Repost: Homophobia and Moral Intuition

From early October of last year:

A common objection to, say, the right-wing stance against gay marriage is that it's based on nothing but homophobia. Let's set aside for the moment the fact that this is a grossly reductive caricature of what we on the far-right actually believe; the reasoning itself doesn't work because it doesn't really explain anything -- if opposition to gay marriage is wrong because it's mere homophobia, what makes homophobia wrong?

If same-sex attraction is valid because it's natural (where "natural" is understood simply to mean "occurring in nature"), why isn't instinctive revulsion to those attractions valid for the same reason? Certainly not because it's irrational or arational or something, because it has no less rational value than same-sex attraction.

. . .

I imagine the leftist narrative concerning historical homophobia is that it is a religious innovation that in no way corresponds to human nature -- that it was foisted on otherwise ignorant people by a small band of malicious ones -- a benighted feature of traditional society with which we Enlightened citizens of the common republic of man have done away. But if it's the case that people will accept something that has no basis in their natures merely because social authorities bludgeoned it into them, isn't it just as possible that the modern acceptance of homosexuality was borne of such conditioning? Conversely, if people are naturally inclined toward neutrality or even acceptance of homosexuality, why did homophobia linger so long in the West after the temporal authority of the Church was shattered -- and why has nothing but a Herculean intellectual and social effort waged over the course of decades only just now succeeded in making homosexuality palatable to a narrow majority of people in a nation founded explicitly on liberal principles?

Comments

[icr]

When non-reactionaries think of "homophobia" they probably have a vision of the kind of hatred and contempt that was common in the 60s and 70s.

[Kristor]

Sort of like pedophiliophobia now.

[Gerry T. Neal]

The question you ask in the last sentence of your post reminds me of two facts that have always struck me as being hugely incongruent with the standard left-wing explanation of "homophobia" as the product of an evil Church. First, I remember very well that in elementary and high school, the most hostile comments about homosexuals came not from the religious kids but from the same people who mocked and made fun of Christianity. Christians generally took a "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach. Second, in one of the most famous cases of "homophobia" in history, the English writer Oscar Wilde was imprisoned and saw his career and health ruined, over his homosexuality, because he was stupid enough to sue the Marquess of Queensberry for libel, when the later (whose son he was buggering) called him a "posing sodomite". Since in libel law, the burden of proof is on the defendant, the Marquess introduced evidence that he was telling the truth, leading to Wilde's criminal prosecution. The Marquess was a noted atheist who hated the Church.

[Kevin]

Homosexuality is inherently depraved, and no amount of social conditioning can change our response to anything other than unmitigated disgust.

[CoQuickAg]

This idea: "after the temporal authority of the Church was shattered" is laughable. The church STILL has LOTS of authority. If it didn't, gay marriage would not still be an issue. Guess what? Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. The issue, here, is this: a gay couple cannot go to a judge and get a civil marriage, because the CHURCH says they can't (well, to be more accurate, the people who follow the church get together and THEY say the gay couple can't get married.)

Funny, I don't remember the 'States being born out of the idea that its perfectly alright to take other peoples' rights away. Civil marriages have NOTHING to do with the church. But Christians and others, they think that it is perfectly acceptable to do just that.

Please stop and look at things through my eyes: a big group of people say that something is wrong--and they don't have anything to do with the lifestyle they are condemning. Its really frustrating. Don't like gay people? Fine. Then treat them nicely and they'll treat you nicely and the world will keep turning. It seems so easy to me...

And, sure, I'm trying to see through your eyes. I'm trying to understand how one would come to hate a group of people. But you know what? Its hard. Its hard because I'm afraid of straight men, not gay men. And I'm friends with gay, straight, and bi women and all of them are great people and I see no difference between any of them. So, yeah, I'm having a mighty difficult time.

The "homophobic" idea comes from this: People who AREN'T threatened by the gay community assume that the people who don't like the gay community must feel threatened by it, in some way.

Finally, it would be unwise to claim the hatred and contempt is over. Have you seen the videos of that young man who got jumped in Atlanta? Bunch of other guys waited for him to leave the store and started beating him up, yelling "no faggots in jack city." I can safely assume that we at least have this in common--we don't want violence.

I mean, what kind of person thinks its alright to bash another person's head in the wall? Especially when they found out it was because the victim was wearing skinny jeans. This man was harassed and assaulted.

...I'm not even quite sure why I bothered to type this whole post out. I doubt it is going to be posted... Why would you let somebody post something that is against your beliefs? It is so much easier to ignore what you don't like... So fine. Personal challenge. If this comment actually sees the light of day, I know that you want a fruitful discussion. You don't want your ego stroked by like-minded individuals. You want to understand the truth, or as much of it as you can comprehend.

Heck, that's what I want. I want to understand.

Peace, my friend

[CoQuickAg]

Heterosexuality is inherently depraved, and no amount of social conditioning can change our response to anything other than unmitigated disgust.

FIFY

But seriously: As much as I disagree with you, I have to respect your opinions. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this one...

[Anita]

I suggest that the author bans (and removes the comments of) liberals like CoQuickAg. They don't deserve our time.

[Proph]

CoQuickAg,

There is no "right" to gay marriage. That's all -- that's the gist of my objection. There it isn't a legitimate civil or natural right to it, nothing in the Constitution mandates it, and there's no compelling public interest to justify it.

For a coherent treatment of the metaphysics underlying my worldview, which I cannot describe in the space of a simple comments box, I recommend reading Edward Feser's "Aquinas."

"Hatred" or "fear" of homosexuality has nothing to do with it (hence the second sentence in the above blockquote). My point in that earlier post was that *even if it did*, the liberal argument against it is incoherent and internally inconsistent.