Thursday, March 13, 2008

Governor Spitzer, 1950's Morality, Health, and Homosexuality

Would Governor Spitzer have been better off with 1950's morality?  Would we ALL be better off with the "repressive" morality of the 1950's (and earlier, from the time of the founding of this country to the disastrous "sexual revolution)?   It is one of the positions of this blog that the answer to this question is clearly "yes":  That today's loose sexual morality has destroyed uncountable lives, and is affirmatively unhealthy.  I say that even though I am perfectly aware that there have always been "lapses" of sexual morality, and always will be.  But there is a huge difference between "lapses", and doing away with sexual morality altogether. 

The above is a long winded introductioin to a comminent about yesterday's entry on the rising incidence of syphilis--especially among bisexuals and gay men.  I noted that the reference to "bisexuals" gives lie to the occasional statement by gay acticists (when they are not saying the opposite) that homosexuals have no choice as to their CONDUCT.  My point was that if a person is "bisexual" it necessrily meant that that the person could CHOOSE to engage either in heterosexual sex or homrosexual sex (witht the possible, additional, healthy choice of engaging only in marital sex).  This drew the following critical comment, whichis presented with my response (presented here because the response is more than 2000 characters, and also further expands on my position in what I hope is a useful way):

Comment from slapinions | Email slapinions
3/12/08 8:19 PM | Permalink

"'P.S.  What is this business about "bisexuals" (see my previous entries about "Kinsey"--both the movie and the man)?  I thought people engaging in homosexual sex were "born that way", and had no choice."

"By that definition, wouldn't bisexuals also be 'born that way'? I don't this is your most compelling arguement."

My response:

No, I do not accept this argument.   It leads to sophistry, and the idea that none of of us is repsonsible for what we do.  After all, we are ALL born with our genes, and with a capacity for both good and evil, plus innumerable types of conduct in between.  We have a CHOCIE as to our CONDUCT.

To refresh everyone's memory, Kinsey argued that EVERYONE had some capacity for homosexual conduct and heterosexual conduct.  It is just that some people are born (genetic predisposition) toward the homosexual end of the line representing the full spectrum of pre-born "tendency", while most people are born toward the heterosexual side of the midpoint of the spectrum of inborn "tendency".  This is the OPPOSITE of the concept that people are "born" with their conduct predestined.  It basically means that almost EVERYONE has a choice of CONDUCT.   Remember that Kinsey, in the movie, CHOSE to experiment with homsexual conduct.  In fact, he advocted expierimenting with almost ALL tlypes of sexual conduct, despite the fact that the 1940's type of sexual morality served Kinsey very well.  In fact, as I have said, looked at objectively "Kinsey" (the movie) is a compelling argument for the superiority of traditional sexual morality.  It served Kinsey so much better than the freewheeling sexual morality that he advocated has served others (hence the increasing problem with sexually transmitted diseases, including the courge of AIDS).

There is at least one study of identical twins (genetically identical) which confirms Kinsey, by the way.  The study found 50% of the twins of persons who were homosexual were also homosexual.   That indicates a fairly strong genetic component, but also indicates that genes are NOT "destiny".  In short, there really is no arguing with the idea that if society APPROVES of homosexual conduct, it will likely INCREASE homosexual conduct.

Does societal APPROVAL of homosexual conduct lead more people to CHOOSE to engage in that conduct?  Make no mistake.  APPROVAL is what homosesxual activists are asking.  I think the answer to my question is "yes".  We are encouraging unhealthy sexual conduct. 

Note that people are also "born" with the capacity to engage in non-marital, heterossexual sex (adultery and unmarried sex).  They can CHOOSE, however, whether to do so.  Objectively, and based on the objective statistics of the 1950's compared with today, the choice to engage only in marital sex is by far the healthier choice.  It is NOT true that it is impossible for people to limit themselves to marital sex.  Once upon a time, most women in this country DID--with a lot less promiscuous sex among men.   Objectively, that "repressive" morality was HEALTHIER.

P.S.  I appreciate the chance to debate this these things.  "Slapinions" is virtually the only person giving me a chance to do that on this blog.  I don't know what I would do without him.  My own daughters and friends rarely give me the opportunity.  I do, however, encourage comments--despite the limited number I get.  I will generally respond to a reasoned comment.  In fact, if a person has a comment that goes beyond 2000 characters (or wants to be given the status of a full entry, with a title), you can email me (, and I will be glad to put the comment as an entry (eith attribution--limit there is 20,000 characters) in this blog (assuming the comment is reasoned, and not simply hate speech; slapinious' comments have always been reasonable.  You can also divide up comments into separe 2000 character segments.   Now I understand that most people these days have no problem with a 2000 character limit.  I have been told multiple times that I am way behind the times, as well as being verbose.   I have been informed that no onew reads beyond three lines anymore, and that I need to make my points in three lines.  Maybe so. It is too late for me to change much.  Bottom line:  I DO encourage comments.  You just have to endure the long winded responses (with the consolation that your comment will be actually read, while no one will wade through my response).



1 comment:

ng2000news said...

See also: