Saturday, February 11, 2012


Why is the concept of consent so very important to the homosexual movement?

That question came up in one of my com boxes the other day.  Apparently it is something of a doctrine for people in same sex relationships, or at least a free pas to promiscuity.  I will be looking at some of these issues over the weeks to come as they relate to the issue of same sex marriage and the promotion of the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.  (I support the amendment by the way.)

Homosexual Ideology: An Example
David Thorstad, spokesman for the North American Man/Boy Love Association, has attempted to articulate an ideology of homosexuality which reflects the needs not only of pederasts but of all homosexuals.  Thorstad's system includes the following components:
1) Sex.  In all its forms, sex is good so long it is consensual.  Specifically, homosexuality is good for those who practice it: "NAMBLA takes the view that sex is good, that homosexuality is good not only for adults, but for young people as well.  we support all consensual sexual relationships regardless of age.  as long as the relationship is mutually pleasurable, and no one's rights are violated, it should be no one else's business."

The concept of right immediately introduces legal, political, and, ultimately moral considerations. 
2) Children's liberation.  The concept of liberation is central to the homosexual ideology... For the homosexual movement, liberation entails the ability of all homosexuals and their partners to be free of all external and internal constraints in the pursuit of pleasure. - The Homosexual Network (1982) Rueda

I can't re-write the entire book, but I simply want to demonstrate how the idea of consent legitimizes all sorts of sexual depravity - even infidelity within same sex partnerships in the creation of open relationships as well as shared sexual encounters within a relationship.  Certainly such aberrations occur in opposite sex marriages, nevertheless, marital infidelity remains a societal and cultural taboo, if not grounds for divorce.  I stress this point because it demonstrates a very key distinction in the definition of same sex marriage, which in and of itself is a redefinition of traditional marriage.

To illustrate this entry, I'm also posting the trailer for the documentary, Chris and Don.  Christopher Isherwood (Cabaret, A Single Man) and Don Bachardy have become the poster couple for Hollywood's version of gay marriage.  They were not actually married, and never would have wanted to be, according to Don - who sees no need for a piece of paper to define their relationship, although he's all in favor of gay marriage for those who want it.  Going forward, I will be discussing their decades long relationship - which began when Don was still a teen and Christopher was 30 years his senior.  Talk about man/boy love, and later, their very open relationship - so inappropriate as an example of a stable marriage.  While their friendship is genuine and withstood the test of time, and is deeply moving on some level - especially at the end of Chris' life, it can never be held up as an ideal or model to aspire to for any one - consenting or not. 

Disclaimer:  Normal people do not know this stuff - which is why they think nothing is wrong with same sex marriage.


  1. This is why I asked the question: if animals could theoretically make their consent known, would it be morally permissible to have sex with them? Because usually this who say animal sex is wrong is not because it's an abomination and because human life is a step above, but because animals have no say-so. The same goes for child sex - if it is consensual, it should be okay, according to such view.

    And several "ethicists", most prominently Peter Singer of Princeton, are of the opinion that if such "relationships" were consensual and mutually pleasurable, they'd be abnormal but not morally wrong.

    Freely admitted, it would be near impossible to prove consent in such a case, but I am asking this hypothetical in order to show that it is consent, not objective standards that people on the other side care about. This is why they're cool with open marriage if both partners want it.

    By making consent the only criteria of rightness or
    wrongness, there is no grounds to condemn ANY sexual act objectively.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. RealityCheck4:22 PM

    @Mercuery, what if grapes were peas? Could we hypothetically make wine out of peas then?

    Children can't consent. And stop equating homosexuality with pedophilia. If you've got an argument against homosexual relationships, make it, but don't make an argument against pedophilia or ephebophilia and pretend you're making one against homosexuality.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Reality Check - you missed my point.


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.