This is the question asked by homosexual activist Jason Kuznicki as he discussed the “Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics?” forum. His discussion points to some interesting issues that might be useful to us as the issue is not one which will disappear any time in the future.
Conservatism offers virtually no usable past for gays and lesbians. Even black conservatives can say, in effect, “The past sure wasn’t golden, but when Jefferson — and plenty of others — wrote that ‘all men are created equal,’ they clearly meant us too.” Which is plausible enough, at least, for black conservatism not to be a flat contradiction in terms.
This is much harder for gay people to do, which is why we have to resort to newly thought arguments rather than tradition to justify what we’re saying. There’s a built-in liberalness to gay politics, if not necessarily to gay people. Even conservative gay politics, in this sense, is liberal. Because all we have is the future. It’s the future, or nothing.
The first thing of note is the straw man of conservatism. If he were talking specifically of the social conservative movement then he might have a poiint. But he does not. If he were speaking of fiscal conservatism then he would have no real point at all because social matters tend to be of little consequence to the pragmatism of the economically-minded. This makes the conservative into a very useful boogie-man for all fair people to oppose.
The second issue is his manner for handling practical matters.
That “nothing” was on full display this afternoon, when I got to ask Maggie Gallagher the question I’ve always wanted to ask her: What do you think that am I supposed to do with my life?
Suppose I found myself in agreement with her. Suppose I concluded that same-sex marriage was corrosive to society. Do I leave my husband? Do I send my adopted daughter back to the state? Enter ex-gay therapy, which isn’t likely to work? Tell my whole family that I’m single now, and that Scott shouldn’t be welcome at family events? Live my whole life alone, and loveless? Hide? Where is the life I’m supposed to live?
I probably wasn’t so articulate at the Cato event, but I do recall Gallagher’s very simple answer: “I don’t know.”
I don’t know that I’ve ever read a homosexual activist who does not engage in some level of pity-eliciting rhetoric. Loveless? No place to live? Unwelcome? Broken home? Therapy? Talk about a laundry list of heart-break! One would think that without homosexual marriage, adoption, promotion in education, and media reinforcement that they would be all left out on the streets. It is an all-or-nothing argument, one that insists on the whole pie of “rights” else the person is left to be less than human. (Not surprisingly the appeal to near-racism was also present as though conservatism == racism. The argument just cannot proceed without it.)
She certainly doesn’t, and that’s the whole problem with gay conservatism — there’s hardly a life to be lived within it. There’s no breathing room. Until social conservatives offer us a better answer than “I don’t know,” until they offer us a way to be gay, and conservative, and respectable in their eyes, they’re not going to find many gay conservatives.
His end game is difficult to understand. Does he think that the only conflict between conservatism and liberalism ought to be political matters (e.g., international concerns or economic policy), and that social conservatives ought to just give up their social agenda?
We live in the era of pietism, and have for the past three or so centuries. We live our lives according to certain social norms, many of which are religious in nature. It used to be that a lady, when stooping, would bend at her knees. Or a man would wear a hat. But today’s pietism has borrowed society’s moral conscience (which was Christian, at least in sentiment, in the past) and created a secular version. We do not allow our cats to be shipped overseas for foot. We do not promote smoking. We do not act in any way that is unfair. (Whatever fair means.)
And we do not force people to do anything they do not want to do. That’s just not nice. We do not force women to carry unwanted pregnancies. (As though that really ever happened.) We do not keep people from doing anything that they want, if it makes them happy and harms no one else. We might even say that a group’s accepted rules for membership can be altered ad hoc if we so desire. (The ending parenthesis of the linked post is quite troubling.)
Social policy is a tough one for the Christian. Do we treat the homosexual as a non-person and fulfill their often-written anticipation of self-loathing? Will we treat them like whining children or like responsible human beings? Or do we say to them that they are free to enter the church at any time to hear the redemptive message of Christ? When they come in the door, will they be met with scorn or will they be met with a grace that can lead to repentance? What is our message?
February 17th, 2010 | 8:29 pm | #1
A couple of points.
First, my disagreement is indeed with social conservatives, not with fiscal ones. I overwhelmingly agree with the fiscal conservatives. That’s not what this forum was about, and I did not mean to bring in the issue of fiscal conservatism at all.
Second, you answer my question much more frankly than Maggie Gallagher did. I take your answer to lie in the final paragraph, and to consist, in effect, of praying the gay away.
I’d ask you to bear in mind that this only very rarely works, if at all, and that it did not work in mine. So what should I do? Keep trying? Forever?
Surely you must realize that at some point this begins to look less and less like a viable strategy for living a real, sincere, and human life.
February 17th, 2010 | 9:18 pm | #2
Jason,
I do not expect you to understand the spiritual component of my challenge to the church to consider its message. What I will leave you with is a biographical comment: I’ve a friend who came out of homosexuality, but not through the stereotyped mechanisms of therapy or some mechanistic understanding of prayer. No public fanfare. No public comments. Just a changed life. It was what God’s spirit does, often and well.
February 17th, 2010 | 9:25 pm | #3
“…real, sincere, and human…” That is exactly the sort of life that is in fact lived by someone who does struggle with gay attractions and yet in the end decides to forsake versus embrace them. Wrongly-ordered desires are tragic, but they do not make an individual or his or her life a tragedy. A chain of choices, however, does, no matter how much an individual or a society wants it to be otherwise. You don’t pray the gay life away. As nice as that might sound. Answers? ‘I don’t know’ is not meant to be anything other than painfully honest. But one can pray for the peace and strength and grace to life a virtuous life. A hard saying, definitely. But one many have tried and proved. Let him who has ears, hear.
February 18th, 2010 | 10:27 am | #4
Collin,
Empirically, your claim is false. God’s spirit does not “often” change gay to straight. Perhaps rarely, but certainly not often.
Also, while it may be a “real, sincere, and human” life path to turn heterosexual after having been gay, I do not think it is any less so to be gay, and a decent human being, and comfortable with one’s sexuality, even if it happens not to conform with a religion that I happen not to share.
February 18th, 2010 | 12:53 pm | #5
“You don’t pray the gay life away.”
I think prayer is helpful.
February 18th, 2010 | 1:31 pm | #6
And Collin’s true hatefulness comes out in full play.
Your state doesn’t let you marry the person you love, so that when they’re in the hospital you can’t get into be with them? You’re just whining.
Your parents kicked you out of the house because you’re gay? Qwitcherbellyaching.
Somebody beat you up in school…again? What’s the big deal?
Somebody tied you to a fence in the Wyoming winter and left you to die? Enough with the self-pity.
Feel the Christian love coming from this evangelical. What indeed will be your message, Collin?
Fortunately I know plenty of Christians who don’t share your contempt for the suffering of their neighbors and fellow citizens, so I’m quite sure it’s not faith that causes such inhuman thoughts, but something rotten in your own soul.
February 18th, 2010 | 4:15 pm | #7
James,
Of course your attitude is understood by many. Of course, you did *everything* but call me a racist. Why not?
Jason,
Why would you submit something non-empirical to an empirical test?
February 18th, 2010 | 4:41 pm | #8
Collin,
Racist? What are you talking about? I never mentioned race at all. This isn’t about race in any way. This isn’t even about our disagreement about same-sex marriage.
All this is about is you belittling the real harms done to people. Real live individual human beings are harmed, and you denigrate that harm as mere “pity eliciting rhetoric.” It’s evident that a violent attack on a gay man doesn’t elicit any pity in your hardened heart.
Remember, “whatever you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto me” (New Revised Off the Cuff Version).
February 18th, 2010 | 4:48 pm | #9
I fail to understand your question. Sexual activity, self-reported sexual ideation, and self-reported sexual identity are all empirical matters. They are certainly fit for empirical tests. When we do these tests, we find that only a very small number of gay people are able to change their orientation on any of these measures for any significant period of time. A very few can, but the overwhelming majority can’t.
Of course, you did *everything* but call me a racist. Why not?
Presumably because you’ve shown no evidence of racism? Just a lot of desire, for some reason, to be called a racist?
February 18th, 2010 | 6:39 pm | #10
James,
I belittled nobody. What I suggested was that the hyperbole of inhumanity amounts to a level of self-loathing that is destructive. The redemptive gospel resolves that.
Jason,
When we do these tests, we find that only a very small number of gay people are able to change their orientation on any of these measures for any significant period of time. A very few can, but the overwhelming majority can’t.
So you’re a biological determinist?
February 18th, 2010 | 7:11 pm | #11
So you’re a biological determinist?
No, I am an empiricist.
It is, for example, conceivable that some method of generally successful ex-gay therapy exists, but that we haven’t found it yet. If we ever do, it will be through empirical testing of the type I just suggested. Not through wishing or willpower.
At that point, I may have a real choice to make. I don’t see one now. But even if such a choice existed, I would not take it. I have a love, and a family, and I am happy. Why would I want to leave it? I don’t understand this at all. Perhaps some people are unhappy as homosexuals, but I’m very, very happy.
February 18th, 2010 | 7:26 pm | #12
What is a person to do who is tempted to indulge in homosexual sins?
Repent. Believe the Gospel. Cling to Christ. Pray for grace and struggle manfully against this sin, just as every sinner does.
There is no other answer.
Period.
February 19th, 2010 | 8:24 am | #13
Self-loathing? Seriously, Collin, you think it’s about self-loathing? You think complaints about homosexuals being beaten and killed is “hyperbole” of inhumanity, rather than real inhumanity? You think the real meaning of the complaints is self-loathing, rather than that physical assaults and emotional abuse of a person is simply wrong and damaging?
You are a more horrible person than I had imagined. Since we first “met” online I have thought you were wrong and misguided, but I did not, until now, think that you were such a deeply hateful person that you say that someone who complains about being beaten or ostracized doesn’t have a real complaint–it’s just mere self-loathing.
What a vicious, nasty, un-Christian, wretch you are.
February 19th, 2010 | 10:22 am | #14
“What a vicious, nasty, un-Christian, wretch you are.”
Collin, I’m sending you two cases of virtual kleenex to wipe away your tears.
That comment must really hurt and it’ll take you awhile to come to grips with the reality and truth of this statement.
P.S. I don’t know if there’s a successful ex-homophobe therapy, but if we ever do, it will be through empirical testing of the type that other folks have suggested.
February 19th, 2010 | 10:33 am | #15
TUD,
Thank you. I may need it.
It is amazing that nobody is allowed to disagree, for any reason, without there being some “hate” attached. Apparently thinking of one’s self as worthless is not a type of self-loathing, but is supposedly a rational argument to draw an empirical conclusion.
Hanley hasn’t even done me the courtesy of quoting me (in drawing his conclusions), but would rather put words in my mouth. Such is typical. What is truly amazing to me is how many down-right stupid PhDs are out there. Their view of sexuality is so irrational that some even confuse sexual accosting with flirting.
February 19th, 2010 | 10:42 am | #16
It is amazing that nobody is allowed to disagree, for any reason, without there being some “hate” attached.
When people are beaten up, and when those complain of it, and when you tell the beaten people that they’re just trolling for pity… yeah, it sounds hateful. This shouldn’t be amazing. You’re being hateful. This is what hate looks like.
Also, you are factually incorrect to claim that James didn’t quote you. Anyone can see that this is a lie, simply by scrolling upward. He did quote you. He most certainly did.
February 19th, 2010 | 11:12 am | #17
Jason,
I said nothing about violence or abuse, or about condoning such. As such James could not quote me to the point. All he could do was presume upon my intent and insert his own words.
If you wish to pursue the idea of non-personhood that is your right. But don’t pretend that not getting everything you want amounts to being less than human.
(If you noted the last paragraph, it was a challenge to the church to consider the character of its ministry in this venue.)
February 19th, 2010 | 11:21 am | #18
I said nothing about violence or abuse, or about condoning such. As such James could not quote me to the point.
He didn’t quote you on that point. But he did quote you being callously indifferent to individuals being beaten up.
If you wish to pursue the idea of non-personhood that is your right. But don’t pretend that not getting everything you want amounts to being less than human.
Fine. I am more than happy to claim that being beaten, or being criminalized for loving another consenting adult, amounts to getting subhuman treatment.
Am I a person? Of course. Can I expect to be treated like one? Not nearly often enough.
February 19th, 2010 | 12:01 pm | #19
Jason,
You still insist on placing my statements in the context of condoning violence. Again, I never wrote anything that would allow for violence. The irrationality of your argument, along with Hanley’s, is transparent.
February 19th, 2010 | 1:54 pm | #20
Well, then, come right out and say that you don’t condone violence against homosexuals. Tell us that you condemn violence against homosexuals. You object to the characterization, but you never have said explicitly, as has my pastor, “Homosexuals are individuals who are loved by God, and it is the responsibility of all Christians to treat them with dignity, respect, and love.”
And then please tell us why you think it’s ok to belittle being homeless, alone, and without love. Were you forced to divorce your wife, unable to be with someone you love, and without a home, I certainly wouldn’t mock your complaints as merely being “pity-eliciting rhetoric.”
And there’s the rub, Collin. There’s the nastiness. There’s the hate. Complaining about the harm that anti-marriage opponents would do to homosexuals is denigrated as “pity-eliciting rhetoric.” You don’t accept it as valid and true. Yet you insist that you’re the good guy.
February 19th, 2010 | 3:12 pm | #21
Hi Collin,
Have you read this article?
Turn the other cheek, eh?
February 19th, 2010 | 4:06 pm | #22
James,
No amount of truth will satisfy you. So I think it’s time this thread ends. Enjoy the remainder of your day.
February 19th, 2010 | 9:58 pm | #23
It’s interesting that the common assumption here is that Social Conservatism is by necessity integrated with Conservative Christianity — so when the question is asked of SoCons, what is the gay person to do, the answer is not political (as the question was framed) but religious. Why is that so? And does that mean Social Conservatism really is theocratic politics?
February 20th, 2010 | 10:03 am | #24
Collin,
You believe you have demonstrated truth. Obviously I believe quite differently. I can only noted, however, that you are apparently unwilling to condemn violence against homosexuals.
February 20th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #25
“…while it may be a ‘real, sincere, and human’ life path to turn heterosexual after having been gay, I do not think it is any less so to be gay, and a decent human being, and comfortable with one’s sexuality, even if it happens not to conform with a religion that I happen not to share.”
Nicely put. It shows the huge cleavage between Christian living and modern living. As long as you defineyourself by your sexual attractions, you will be stymied.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact