Thursday, November 21, 2013

It's good to know men are still talking about it...

I've been silenced, but other men will keep coming forward to tell the truth about homosexuality.

How have I been silenced, you ask?  It's self imposed - more or less.  I have homosexual friends who have objected, oftentimes vigorously, sometimes with great hostility, other times sorrowfully, that I cease and desist writing about the evils of homosexuality.  I've been blogging for so long that I have developed a 'better' understanding of the complexities of gay life, and a much more compassionate regard.  I've learned that gay people think of themselves as a species unto themselves, and within that category, each person can be a special species, with peculiarities all his own.  I'm not even being facetious when I say that. 

However, it explains why I tend to reject the theory that gay culture is something monolithic, or that it is an organized movement similar to a political machine.  Gay lobby?  More like gay lobbies.  I may be naïve in that regard, but in my experience it seem closer to the truth to describe it as a social 'milieu' more or less comprised of disparate cliques and factions if you will.  As one might expect, there is a sense of unity as regards certain issues, such as ENDA, but not even same sex marriage succeeds in achieving consensus.  Nevertheless, one must admit there is a homosexual movement.  If we can say there is a feminist movement, a women's movement, certainly it is reasonable to identify a 'homosexualist' movement.

But you don't want 'me' to say anything.

Recently two friends were married.  I've known the men for several years.  As gay marriage loomed on the horizon for Minnesota, I asked them if they intended to marry.  Their first reply was no.  As the issue advanced in the polls, they then said they would consider it, if it was financially beneficial to them.  In the end they decided to 'tie the knot'.  One of the men is retired and the other continues to work, in fact, he provided same-sex benefits from his employer - which included health insurance.  When gay marriage was legalized in Minnesota, the company decided to rescind same sex benefits and required couples to get married in order to retain that benefit.  (I think I got that right.)  Anyway, my friends decided to get married - it was their choice.

I would have said they 'had to get married' just as a joke of course, but they suddenly took it all very seriously - even solemnly.  I was invited, but I didn't attend.  I rarely go to weddings anyway, so it wasn't an issue - in my mind.  I respected their sentiment, though I am against same sex marriage.  I know they know exactly what I believe, and after nearly a month, nothing has been said.  I would never mock these men, nor do I need to 'preach' to them.  They have been upset with my beliefs and things I've said about the 'gay lifestyle' so many times in the past, I have no interest in reenacting that drama again.  They know, I know that they know; I know they know.

So there.  Self imposed silence - kind of.

That said, I began this post to bring to your attention a guy who has written extensively on The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement.  His name is Ronald G. Lee.  He has written a very long essay - perhaps summing up a lot of what I've blogged about for the past seven years.  My writing is often flippant - Mr. Lee's is rather more intelligent.  His  'witness' is very good because it is based upon experience, extending back in time a couple of decades.  That is important, because many people have been educated to accept a sort of domestic homosexual lifestyle - an Ozzie and Harry style of gay family bliss.  I'm also happy Lee speaks about ex-Father John McNeill's 1976 "classic" The Church and the Homosexual - it influenced a great many, leading many more astray.  I'll post a couple of excerpts from the essay here:
Several years ago, McNeill published an autobiography. In it, he makes no bones about his experiences as a sexually active Catholic priest -- a promiscuous, sexually active, homosexual Catholic priest. He writes in an almost nostalgic fashion about his time spent hunting for sex in bars. Although he eventually did find a stable partner (while he was still a priest), he never apologizes for his years of promiscuity, or even so much as alludes to the disparity between his own life and the passage in The Church and the Homosexual that meant so much to me. It is possible that he doesn't even remember suggesting that homosexuals were supposed to remain celibate until finding monogamous relationships. It is obvious that he never meant that passage to be taken seriously, except by those who would never do more than look in the window -- in others words, gullible, well-meaning, non-homosexual Catholics, preferably those in positions of authority. Or, equally naïve and gullible young men such as me who were looking for a reason to act on their sexual desires, preferably one that did not do too much violence to their consciences, at least not at first. The latter, the writer presumed, would eventually find their way back to the porn section, where their complicity in the scam would render them indistinguishable from the rest of the regular customers. Clearly, there was a reason that in the earlier book he wrote so little about the real lives of real homosexuals, such as himself.

I don't see how the contradiction between The Church and the Homosexual and the autobiography could be accidental. Why would McNeill pretend to believe that homosexuals should restrict themselves to sex within the context of monogamous relationships when his life demonstrates that he did not? I can think of only one reason. Because he knew that if he told the truth, his cause would be dead in the water. Although to this day McNeill, like all gay Christian propagandists, avoids the subject of sexual ethics as if it were some sort of plague, his life makes his real beliefs clear. He believes in unrestricted sexual freedom. He believes that men and women should have the right to couple, with whomever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and as often as they want. He would probably add some sort of meaningless bromide about no one getting hurt and both parties being treated with respect, but anyone familiar with the snake pit of modern sexual culture (both heterosexual and homosexual) will know how seriously to take that. And he knew perfectly well that if he were honest about his real aims, there would be no Dignity, there would be no gay Christian movement, at least not one with a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. That would be like getting rid of the books and letting the casual window-shoppers see the porn. And we can't have that now, can we? In other words, the ex-Fr. McNeill is a bad priest and a con man. And given the often lethal consequences of engaging in homosexual sex, a con man with blood on his hands.

Let me be clear. I believe that McNeill's real beliefs, as deduced from his actual behavior, and distinguished from the arguments he puts forward for the benefit of the naïve and gullible, represent the real aims and objectives of the homosexual rights movement. They are the porn that the books are meant to conceal. In other words, if you support what is now described in euphemistic terms as "the blessing of same-sex unions," in practice you are supporting the abolition of the entire Christian sexual ethic, and its substitution with an unrestricted, laissez faire, free sexual market. - Truth About Homosexual Rights Movement

One more thing, as I said the other day, I regard same sex marriage as an act of apostasy.

Art: Range of Motion, 1990, oil and gold leaf on canvas.  Attila Richard Lukacs


  1. it is such a mess, isn't it. I understand your saying that each person in this mess sort of...splinters off...into a separate universe....and it seems like what happened with the splintering after the reformation...bad comparison, but it seems to be so when a group leaves the center...also this makes me think about the beginning of the Soviet Union: I took a harrowing couse in Socialism, Theory and Practice - and recall that what happened with sexual morality was expressed like this: sex is like drinking a glass of water. look at what this wrought.
    I feel great sorrow for the many practising homosexuals I know, have known, and pray, in a general way, for all such. but I hardly know what to say: all of our culture, society seems to be falling apart, and this uber-liberal bent just leaves people impervious to reason of any kind. within my family the atheism, almost paganism is rampant - they really think I am a crack-pot, and I am no longer tolerated, the way one would a relative who is offensive - but I am, Worse, humorously, condescendingly accepted.
    anyway, Terry, I hardly believe you are silenced, here with us, when you have done so much good. you have a welcomed light hand with painful, heavy issues.

  2. That article by Mr. Lee is excellent. Keep fighting the good fight, Terry!

  3. Terry, Ronald Lee??? Ronald Lee???? Come on you can do better then him. The article is both hilarious and sad at the same time, and exposes nothing more then Mr. Lee's internalized homophobia anger, selfishness and narcissism. Its also prurient (for both the author and the reader) and just plain ridiculous.

    Mr. Lee makes the mistake which so many people, myself included do, uses their own personal experiences and generalizes them to everyone. He also takes a time in history where gays were forced into the shadows, blames them for that, and seems to wish for a return.

    You see, Mr. Lee is a gay man of a certain generation, the generation before the gay rights movement made it okay to be yourself. He belonged to a time, and he wished to go back to that time, where gay men had to frequent back rooms, parks, etc, etc. to find sexual partners. He is of a generation where you couldn't live openly with a partner and have a relationship because gays were "weird," and "freaks," and you were expected to live in the shadows. For that I feel sorry for Lee, however the choices he made were the choices he made. . Because you see, Lee participated in all of those things and now like a reformed alcoholic (or sexalcoholic) now rails against and cant imagine anyone having a different experience then he does.

    I love this hilarious and sad quote,

    "And, gentle reader, (all of a sudden the is Jane Austen) ..the porn section of a gay bookshop] is where most of them will spend the rest of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes."

    Hmmm, that is not my experience, nor is it anyone that I know of, but I am sure that happens. He goes on to talk about the pervy priest...who for some reason he seems to think is represenative of gays everywhere. What he represents is hypocrisy, of which gays and straights and gasp..Christians and Catholics all share. Mr. Lee goes on to breathlessly tell us that some gay people like porn ( some straight people) they like sex (gasp, like straight people) they can be promiscuous (like straight people) and of course get AIDS...(which has nothing to do with unprotected sex, or poor choices or just bad luck, its because they are GAY!!!)

    I dont know who is more excited about all of this "dirty," stuff, the writer or his readers.

    Anyway, as I said Mr. Lee gives his own miserable experiences and bad choices and extrapolates that to the entire gay population. So to show you the ridiculousness in that I will say that every gay person has my experience, they are in a long term relationship, they have a house in the suburbs where they are treated just like everyone else, they have jobs and contribute to their community...etc, etc.

    But I am not self centered or blind, so I know that is not the case. The world is not a cartoon, we all have problems and good points and bad points, gay and straight.

    Mr. Lee is a product of his generation and seems to believe everything he was told about himself by the culture of that time. What seems to be the hidden aspect of this essay is sadness, but also anger and selfishness. Anger at a world that changed long after he was able to enjoy those changes. Instead of being happy for the generations that come after him, he is selfish and rails against it. He seems to be saying, if I cant have it, no one else can. But, the world is changing and wont ever go back. So Mr. Lee continue to "preach to the choir," of people who already believe the b.s. he is selling. I hope he has found and will find happiness, either gay, ex-gay or whatever he wants to call himself. Its his choice.

  4. Mack - You know I like you and appreciate your comments and.

    I know it is an old article, but it resurfaced online again, and I believe it is important to reconsider what the guy says. I've read it several times before but chose not to write about it because I knew the essay would be rejected with the argument you make in your comment.

    You promote the new narrative, that everyone of a certain age, and or those who have left the lifestyle behind harbor "Anger at a world that changed long after he was able to enjoy those changes." Whatever works for you my friend. However, that is simply not true. Many gay speakers believe the same thing - they imagine an entire generation is angry because the U.S. changed, that morality has evolved. It's not true.

    This morning Austin Ruse cites Lee's essay as well:

  5. looks as if I lost part of my last comment - oh well.

  6. Terry,

    No problem and no need to preface your comments, we have always had a respectful dialogue, (I shall ignore the "Whatever works for you, " comment : ) )

    I do need to make myself clear, I have no intention of promoting anything...but as my father would say, "It burns my ass.." when someone says something specious and that is not questioned, mostly because despite the validity of it, it fits into THEIR narrative. This guy is part of a movement that has been dropped even by some of his strongest proponents.

    You say that I promote the narrative "That everyone of a certain age, and or those who have left the lifestyle behind harbor "Anger at a world that changed long after he was able to enjoy those changes."

    Where did you get the "everyone?" My whole point is that you can not take "your experience," and extrapolate that to include "everyone." So, in talking about Mr. Lee's anger I was speaking directly to "Mr. Lee" and his essay and no one else. This anger is not something that I am super imposing on the essay and even Mr. Lee's "work," its there, as blatant as can be in his dramatic reaching for salacious images and examples to bolster his argument that the gay movement is a "cover," for something insidious, something hidden in the back rooms that he used to frequent and enjoy. He is showing his perspective which is fine, but since he is speaking to an audience which has already bought his line (so what is the point)and is eager to read his essay to bolster what they already believe to be true. He needs to be responsible and say that it is his experience, and he is casting a net far and wide with his assumptions of what HE found.

  7. The whitewashing narrative will only grow more powerful over the years to come, but for now, at least, the information is still out there in public, from the CDC, which disproves it. The HIV epidemic continues without any sign of abating, and yet transmission via the highest-risk form of contact -- I don't think I need to state what that is -- occurs on average once every 200 instances.

    "Just like us?"

  8. Dagonet, if you want to talk white washing then I would say that both sides of the debate are qulity of that. As Terry says, the pro gay marriage would like to promote an Ozzie and Harriet version, and while I cant speak for anyone else, I am neither Ozzie or Harriet (I think Gomez and Morticia are much cooler) but what he fails to say is that the Anti Gay Marriage people do the same white washing, acting as if every married couple and family are wholesome blond, Baltimore Catechism families following the sacraments and generally farting rays of sunshine. These paragons of virtue are in danger of having their whole lives ruined, because the gays can get married.

    But we know that is not true don't we? We know that married people cheat, have promiscuous sex, swing, go to strip clubs, look at porn. Hell, my best friend, we were altar boys together for cripe's sake, he is Mr. Clean Cut Irish American Catholic,"
    he is a fricken boy scout" (actually we were both in the scouts) is married and has two kids and we find out he has been having an affair for years. Believe me I was knocked outa my socks when he told me (Thank God that they have fixed what was broken.) And that is just the top of the iceberg...there is a married couple at the gym that are swingers (and believe me I want to take a spray bottle of bleach to the gym each time I go..) etc. etc.

    But you never hear such things from the Anti Gay Marriage people. To hear what they say the only thing threatening Bob & Shirley Jones and their 2.5 is gay marriage. Does all of that weridness you hets get up to make straight marriage invalid? So "white washing," is not a word you should throw around, the brush goes both ways my friend.

    Now HIV rates, if you want to talk about them I am with you that the insanity of people, in this day and age, transmitting HIV or any STD is ridiculous..of course we would have to go off topic and talk about nasty stuff like safer sex education vs. abstinence, condoms, and just sexual ethics in particular no matter what your orientation is, but somehow I don't think that was your point or much less your concern.


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.