Tuesday, August 7, 2012

New Rights And The Demands Of Homosexuals

[This is part 1]

When it comes to homosexuality, there are two opposing underlying worldviews in play. The views are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable. A person cannot choose both worldviews without logical fracture in the resulting worldview. And once a person chooses one of the worldviews, the other worldview becomes not only morally defective, it becomes onerous under the moral principles of the chosen viewpoint. However, only one worldview remains rational.

What I hope to do in this part is to lay out the origins of the underlying worldviews of both sides, and then to illuminate the issue as seen from the Right. This might surprise those on the Left who have characterized the Right in manners to suit their own prejudices.

Rights; Their Source and Moral Authority

The source of human Rights is a basic point of contention. How are Rights derived? What is the foundation which gives Rights a meaning which is absolute and inviolable, even “unalienable”? Or is there any such absolute and inviolable source in the first place?

The political Right is largely coincident with religious beliefs for a reason: the concept that humans have intrinsic value beyond that of an assemblage of quarks and leptons, and that this value is due to an external source which has provided humans with non-physical capacities such as intellect, will, and agency, these faculties being outside the abilities of subatomic particles to provide. The intrinsic value of each human, including the faculties each human possesses, leads to the basic human Rights, which include the Right to exist (life), the Right to pursue the necessities for existence, the Right to protect one’s existence, the Right to procreate, and the Right to freely use one’s faculties.

The existence of these special Rights leads to the further concept of the existence of absolute morality, a code of behavior which is not the product of human convention or manufacture, but which also is from an external source, as are the faculties which humans possess, as well as life itself. Within this concept is embedded the idea that discrimination is necessary in order to select behaviors for oneself which conform to the moral code, and that there exists such things as decency and good character, without which a person is not decent or good. Accomplishing decency and good character requires self-restraint and self-discipline in their pursuit. They are not awarded as a necessary trait of being human.

There is a difference between human Rights and permissions. Many of the “New Rights” which are currently being “discovered” are actually merely permissions. The spectrum of acceptable behaviors which is endorsed by the political Left does not exist, except as a non-valid concept, for the political Right. Rights are not negotiable according to the political Right. Permissions are negotiable, but they cannot refute the non-negotiable Rights, nor interfere with the absolute morality which is externally provided.


New Rights, New Morals: Rights Endowed By The Left, As Seen From the Right

The Left has a different concept of humans. Humans are animals, and are not special in any specific manner. All human attributes are physical including the intellect and agency. All Human Rights are permissions which are seized and maintained with the use of power. Power is the determinate factor in human relationships (Note 2): not only must Rights and permissions be seized with power, those humans who possess power can and likely will deny human Rights to other humans with less power. The brokering of power, then, is essential, and that is the focus of the progressive movement: to change the power structure to a top-down control of utopian objectives for the benefit of all mankind. This requires a very strong government which determines the Rights (actually permissions and faux entitlements) as it sees fit. In other words, the Left favors a “Positive Rights” system, where ordinary humans have only the permissions which are allocated to them by the government – a government which is benign and humanistic by definition if not fact, and is manned by humanist elitists who are guided only by their emotion of empathy, in order to install perfect Equality. Equality is a holy tenet (holy in the sense of absolute and untouchable). Nothing else is “fair” except Equality. (More on this in a bit).

Further, the permissions favored by the Left are based on a spectrum of acceptable behaviors, wherein no behavior is actually immoral unless it contradicts the UberMoral of Equality. The spectrum of acceptable behaviors goes back at least to the Kinsey report on sexuality, which promoted the idea that any and every sexual behavior is not just normal, but exists along a spectrum of sexual preferences, all of which are valid and normal. Within this concept, discrimination of certain behaviors as good vs. other behaviors as bad is a violation of the ideology: it is immoral in the Leftist world. This produces a basic conflict with traditional Rights which encourages discrimination against undesirable behaviors, a conflict which seems irresolvable.

The Logical Non-Coherence of Non-Discrimination

And yet, the behavior of discriminating against immorality is exactly that which the Left is engaged in, all the while claiming that discrimination against immorality is intolerant and thus immoral. They discriminate against the immorality of discrimination. This logical non-coherence of the Leftist moral position is either not perceived by its Leftist adherents, or else is studiously ignored. Thus the Leftist position is seen as dogmatic, self-endowed, and irrational by those on the Right. Intolerance of dissent while claiming tolerance as a necessary moral precept is irrational.

The ideal for the Left, then, is that human Rights are self-endowed by humanist elites who have (or wish to have) seized power over both the prior governing principles and the human masses, and who apportion permissions called Rights to the masses as their empathy dictates, along a spectrum of acceptable behaviors. Power is to be maintained by and for the elites in order to maintain Equality in the masses, regardless of their desires otherwise. It can’t be otherwise, or Equality will not occur. This ideal is not in place now, and the power currently wielded is not absolute (more on this below).

Leftist morality then, at least to the extent that they assert morality, is based on Equality of every human (under the elites) (regardless of behaviors). Equality is the moral standard. Inequality is immoral. (Except for the elites, who are morally and intellectually superior, hence, more deserving). (Note 1). Inequality amongst the masses is cause for great moral outrage amongst the Left. The solution is always force, inasmuch as is actually available. Judicial forcing has worked for the Left. Emotional and psychological forcing via the media has also been productive.

The New Morality and the New Rights are in direct opposition to traditional morality and rights, which are now despised and derided by the Left. The moral inversion is a direct result of the Kinsey type of claim that behaviors exist along a continuum of acceptable behaviors, none of which should be discriminated against, certainly not by traditional morality which is immoral due to its non-congruence with the New Morality. The inversion has some readily identifiable characteristics:

Inversion of Moral Values By the Left

(a) Truth is not objective and does not actually exist. Truth becomes the servant of the ideology, and whatever premise supports the ideology is considered to be true. Thus any premise which does not support the ideology is false. This logical error of rationalization is one of the basic underlayments for the Leftist ideology. It is irrational. And ironically it is achieved by discriminating against actual facts which do not conform to the desired conclusion.

(b) Equality is the ultimate Moral Truth; however, it does not mean the traditional “equality of opportunity” coupled with responsibility for the consequences of actions and of potential failure. The New Morality is Equality of Outcome (everyone gets a blue ribbon and homosexuality is morally equal to any and all other behaviors). And it is coupled with the Equality of behaviors to the degree that no behavior must suffer the consequences which that behavior entails. This is based in the concept of Fairness which is determined emotionally, based on the emotion of empathy rather than on considerations such as prior ownership, individual contribution, market valuation of one pursuit vs another pursuit, or any other consideration outside of Equality of outcome. No outcome which is not equal to other outcomes can be considered Fair. Hence any Right held by straights must also be held by homosexuals: that is Fair and Equal and therefore Moral. Thus same-sex marriage automatically becomes a Right.

(c) Family is not valued, and traditional family values are denigrated (Note 2). Homosexuality is valued more highly than traditional family values which are said to be in place in order to persecute homosexuals. Further, casual sex is promoted in all possible venues from media and movies to schools where sexual adventurism is encouraged and condoms are supplied, and access to abortion without parental knowledge is pursued – all in the service of impersonal, consequence-free sexual encounters outside of marriage. Abstinence and personal responsibility such as chastity are not valued, and is ridiculed. Self-control is too hard for modern generations.

(d) All fixed values are rejected in favor of spot values which are Relativist and Consequentialist. All behaviors are valid, so there are no actual good/bad values to be had, except for dissent from the basic concept of the continuum and Relativism; dissent is counter to the accepted morality and is therefore evil, despite there being no objective or absolute evil.

(e) Moral source: the self; moral theories including Equality are thought up for personal use. It is moral because I say so. Still, not accepting the tenet of Moral Equality is difficult to do, when there is such forcing pressure to accept it.

Moral authority: the self; one can and must decide for himself what is right; there is no absolute or objective moral guidance, and anyone who claims otherwise is evil, and is attempting to use that for domination. Except that Equality, the Father Moral, is always valid.

(f) Accountability: Since all behaviors are equally valid along the spectral continuum of behaviors, there is no need for accountability.

(g) Moral consistency: Consistency of Equality is demanded of others; consistency of personal behavior is eschewed as a discriminatory requirement. Trust is to be demanded, not produced by consistent behaviors.

(h) Character (and decency): Character is not an existing human trait; this proceeds from behaviors being valid regardless of any consideration of character. And character, along with the demand for “decency” as a product of “good” character, are too difficult for some people and are therefore discriminatory. Assertion of character as a valid or desirable trait is evil.

(i) Humility is rejected, including humility in intellectual pursuit as well as dogmatic elitism. What is favored is the Will To Power, using whatever power is available, and disguised as empathy, a la Alinsky. However, humility of the masses would be convenient in the pursuit of Equality.

(j) Justice is definable as Equality in outcomes; this is claimed to be motivated by empathy for fairness, and fairness demands equality. This justice, however, is asserted from a position of Will To Power, an elitist, top-down allocation of fairness and equality from a position of obvious inequality (known as “more equal”).

(k) Fairness cannot exist if the parties are only partly equal. Hence, total equality rather than partial equality is the natural process to produce fairness. Since people cannot accomplish this on their own (after all they do not have equal starting positions or equal capabilities) they must be forced into equal outcomes in the pursuit of Fairness. This forcing is necessary due to the Left’s massive Love of Humanity.

Force

The forcing functions of the past half-century have been via the seizure of psychiatric and education associations, the media and Hollywood, and the government, especially the judiciary, followed by the Senate, the Justice Dept and the Education Dept.

Here is where permissions are forced undemocratically onto the social fabric by a tiny minority of activists. For example, male-female marriage is defended successfully in every instance where it is brought to a citizen’s vote, whereas it is defeated in venues where judges unconstitutionally legislate it as a new “Right”. Another example is the installation of abortion as a “Right”, by activist judiciaries following the spectrum theory. This contrasts to civil rights for blacks, which was legislated by a largely Republican majority, with much dissent from the party of slavery, Jim Crow, Separate But Equal and the welfare plantation which was originated as the War On Poverty.

Even more influential in the culture is the accusation of hate and intolerance whenever the Left is insulted by the existence of dissent to their moral creation. The creation of Leftist moral correctness, tolerated speech and proper thought alignment has intimidated and indoctrinated several generations into the ideology of Moral Equality, the Spectral Continuum of Totally Acceptable Behaviors and Unreckoning Tolerance, and the evilness of dissent along with the subhumanness of dissenters. One such tactic is the constant cry of “racism” whenever a black politician is confronted with uncomfortable questions from a white, or even a black who is not “black enough”. The comparable cry of “homophobic bigot” accompanies challenges to the homosexual community. The psychological forcing function has been quite successful amongst the semi-educated generations. Righteous intimidation is a staple of the Left.

Conflict

The political Right has no concept that all behaviors are acceptable and exist along a spectral continuum of totally acceptable behaviors. The continuum concept is in direct conflict with the concept of specific good and decent behaviors, vs. bad and indecent behaviors as determined by an absolute moral code.

Even the Left violates their own premise when it comes to behaviors such as pedophilia, even though Kinsey supported that behavior as part of the normal sexual behavior spectrum. This internal conflict is countered with denialism.

Further, the claim of the existence of a spectral continuum of totally acceptable behaviors leads to the destruction of all social restraints (what’s to restrain if all behaviors are OK?), and enables social chaos. This is empirically observable in the younger generations which have been brought up under the influence of the spectrum. And the spectral continuum is couched in terms of complete Tolerance of all behaviors as acceptable, and yet includes the demonization of “intolerance” of certain behaviors as unacceptable. The resulting confusion in the under-educated is highly visible to (probably) anyone who has actually taught high school in the past decade.

This confusion is beginning to be implemented into thought-crime laws, in the form of “hate” legislation, where crimes which are perceived to be based on “intolerance” are more severely punished. This adds discrimination to the list of Leftist institutions, and illuminates yet another non-coherence, that of anti-discrimination screamed at the Right while institutionalizing it from the Left.

The view from the Right is that the Left has seized control of the institutions which influence generations of humans, and has proceeded to eliminate the education of disciplined thought and historical knowledge, which are replaced with irrational Leftist ideology and barely literate job training. The culture is driven by faulty news coverage which is poisoned with embedded Leftist-elitist dogma; televised social corruption in prime time; and legal attacks on the Right from a self-empowered government with corrupt views of justice and a view merely to its own power and that of its financial cronies.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality is merely a single battle in the conflict between the Traditional Right and the intended hegemony of the amoral Left which is bent on implementing social amorality and top-down control (despite the lessons of those same experiments in the bloody 20th Century). Homosexuality was declared “normative” behavior not by scientific conclusion but by the attacks on the APA by homosexuals who succeeded in getting sanctioned permission for their behaviors by the removal of the homosexual disorder from the DSM. This was accomplished by just one individual, who ignored actual science and unilaterally removed homosexual disorder from the DSM due to his personal sympathy for homosexuals.( Note 3) They further secured their position by successfully implementing the banishment of any treatment for homosexuality reversal, and in some places any attempt at treating homosexuality is a crime punishable with imprisonment (Britain for example). The idea that homosexuality might be reversible is now virtually a thought crime, despite the numerous cases of actual reversals. Further still, homosexuals now must be portrayed in student’s textbooks as always positive role models with never a negative reference, at least in California.

Special Pleading For Limits To The Spectrum

Again, the case for normalizing homosexual behavior was made on the basis of the theory of the spectrum of totally acceptable behaviors and the Kinsey report, plus the power of the APA takeover. But the homosexuals now claim homosexuality not to be comparable to other behaviors such as pedophilia. In fact, they become agitated at the suggestion that if homosexuality is normalized using the theory of the Spectral Continuum of Totally Acceptable Behaviors, then other behaviors can and will use the same tactic, including pedophilia. But after all, Kinsey and now subsequent psychologists claim that pedophilia is normative behavior, even beneficial to the child/infant. So it is Special Pleading for homosexuals to claim the spectral continuum theory for themselves and then deny it to others. That places the denial of the moral equivalence of homosexuality with pedophilia into a position of irrationality. And that, of course, violates and negates their own raison d’etre If homosexuality is normative because all behaviors are normative along the continuum, then there can be no discrimination, even by homosexuals, even of pedophilia, under the system which they chose for their own justification. But they apparently don’t realize this non-coherence. If they did, or if they were forced to admit it, it would be extremely inconvenient to their cause.

False Analogy Failures

Homosexual defenders frequently compare LGBT’s to the blacks in the hopes of co-opting the black civil rights movement for themselves. Many if not most blacks find this comparison both onerous and invalid. (Note 4) Many blacks inhabit the political Left simultaneously with the religious Right, and where the political Left conflicts with the religious Right, the Left loses.

Straw Man Failures

And finally, homosexual defenders apparently cannot conceive of any rational reason to oppose their self-conceived moral position. So they suppose that any/all opposition is due to stupidity and/or hatred, and they promote that vision as their rallying cry. They thus create caricatures which they apply to a huge population which they then vilify, and they create the very environment of hate which they accuse the Other as having created. They then start to believe their own cartoons, and thus, being totally enmeshed in their own warped views and hate mongering they are intellectually unavailable for discussion of the actual root problem which their non-coherent position presents. The entire homosexual movement has thus descended into petulance and childish tantrums, couched in conceit and contemptuousness.

Conclusion: What This Is Really About

At bottom, the defense of man-woman marriage is not even about homosexuality, although that is where the battle line is drawn. It is really about the adoption of amoral spectral continuums of presupposed acceptable behaviors and false moralities such as mindless Equality which are dictated as social standards. It is about social engineering outside the auspices of democratic control. Further it is about resisting the Will To Power which is being exhibited by the Faux Moral Left, as they attempt to install top-down permissions for radical factions which then in return support the Leftist drive to hegemonic power. This includes not just homosexual permissions to defile matrimony; it also includes the continuing persecution of poor minorities by the implementation of Leftist plantation enslavement programs, even by Leftist blacks who profit by it. It also includes, contrary to Leftist propaganda, the elimination of crony government and the domination of the economy by banks and the Fed, as well as the world financial institutions. And like it or not, it includes male-female marriage as beneficial to children. It includes fighting the domination of culture by Leftist control of media, education and government, with irrational and false morals. It includes the defense of rational thought, disciplined logic and due diligence in the pursuit of actual facts concerning every situation.

I Predict…
…that despite the lack of caricaturization of the Left or homosexuals in this article, and the lack of any hate speech directed their way, and despite the attempt to merely describe the rational differentials between the positions and the perception of the destruction which will come from the concept of spectrums of acceptable behaviors, that this will result in charges of bigotry, hatred, subhuman stupidity and worse. Merely critiquing the moral precepts of the amoral Left is a moral attack on them: they do not tolerate any deviation from their position well (without retaliation). And the “not tolerate” translates to complete Intolerance. The objective of Holy Equality in all things seems to be an inviolable tenet of Leftism, and any violation is met with extremism in their response. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, “extremism in the pursuit of Holy Equality is not extremism, it is Holy behavior”. The self-endowed self-righteous are also self-justified for any behaviors; after all there are no non-valid behaviors under the continuum theory.

I predict that the Left will produce defenders who, rather than refute the above, will claim that they don’t know anyone who matches this description; that the claims above are bigoted and ignorant of actual Leftist positions – which they will fail to establish; and that this is bigoted hate speech of which they are quite self-righteously intolerant. And mostly they will create insults rather than create a dialog in their defense. I’ve been through this before.

Part 2 will appear in a few days.

Notes:

Note 1. The self-perception of moral eliteness is endemic to the Left, who condemn those who violate the Left’s morality of Equality as subhumans: mouth-breathers; knuckle-draggers; morons; death wishes are common. But when asked to elaborate on their moral system and its moral authority, few – very few - actually respond. The existence of an actual moral system violates the concept which protects the homosexual: there cannot be such a system on the Left because such systems are discriminatory, yet they have this self-endowed and self-righteous moral superiority anyway. This logical non-congruence also commonly eludes the Left.

Note 2. One homosexual Leftist characterized traditional family values thus: Family values are where a man goes home and beats his wife. Feminists have called marriage “legalized rape” and marriage has been described as the slavery of women, destroying their self-worth. Lesbianism has been offered as an antidote; Catharine MacKinnon, professor of law at U of Michigan claims that prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment are “indistinguishable”. “We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage”… Gloria Steinem. “Until all women are lesbians, there will be no true political revolution”…journalist Jill Johnson.

Note 3.The individual who unilaterally removed homosexuality from the APA DSMII is Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, a junior member who somehow got into control of the DSM after a turbulence which removed senior members. Barely 40 years old and with no discernible experience with homosexuality, Spitzer unilaterally removed homosexuality from the DSM, not for scientific reasons, but out of sympathy for homosexuals who wanted to be considered normal. In fact, a current report from the NY workgroup on homosexuality which reported that homosexuality was, indeed, a disorder was rejected. So actual science (now deemed heretical) was and is trumped by homosexual activism.

http://pfox.org/Removal_of_homosexuality.html

Note 4. Prop 8 was defeated in California by the contribution of the votes of both the black and Hispanic communities.






5 comments:

Steven Satak said...

I will keep this short: people who insist on placing their personal wishes and desires above those of others around them go by many names. Some are conservative and claim 'every man for himself' to excuse their heartlessness. Others are liberal and claim 'for the good of mankind' to excuse *their* heartlessness.

In the end, most have one big thing in common - they are egoists who, in order to justify and enable their egoism, have installed two mutually incompatible world views at the center of their lives. In simpler terms, a lie.

They don't reconcile these two world views because they don't *need* to. Conservatives and Liberals alike use both, depending on the situation. It doesn't matter that the two contradict. In fact, it's beside the point - because at bottom, they both serve a single idea "I can do whatever I want, no matter what the cost to me or anyone else". I believe this is also known as Relativism or Subjectivism, and CS Lewis regarded it as a poison.

And a poison it is. It taints everything a person does, even what he or she *is*. It never gets better, it only gets worse because one of the casualties of a swollen ego is Reason itself. After a certain point, you literally cannot think straight. Stan, you really dodged a bullet on this one, you know. Grace is an amazing thing.

And the poisoning of everything you are would not matter if you were just another mayfly, screwing over other mayflies. That is why the atheist attempt to reject deity seems to have bottomless reserves of determination. No matter what the actual facts, no matter the absolute lack of logical coherency, the atheist repeats, as loudly as they can, NUH UH! NUH UH!

And well they should. Because to stop means to admit doubt, and that might lead to consequence, accountability and the curious notion that, if this world is *not* all and we are indeed made things, we might be failing at the thing we were meant to be. No one ever suggested this would be an easy process (unless they were trying to sell us something).

And that is anathema to rebel souls, homosexual or otherwise.

Matthew said...

Live and let live: do it, or else.

Aqium said...

"...they both serve a single idea "I can do whatever I want, no matter what the cost to me or anyone else""

Steven, how would you feel about a world-view with the idea of "adults can do what they want if it doesn't hurt anybody"?

Steven Satak said...

@Aquium: what has that got to do with Stan's post? My 'feelings' are not the issue here, and I don't intend to let that change.

Steven Satak said...

Hang on a second. Edward Feser recants and admits the possibility of Deity, and he is cursed as a doddering old man, senile and to be ignored, by the AtheoLeft.

Meanwhile, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, who supposedly uncorked the gay genie by removing it as an officially recognized mental disorder in 1973, is now 80 and 'deeply sorry that he misinterpreted the data' in a controversial 'gay-cure' he championed around 2001.

Where are the AtheoLeftists condemning this man's recantation as the maundering of a senile fool who regrets muddying his pro-gay career with unsupported trash?

That's right, folks. They aren't there, *because the man is saying something they want to hear*.

So apparently senility and its effect on a older person's judgment is pretty much dependent on who you are talking to and what *they* want to hear.

Or am I getting senile? Because this smacks less of mental deterioration and more of politics every time I read about it.