.
And yet, who actually cares what some child of the Southern Strategy believes in, except liberal losers. And the idea that it is brave to publish religiously drenched editorial prose (while apparently making up facts) is laughable.
Comment by uh_uh — September 13, 2007 @ 9:12 am - September 13, 2007
What I find most interesting is that the author, and his most bible-thumping commenters, equate love with reproduction. Jesus never had children, so are they saying that Jesus didn’t love?
Personally, I think using select biblical verses to “support” their prejudices is the most anti-christian thing one can do. I seriously doubt many of Denton’s supporters have even read the entire bible, or other religious texts, but are just spouting what they’ve been told. Because when one points out the faults in their logic, they just skip over what you say and tell you you’re incapable of understanding.
The gaps in cognizant thought are astounding.
Comment by Jamie — September 13, 2007 @ 9:41 am - September 13, 2007
Denton writes: “There are few greater debates in America today. The gay marriage issue threatens marriage and the family, which are the very foundations of society. ”
In the previous paragraph, Denton writes of religion, but he does not couple the quote above with religion. It may be implicit in his beliefs, but it is not restated when he writes that “the gay marriage issue threatens marriage and the family….”
We need to be clear about whether the state has a compelling interest in promoting, protecting and restricting marriage. If it does, then we need to be clear why marriage should be promoted, why it should be protected and how it should be restricted. There seem to be compelling biological and cultural reasons not to let family members marry one another in a heterosexual marriage, but the biological reasons would disappear in a homosexual marriage. The cultural reason might disappear as well if the culture were to accept homosexual marriage.
When Denton writes about marriage and the family, he is obviously thinking about the “threat” to the traditional marriage and family in our culture. What he fails to say is the impact that divorce, single parenthood and heterosexual families without marriage have had on the traditional marriage and family in our culture.
I doubt that our society is willing to accept married partners of the same sex in all of the walks of life. That does not mean, however, that a reasonable debate should be surpressed.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 13, 2007 @ 10:12 am - September 13, 2007
Excellent posting. Frankly, that guy is full of it, but I will defend his right to say it.
Comment by Jimbo — September 13, 2007 @ 11:43 am - September 13, 2007
You know, I stand against homosexuality too…. every night…. when the Sonic-Mate gets home from work…. and I give him a big slobbering homosexual hung and kiss….
OK. maybe not every night. I admit we have fallen into the “How was work, Puddin’ Schoocums” routine. But hey, we’ve been together for 11 years, so give us a break
Comment by sonicfrog — September 13, 2007 @ 12:52 pm - September 13, 2007
The expression of one’s religious beliefs can not infringe upon the rights of another, meaning: Muslim taxi-cab drivers can’t refuse to carry passengers that are carrying alcohol, Catholic pharmacists can’t refuse to fill a valid birth control prescription and Southern Baptist congregations can’t be exempt from civil rights laws.
Comment by Chase — September 13, 2007 @ 4:30 pm - September 13, 2007
Heliotrope:
Yet he does bring it in in a previous paragraph:
It’s a debate I’d love to have. Ideally, I should talk about why practicing homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and why it prevents one from loving fully. I should discuss recent works like the famous “Theology of the Body” by Pope John Paul II.
JPII’s religious teachings are irrelevant when it comes to setting public policy. The Theology of the Body holds no sway in this discussion, other than if we extend it to include religious and moral beliefs. It is that extension and its consequences not only in this matter but in others that I find to be inappropriate and unconstitutional. Whatever rights gays should or should not have should not be dependent upon religious and moral beliefs of individuals or even the majority. Such is antithetical to the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
It does even beyond religious concerns, no argument there. Tis an old tiresome debate, but limiting his article to that arena without the intrusion of his religious beliefs would have been acceptable. Yet Denton’s article was about more than just same-sex marriage but instead about everything when it comes to gays. Where he is on solid ground is complaining about political correctness and speech codes, both of which I strongly oppose as violations of the First Amendment. That he is my political “enemy” makes no difference because the simple point here is that the same Constitution which protects my rights protects his as well. He harps on the latter yet the former would appear to have escaped his notice.
Comment by John — September 13, 2007 @ 6:24 pm - September 13, 2007
Such is their right and I will not denigrate their religious beliefs. Where it is inappropriate is in imposing them on society as a whole which does not share them.
Comment by John — September 13, 2007 @ 6:26 pm - September 13, 2007
Absolutely. It wasn’t the Right that came up with these blatantly unconstitutional speech codes. Yet this does not mean that we can ignore the more extreme elements of the other end of the political spectrum either.
Comment by John — September 13, 2007 @ 6:28 pm - September 13, 2007
It was a bit sloppy in presenting facts, but for an opinion piece I’ll agree with you here though I obviously do not share his views.
Here is where we part in agreement. It reeks of both.
While seeking to discriminate against gays, irony you’ve met your match. Denton is right to criticize the discrimination against those who share his views, for which I’ll defend him as well, but we part company on his idea of solutions.
It certainly makes for interesting reading and commentary.
Comment by John — September 13, 2007 @ 6:32 pm - September 13, 2007
You all should not be to concerned about poor Denton. Right now he is fighting his homosexuality, which appears to be really bothering him, but he will grow out of it and become a congressman or a preacher and get “outted” like the preacher in Colorado Springs recently and others before him.
John W
Comment by John W — September 13, 2007 @ 7:12 pm - September 13, 2007
I should add that in my time, I have seen many of these come and go.
John
Comment by John W — September 13, 2007 @ 7:15 pm - September 13, 2007
I’ve got to give Denton credit for writing this piece given the potential violence of the lefty response. Took some guts.
But I think he’s been listening to Michael Savage too much. Savage blames pretty much everything from divorce to humidity on The Homosexuals.
One reason I’ve never considered myself liberal is the “we’re all victims” line we hear from libs all the time (victim of society/racism/sexism/homophobia/Halliburton/Vast Right Wing Conspiracy/Big Oil &c).
But here we have Denton (and Savage) telling us that our cultural problems exist because 3 percent of the population is homosexual. The other 97% of the population bear no responsibility; they veer off the rails due to mysterious and uncontrollable forces.
I never realized we had such power… but, then again, the married couple across the street appears to have split up. My hubby and I sure feel bad about that.
Comment by Robert — September 13, 2007 @ 8:25 pm - September 13, 2007
Any sexual activity that is opposed to life is intrinsically disordered
This is such a strange claim to me. Sexual activity is “opposed to life,” according Denton and lots of religious conservatives, if it cannot result in fertilization and eventual birth. But by that logic, gay sex is no more opposed to life than is talking on the telephone, writing in a journal, or slicing tomatoes. There are lots of human activities that don’t result in babies.
Those aren’t all sexual activities, of course, and that’s where the logic gets weird. “Sexual activity” is in a different moral category than journal-writing and tomato-slicing because one “ought” to use one’s sexual activity to make babies. Thus, practicing homosexuals are exactly as opposed to life as are celibates, because both groups are choosing not to use sexual activity to make babies.
Comment by Phil — September 14, 2007 @ 5:06 am - September 14, 2007
22: Excuse me, but where is this “potential violence of the lefty response”? gimmee a break.
Comment by Kevin — September 14, 2007 @ 6:25 am - September 14, 2007
#16 John: I could not agree more with what you have said. When the “old tiresome debate” is engaged, however, the Judeo-Christian ethic is so interwoven within the culture, that it is an undeniable part of the the tradition of marriage. Hence, the whole religious theme becomes a part of the debate.
As you know, natural law and English Common Law are intertwined with our legal system. The Constitution is silent on the source of law, only how it should be administered.
Comment by Heliotrope — September 14, 2007 @ 8:24 am - September 14, 2007
While I don’t agree with the author of the editorial, I think it is unfortunate that so much of homosexuality has taken a stand against America by allying itself with the radical left.
Americans should take a stand against the debasement and pr0nofication of the culture, and the dehumanizing way people are treated as sexual commodities through pr0n and the sex trade. Gays could help by toning down the excess of pride parades and over-sexualized displays and stop elevating fetishism to the level of “culture.” Keep the whips and chains and buttless leather chaps away from where children can see them, okay?
Comment by V the K — September 14, 2007 @ 10:53 am - September 14, 2007
“sexuality is obviously meant for reproduction.”
If so, I’d have about 50,000 little crazy kids spewing up formula
forget that intolerance..thats why I am not a church goer
Comment by sixstringbassplayer — September 14, 2007 @ 4:49 pm - September 14, 2007
Ironic but consistent. True belief in liberty means defending acts and speech that one disapproves of or even loathes within the bounds of non violence or violation of others. Defending the liberty of what you agree with is just pursuing ones self interests which is sensible but not as praiseworthy.
I often feel torn when I see arguments as gawd-awful as Michael Denton’s, like those from Creationists or global warming extremist/celebrities or riotous peace activists. One feels that it is beyond useless going through the tripe when you know that anyone who believes these things is not going to be persuaded by an point by point analysis of the pathetic quality of his words because you know that instead of trying to refine their argument they will just repeat it at a different venue. But then you remember that the Internet is full of people (children, shut-ins etc.) who may have never heard a good Frisking of this sort of claptrap and leaving it unaddressed gives the impression to impressionable readers that people are “stumped” or “can not address” the points.
“Any sexual activity that is opposed to life…” He seems to have homosexuality confused with necrophilia or maybe sexually-motivated serial killing. I wonder if the closet masturbaters who attend his church realize that he is referring to them too.
Social conservativism and economic conservativism are only associated for historical reasons not due to any idealogical connection but both leftists and social conservatives have made great political success in linking the two, in the people’s minds. It is my view that religion is socialism – just that it is outside the economic and property rights sphere.
As for the “potential violence of the lefty response”, there is something to fear from leftists but it is rarely violence unless you are dealing with the type of European “anti-fascists” gangs who beat up victims of violence by Muslims to dissuade them from talking to the media or the few “peace activists” and holocaust deniers, all of whom are rare enough to make even the some of the MSM news. The real thing to fear from leftists is attacks on ones character, carreer or right to speak and at most their intimidation via protests and boycotts.
John finished his post with a statement that I found thought provoking:
While correct in a legal and moral sense, I have come to see that in the final analysis, no law, or document or government can be depended on to uphold our rights. Our rights are dependent on the whims of the majority and while that should be opposed it will always be the state of affairs to some degree. While not a gun owner, that is probably the best argument in favor of private gun ownership that there is but that is a whole different discussion.
Comment by Saul Wall — September 14, 2007 @ 7:17 pm - September 14, 2007
24: violence may be too strong a word… unhinged would be a better choice.
Comment by Robert — September 14, 2007 @ 8:00 pm - September 14, 2007
29: hmmmmmmm…that was pretty lame. Personally, I like reading articles like that guy wrote….I think morons like that guy need to be able to say things like that, just to gauge what is still wrong and needs to be fixed in this world. Onward and upward.
Comment by Kevin — September 14, 2007 @ 8:25 pm - September 14, 2007
Those damn activist judges are the system’s check on subjecting minorities to the whims of the majority. But damn those activist judges….
Comment by sean — September 19, 2007 @ 1:51 am - September 19, 2007
Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilage, thank you very much. So those of you who are going about saying that gay marriage is threatenting heterosexual ones, that is complete crap. And, Denton is a total idiot, in my opinion. With his, “Any sexual activity that is opposed to life is intrinsically disordered”, he’s inadvertantly referring to the fact that A LOT of people masturbate, and that’s not wrong, that’s totally normal.
Comment by Alex — February 17, 2009 @ 7:50 pm - February 17, 2009
Alex, with gay marriage advocates like you mouthing slogans like that, it’s no wonder citizens in the various states keep voting in favor of the traditional definition of marriage.
Actually, it has been a heterosexual privilege for quite some time, your trite comments notwithstanding. Shouldn’t you be trying to make the case for gay marraige rather than attack straw men of your imagination.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 17, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - February 17, 2009