Justin:

A few entries back, you proposed that instead of marriage, homosexuals should look for something that more naturally conforms to the nature of their relationships. That it should remain “gay focused” is how you put it. I think it’s true that a marriage-less life is not as debilitating to the gay person and to gay culture, as it obviously is to heterosexuals. So I’m open to the idea that something other than marriage is the way to go.

But than I come across things like this “(Andrew Sullivan) is unapologeticly homosexual and, until recently, a devoutly Catholic.” There’s only one reason why you would put these two ideas together in one sentence. They conflict with one another. In your (devout Catholic) view, a homosexual, in search of “gay focus,” must begin by first apologizing for being gay. That’s ridiculous. The institutions created under pre-conditions of shame cannot be life-affirming. Just the opposite, they are sure to be shame-inducing (and so your church has a problem with pedophile priests).

So it’s pretty clear that keeping it “gay focused,” though it sounds lovely, coming from people like yourself it’s merely a ploy for keeping the “traditional” prejudiced view in place. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh. But I see no other way to interpret your words.

Arturo,

Frankly, I don't see any way to be both unapologetically homosexual and devoutly Catholic, at least if by "unapologetically homosexual" we mean unapologetic for engaging in homosexual acts (much less celebrating homosexuality as a blessing, as Sullivan has done). Keep in mind, here, that the other side of the contradiction is Catholic, not generic Christian. (I do believe that Catholicism is the full expression of Christianity, but the variety of sects would make the discussion much more involved.)

I think your attempt to combine my various points goes beyond what is meritted. In the previous post to which you refer, I suggested that defeat would lead supporters of SSM to advocate "for a gay-focused alternative" to marriage. Personally, I wouldn't oppose that categorically (although I'd insist on particular means of bringing it about). Still, assessment of how the various forces would play out after a given event is a different matter than assessment of what a particular side believes to be right.

Moving to a different point, among the rhetorically interesting aspects of such debates, I've found, is the tendency of one side to rephrase the position of the other, but changing only the implicit condemnation. In that previous post, I wrote that "the culture will subsequently internalize the reasons for the different institutions (not meaning discrimination)." By the parenthetical, I meant that invidious discrimination is not a reason, although discrimination in a neutral, unavoidable sense would be an effect, the legitimate reasons for which would be internalized.

It seems to me you've merely rephrased in a negative manner what I said when you write, "a ploy for keeping the 'traditional' prejudiced view in place." But the substantive difference is that you've transformed the significance of "discrimination." I don't, as it happens, believe that the "traditional" view is founded in prejudice, whereas you believe them to be inherently linked adjectives.

Lastly, I'm curious what you're suggesting in your parenthetical here:

The institutions created under pre-conditions of shame cannot be life-affirming. Just the opposite, they are sure to be shame-inducing (and so your church has a problem with pedophile priests).

Are you suggesting that shamed homosexuals become pedophiles?

You’re right that I believe that the “traditional” view is very closely linked to prejudice. This will be the case as long as one group is expected to apologize to the other before attempting to find its place amongst it.

In reference to pedophilia, I don’t discount anything, and I don’t attribute it to only one cause, including the likelihood that it is more closely aligned with heterosexuality. One of the basic differences between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is that ho-sex (more than he-sex) is an encounter of equals, while he-sex (more than ho-sex) is about control. It makes sense that with pedophilia, including the man-boy variety, we are dealing with a heterosexual male who, psychologically, is unable to put into effect in a healthy way what his heterosexual brain programmed him to do. So instead of “controlling” a woman, which he is too weak to do, he substitutes a child.

One of the basic differences between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is that ho-sex (more than he-sex) is an encounter of equals, while he-sex (more than ho-sex) is about control.

Baloney. You're confusing "equality" and "equivalence."

While individual pairings of either type will construct their relationships differently, heterosexual sex involves each person's full expression of his or her unique sexual capacity. (Unique from the other, opposite-sex person.) They are equals, in other words, in their difference. Homosexual sex, on the other hand, because it involves people of equivalent capacity necessarily implies (at least temporarily) the dominance of one or the other. (Indeed, in looking for historical precedents, SSM advocates and gay activists have had to associate themselves with expressions of homosexuality in which one party was explicitly dominated.)

I suppose one could argue that pedophiles cannot act in their full sexual capacity (psychologically), so they turn to children. Of course, one could say the same of homosexuals. In that case, the debate is whether one aberration is closer to the norm or to another aberration. (I'm sure this paragraph comes across as more insulting than I mean it to be; take it as a theoretical discussion.)

THAT is the way heterosexuals like to think about homosexuality. We went over this when we discussed why heterosexuals rape homosexuals in prison, and not the other way around. I happen to be among the first generation (barely, I’m about your age) of homosexuals growing up uncorrupted by heterosexuals’ perverse notions of what homosexuality is. It is to this generation that you should look at if you wish to understand what homosexual’s homosexuality really is, not to the ones you’ve so neatly and conveniently harmed

Well look, Arturo, if you're going to offer up incendiary comments in accordance with the way that homosexuals like to think about heterosexuals, only to turn around and point at the contrary view as an invalid remnant of the sexual politics of the past, then that's not a game I'm particularly interested in playing. It's like attempting to play catch using a wad of pudding.

>> ho-sex (more than he-sex) is an encounter of equals, while he-sex (more than ho-sex) is about control

Sex between men and women is about control? No, but put that aside for a moment.

What is sex between two men, or two women, about if not about control?

And how would it fit with the new homosexual norm that SSM advocates have been espousing but which in practice remains on the fringes of the gay community?

Arturo, your colloquialism of he-sex for a heterogamous intercourse and ho-sex for homogamous intercourse tends to blur the lines by making them sound like the opposite of their actuality.

I don't know if this in intentional on your part, but I am tempted to suspect this is a deliberate ruse. Then again, given your statement about the orientation of purpose behind sexual contact in heterogamous and homogamous intercourse, you also seem oblivious to the possible allusions that you are making.

Labeling the opposite sex intercourse as he-sex makes it sound as if two males are engaging each other. Labeling same sex intercourse as ho-sex makes it sound as if there is a derogatory reference to the female as a 'ho'.

This makes your whole line of thinking muddled and confusing to me.

Chairm:

You guys are reacting to my comment as if I had said “heterosexuality (in its entirety) is about control.”

It is you guys who are playing Catch The Wad of Pudding. I’ll give you an example, Justin thinks it means something that Andrew Sullivan doesn’t want to marry even tough he favors gay marriage, yet thinks it doesn’t mean anything that a straight couple won’t divorce if their gay neighbors marry. Heterosexuals get the “benefit” of time, while homosexuals, who must begin by first issuing apologies for who they are, don’t.

You guys won’t get it if you keep thinking that homosexuality is simply about sex. Look at it this way. Heterosexuals like sports, which is about power and control. That heterosexuals like sports and that they also like females are not totally unrelated things. Homosexuals gravitate towards art and intellect, which (I’ll manipulate Justin’s quote above) “is a person’s full expression of his capabilities.” Homosexuals express themselves sexually with someone who shares those qualities. There’s no need to completely himself by having sex with “it’s opposite”—there’s no such thing, there’s no need.

I'm sorry, Arturo. I just don't have the patience right now to try to span the huge gap between us. You characterized straight sex one way, and I suggested that you had that characterization of the differing acts of sex incorrect. Now, in the same comment in which you're accusing me of reacting to an extrapolated version of what you said, you extrapolate it! And by means of gender clichés! I'm not even sure what it is you're trying to say... that we just need to find you a lady who's into "art and intellect"?

As for Sullivan's lack of interest in actually being married, I mentioned it as significant in a particular context: trying to determine what it is about SSM that he believes makes it uniquely a source of "full humanity." I concluded that — for Sullivan — it was the choice to marry, because he desires the ability to marry but not an actual marriage.

P.S. — Art and intellect aren't about control... yeah right.

Maybe this is trite, but it seems to me that for people with control issues... everything is about control.