“The Manhood Deficit,” Continued

This blog post builds on the comments section discussion in an earlier post, “The Manhood Deficit,” concerning whether it is better to conceive of “homosexuality” as an identity (a thing you are) or an activity (a thing you do).

Here’s a useful data point to add to that discussion: the story of a happily married Mormon man with three kids and a self-described “extremely healthy and robust sex life” with his wife telling everyone that he is “gay.”

One of the insights from the earlier discussion on the nature of homosexuality is that, as a schema, it makes it difficult to talk about the world in meaningful ways. Indeed, to the extent that the abovementioned man can be considered “homosexual,” it’s only because the entire schema of “sexual identity” is so protean that it can accommodate virtually any oddity.

About these ads

17 thoughts on ““The Manhood Deficit,” Continued

  1. whether it is better to conceive of “homosexuality” as an identity (a thing you are) or an activity (a thing you do)

    I am not sure this is always a good way to frame it. You can be something without it forming a part of your identity. I am indubitably a mammal, yet that doesn’t really form a part of my identity.

    I agree though that on a rhetorical level we may want to play that down as often when people are told that they are something it will become part of their identity. In the past people could be homosexual in a physiological sense without it forming part of their identity. Now perhaps not so much.

  2. Indeed, to the extent that the abovementioned man can be considered “homosexual,” it’s only because the entire schema of “sexual identity” is so protean that it can accommodate virtually any oddity.

    For what it’s worth, the reason I always write the term with double quotes (i.e. “gay”) is because “gayness” has far less to do with “sexual orientation” (which phrase is, itself, an aspect/reflection of the politics) than with sexual-preference-as-politics.

  3. I would say it’s what you do, not who you are.

    I have sometimes contemplated murder. Yet I have never killed anyone, and am therefore not a murderer.

    As long as I do not have homosex, I am not a homosexual. However, one can be a “homosexualist” without being homosexual.

    By modernity’s moral relativism, all sex is equal, even though homosexual union is childless, and also vectors many diseases.

    It is clearly a misfortune, an affliction; like an ingrown toenail of the soul.
    We should pray for their healing, not hurl insults.

    • not hurl insults.

      I don’t understand this at all. Surely, the negative social sanctions we direct at thieves, murderers, rapists, and sodomites are good things. They help sinners recognize and resist their sins. Rebuking sinners is a work of charity: specifically, in Catholic theology, it is a spiritual work of mercy. This is a point of theology which Protestants and Catholics agree on, though, since the Bible explicitly endorses rebuking sinners.

      I imagine that at some times and places with respect to some sins, you could argue that society crossed the line between rebuking sinners and needlessly inflicting pain. But we are nowhere near that line today with respect to sodomy.

      • It’s one thing to be rebuked for an action, but quite another to be mocked for a disposition that you’ve never even acted upon. Homosexual teenagers are often mocked for their manner of speaking or gesturing, even though they’ve never committed sodomy or “come out.” Such mockery only drives them further into the arms of the LGBT movement.

  4. Homosexuality is self-annihilating and thus homosexuals are self-annihilators. This is a far more truthful way to frame the issue and help clarify what is at stake when we embrace and exalt self-annihilators. For instance, two self-annihilators cannot form a “union” that is not itself self-annihilating at its very “creation.”

    Another issue is that of the homosexual “man.” This concept gives credence to the idea that “man” can be sexually averse to “woman.” It seems to me that by allowing homosexuals the privilege of being “man” they then have no substantive incentive to reject their self-annihilating ways.

    I think both the “preachers” and the practitioners of homosexuality understand that such a “nature” provides the motivation/justification to “create” a wide and influential array of new and perverse “social constructions.”

    • This is just the sort of wantonly cruel shit of which I spoke, which does not even belong on a religious reactionary weblog such as this one.

      My late wife died of cancer on 22 February, and I never once hit her. Your heart is full of putrid hatred. You also very much need our prayers.

      • Anymouse,
        The reason that Donald is (ahem) “arguing with me” — which is to say, hurling a vacuous and irrational whinge in my direction — is that with one sentence I have exposed the vapid and tendentious leftist assumptions of the insinuation he made with his prior post … and, quite possibly, because I appear to have unmasked the unmanliness of his soul.

  5. The assumption underlying all this is that “homosexuality” is a valid category. If it is valid, we would expect to see cross-cultural or historical evidence of it; do we? (That’s not a rhetorical question; I’m not aware of any evidence, but I haven’t looked outside of what I’ve run across incidentally, so it’s quite probable that it’s there and I’ve just missed it. But at the very least, it’s certainly not pervasive, like the masculine/feminine divide.)

    • It is the same as other phenomena such as adolescence. The exact parameters and definition of that have been debated, and many question whether it is particularly trans cultural, although the psychologists of the late 19th century certainly assumed there assumptions were grounded in biological reality.

  6. Pingback: You’re doing it wrong: Chik-fil-A edition « The Orthosphere

  7. Pingback: Scattered post-election thoughts « The Orthosphere

  8. Pingback: “The Manhood Deficit,” part III: This time, it’s episcopal | The Orthosphere

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s