How will God ever survive?

[Emproph]

Box Turtle Bulletin was recently covering a Citizenlink article entitled “Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage.”

Last night I was commenting at BTB on a related story, and we determined that the appeal to anthropology was an appeal to tradition -- a logical fallacy. I knew the argument was fallacious, but I didn’t realize that there was an applicable term for it.

From The Nizkor Project—from the Google search “appeal to tradition”.

Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Description of Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done.” This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.

The explanation goes well on from there, and I think most of us here get the reasoning involved, but it’s nice to be able to peg that understanding with such a short tune.

That said, my following thoughts are pretty much self explanatory. Portions of this come up from time to time, but this, at least to my mind, came out as a neatly wrapped complete thought. A seemingly veiled characteristic that I seem to have been missing in regard to the men running the anti-gay industry.

~~~

I’ve been coming to the conclusion of late that the men leading the anti-gay fight don’t just worship their own ego’s, they worship their own masculinity. In light of that, their appeals to tradition, among other things, seem to make perfect sense.

Gay men represent the ultimate form of emasculation, thus, we are the antithesis of masculinity to them, and to demand equality is to demand that the antithesis of masculinity be treated as equal to masculinity -- effectively knocking the idol of masculinity off its pedastal.

Historically, men have been, and for the most part still are the kings, or “gods” of the world, individually and collectively. As such, they’ve had the privilege to define God itself as a man. So to place homosexual men on equal footing with heterosexual men, is to make a mockery of “God’s” created order of importance.

Masculine energy is responsible for the progress of civilization, and as a rule, that energy has typically, or at least ostensibly been expressed through heterosexual men. But masculine energy, the thrusting creative force, is not contingent upon being a heterosexual man, or even a man. The anti-gay industry’s premise seems to be the conflation of the two -- masculinity = heterosexual male, and by extention, God.

Giving gay men especially, the right to marry, upsets that idolized order of importance, God (who is a man), then men, then women, then children. Mel White describes this in Religion Gone Bad as the chain of command.

On a historical level, same-sex marriage is unprecedented, at least on the grand scale that’s being proposed today, and would be the destruction of civilization -- as they know it.

It seems to come down to the most basal form of idolatry there is. Pride. Thinking you’re better and/or more special than others. A throwback from the kill or be killed survival drive, which historically, is what men do best - kill. See a problem, stamp it out. And if gay men are seen as equals to straight men, straight men then lose their privileged standing in society -- and thus, everything they identify with. We represent a threat to their own identities. I’m talking about those men who are typically mysogynist and anti-gay, real men aren’t threatened by gay men because they are secure in their masculinity and don’t feel the need for it to be propped up through external sources. I would say the same about real Christians, the principle is universal.

Straight men who’s masculinity is apparently so faltering and fragile, derive their sense of stregth through the oppression of others, namely women, and especially gay men. Like cheap grace, this is cheap masculinity, and in effect, the antithesis of true masculinity -- strenth, courage, bravery etc. -- and the exemplification of cowardice.

Add to that the notion that God (who is a man, as defined by men) “abhors” homosexuality (naturally), and now they have a mandate to suppress femininity, most notably by oppressing gay men. Thus, in essense, they are commanded by God to worship themselves, as men, for the mere sake of it -- since men are the “true,” or at least most prominent reflection of God in matter.

Thus the insidiousness of their idolatry, they are commanded to love what they already love - their masculine ego’s, but also to hate what they already hate as heterosexual men - the sexual attraction to other men, especially in the expressed form of anal sex (gives them the willies).

So from what I’m seeing, it’s not just supremacism at play, it’s also the superiority and worship of masculinity itself. The equality of GLBT’s is, in a very practical and palpable sense for them, the extinction of their core identities, presently and historically. Thus, we represent to them, the ultimate idolatry and rebellion against “God,” because after all, God is a man. So as our stature moves up in the world, their stature moves down, right along with "God's."

Paul said something intriguing the other day in regard to Dobson's musings on the increasingly pressing need for a new generation of anti-gay torch carriers:

"How will 'god' ever survive?"

How indeed.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Gay men represent the ultimate form of emasculation, thus, we are the antithesis of masculinity to them, and to demand equality is to demand that the antithesis of masculinity be treated as equal to masculinity -- effectively knocking the idol of masculinity off its pedastal.

Such has been a theory of mine since childhood. Yet viewing gay men as 'emasculated' men doesn't make sense b/c there is no logical connection from being attracted (or/and acting upon attraction) to another man to "emasculated." Same sex attraction is in no way inherently emasculating or "feminine." What is the basis for this flying leap of logic?

The only thing I can surmise is that the idea of emasculation sources from an insecure male's thoughts about a man being a 'passive' partner in the sexual act. Which I think is something you are getting at, here. Can this really be all there is?? It seems such a flimsy cause for such a monumental effect.





Masculine energy is responsible for the progress of civilization, and as a rule, that energy has typically, or at least ostensibly been expressed through heterosexual men. But masculine energy, the thrusting creative force, is not contingent upon being a heterosexual man, or even a man.

I'll say. There is no reason to confound a quality of Energy (in this case, perhaps Yang energy?) with a particular physical vessel. Energy simply does not work that way.



Straight men who’s masculinity is apparently so faltering and fragile, derive their sense of stregth through the oppression of others, namely women, and especially gay men. Like cheap grace, this is cheap masculinity, and in effect, the antithesis of true masculinity -- strenth, courage, bravery etc. -- and the exemplification of cowardice.

Well put.



So from what I’m seeing, it’s not just supremacism at play, it’s also the superiority and worship of masculinity itself.

If this is at root of some people's homophobia, then such an idolatry of masculinity (and here, I *think* you mean physical maleness) leads to the supremacy you're citing.

The equality of GLBT’s is, in a very practical and palpable sense for them, the extinction of their core identities, presently and historically.
.

If I'm correct on your meaning, I would not say "core identities." Rather, "constructed" identity is what we're up against. I contend that if these constructed identities were stripped away, the 'core' ones would be more than amenable to fair, just, and equal coexistence. Takes a strong man (person, but Emp was talkin' 'bout dudes) to own an authentic core self throughout much of life.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Gay men represent the ultimate form of emasculation, thus, we are the antithesis of masculinity to them, and to demand equality is to demand that the antithesis of masculinity be treated as equal to masculinity -- effectively knocking the idol of masculinity off its pedestal.

This is very ironic. In Greek and Roman Society, primarily Ancient Greece, the homosexual love was viewed as the highest form of love. This was because it was seen as two equals who loved each other, considering that women were viewed as lesser species.

I think your theory is basically right. I think that many anti-gay heterosexuals are concerned that masculinity will die, especially considering that most believe that the "gay lifestyle" is contagious and if gays are allowed then everyone will be gay. Ridiculous, borderline psychosis, but believed nonetheless.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Gregory_de_Bois

This is very ironic. In Greek and Roman Society, primarily Ancient Greece, the homosexual love was viewed as the highest form of love. This was because it was seen as two equals who loved each other, considering that women were viewed as lesser species.

Not quite sure about the equal part. While Plato and Socrates (and others) wrote about same-sex relationships- and idealized them as being the highest form of relationship, the notion that the participants in a sexual encounter were (from all that I've gleaned reading about the subject) equal is something of a modern interpretion.

Could there have been men of equal status (Roman citizens) who where both 'passive' and 'active' with each other? To be frank- that's what equality means sexually speaking. It's possible- but we have little historical record of it. History does record that it was more likely that an older man would be the insertive partner to a younger man, who, upon becoming a full man with a beard, would now become the active participant.

We think of ancient society as being liberated, but from the writings left, it seem to have had their own brand of homophobia (a word not evented yet) to deal with. Sexual relations were class oriented: a Roman citizen could have relations with his slave, but he latter was passive. In that sense, sexuality itself was- in terms of society- subject to ideas about power and manhood etc.

What's interesting to me is that we still have the same, though not identical issues to deal with: men who are 'tops' are given more status that men who are bottoms. And in latin societies, like in ancient times, a man can still be a 'man' if he has sex (is the inserter) with other men.

Perhap context is everything, which is why the whole modern notion of gay marriage is so mind-expanding for mnay straight people.

Case in point: my husband and I have talked about how we use that word 'husband'. We find ourselves using it depending on who is listening: sometimes a straight person starts thinking about which one of us is the 'wife'.

My sense? Those people aren't really listening at all, but are wrapped up, and reacting, out of their assumptions.

But we live differently now, right? it's not about who does what to whom anymore. Gay rights and marriage is about Love.

And that- to me- is the really radical idea. The love part.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

My sense? Those people aren't really listening at all, but are wrapped up, and reacting, out of their assumptions.

But we live differently now, right? it's not about who does what to whom anymore. Gay rights and marriage is about Love.

And that- to me- is the really radical idea. The love part.

(If you’ll indulge me for a moment, otherwise, avert your eyes…)

Here’s the “polite” and “Christian” response to that sentiment:

Question 3. Shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to commit themselves to one another?

Answer. Yes, but we don’t always call it marriage. Parents commit themselves to their children, but they aren’t married. Friends love and commit themselves to each other, but they aren’t married. Coworkers, athletes and soldiers can even love each other and enjoy great commitment, but we don’t call it marriage.

Got that, we’re all just too dang stupid to realize that our relationships are anything more than friends with benefits.

Or, comparatively speaking (and I can’t believe I’m saying this), if you at least even have the tail end of a spine like Alan Chambers of Exodus International, you actually employ the word COUNTERFEIT.

They’re never going to find what God really intended them to have in the arms of another person of the same sex or in a relationship with a person of the same sex. It is a counterfeit. It is something that meets a need for a while. And if you know anything about counterfeit money, I worked in a bank for a period of time; really good counterfeit spends for years.

He’s a horrible example to use for the overall point I’m trying to make, as he’s “ex-gay,” but compared to the former example from Mr. masculine man himself - Glenn Stanton of FOTF (question #3), at least we now know, via the graciousness and compassion of the “formerly feminine” Alan Chambers, that when we hear the words “counterfeit marriage,” we now know that it means “our love is FAKE.”

So it’s official, we can all break up now.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

If I'm correct on your meaning, I would not say "core identities." Rather, "constructed" identity is what we're up against. I contend that if these constructed identities were stripped away, the 'core' ones would be more than amenable to fair, just, and equal coexistence. Takes a strong man (person, but Emp was talkin' 'bout dudes) to own an authentic core self throughout much of life.

I almost said yes, but no. I’m not talking about anyone who fits into the category of “constructed identities were stripped away,” I’m talking about people for whom that “constructed identity” IS their core identity. The identity that feeds all the rest - husband, father, preacher, etc.

Without that identification with the OVER-importance of the established role of men, nothing else would make sense. Nothing else would be enough. Not family, nor their role in society, nor even their relationship with God. Because their true love, is to be God. And the only means they have to do that with, are the rest of us.

Look at every truly heterosexual man on Earth as being of one mind. Not their personalities, but their core sense of masculinity, manliness, maleness, etc.

They are, and have been, the reckoning creative force on Earth--they always will be, but they think we are taking over their creative power-- their God-given “godness” on this Earth. And if they can’t even prevent the ability of their creative power to be taken away, then what good are they?

At that point, they are no longer God of the Earth. Their "kind" is no longer in control, and, in the most humiliating way. Because we supposedly .000000000001% of the perversions-of-nature-portion of the population, who are just too mind blitheringly stupid to realize we should be attracted to the OPPOSITE SEX, just took away their power to boss us around.

We emasculate them not necessarily by existing, but by our existence, we demonstrate the existence of our ability to oppress their ability to oppress us.

For some of them, especially the ones leading the anti-gay fight, their core identity is based specifically on the over-identification with their over-importance--in regard to ALL aspects of their identity--their role in family, society, the world, creation, God, etc.,

The Double Highs.
...rare “Double Highs” want to be dominators. They probably endorse submission on the RWA scale because they like the idea of others submitting to them. High SDO-high RWAs would win the gold medal in a Prejudice Olympics, having even stronger prejudices than ordinary high SDOs and ordinary high RWAs. They are also more power hungry, more dominance-oriented, meaner, more Machiavellian, and more amoral than any other identifiable group in my samples. They have an almost magical ability to alloy the worst features of social dominators and rightwing authoritarians, and I have likened them to Hitler (Altemeyer, in press). They would seem to be the most likely persons to rise to the top of movements thickly sewn with high RWAs.

So basically I’m talking about those heterosexual males who’s core identity, above all else, is that of dominator. Domination is an expression of the male energy, or perhaps the perversion of it. None the less, it’s intrinsically masculine in nature.

Now take a dominator who worships his masculine nature, and you have a dominator who worships dominance above all else. THESE are the people who feel the most threatened by us.

Slight leap, and conclusion; inherent within the dominionist theology, is the literal worship and idolization of the male ego.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Such has been a theory of mine since childhood. Yet viewing gay men as 'emasculated' men doesn't make sense b/c there is no logical connection from being attracted (or/and acting upon attraction) to another man to "emasculated." Same sex attraction is in no way inherently emasculating or "feminine."

What is the basis for this flying leap of logic?

First of all, and without pontificating on it--any way you slice it--if you took gay men out of their bodies, and put them in female bodies, we would all be heterosexual females. Fact.

They see our femininity by default, because they see our need for completion as being that of male.

But they don’t understand it as we do, as part of the created design, they see it as a usurpation of that design (whether willful or not), due to “man’s fallen nature.” And therefore it must be suppressed at all cost, lest it spiral out of control and destroy us all.

There, I’ve said it. Death by entertainment is their greatest fear.

Originally Posted by Gregory_de_Bois

I think your theory is basically right. I think that many anti-gay heterosexuals are concerned that masculinity will die, especially considering that most believe that the "gay lifestyle" is contagious and if gays are allowed then everyone will be gay. Ridiculous, borderline psychosis, but believed nonetheless.

Exactly.

Comment from Peter LaBarbera
[via]Time: February 21, 2008, 1:27 pm

(We do not believe in “gay” personhood, i.e., as an inborn, natural or intrinsic identity.)

I personally believe that every homosexual “coming out” is a tragedy because it embraces a lie that “being gay” is “who I am.”

For Peter LaBarbera, that's actually a rather candid admission.

But not to be outdone:

Re, Max Blumenthal's Theocracy Now!:

Lou Sheldon: Homosexuality is very clearly a gender identity confusion

Max Blumenthal: And you’ve said that the lifestyle is very seductive and it’s hard to get out of it.

Lou Sheldon: Well it’s a groove, you get in that groove and you’re up the creek without a paddle. But remember, homosexuality could strike you, it could strike this man here taking the picture.

Max Blumenthal: How could it strike me?

Lou Sheldon: Because you could go into a gender identity confusion, because it is a psychological imbalance. Something happens in a person’s life. It becomes a spirit.

(You've gotta watch the video, and make sure to read the scroll.)

Which comes back to: “Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage.”

These people are convinced that our unprecedented permissive society (ie democracy, freedom, et al) is responsible for an unprecedented increase in homosexuality, as opposed to the reality of it being merely responsible for the increased openness of we always-have-been homosexuals.

Their world shrinks every single time one of us comes out, and like you said Daniel, they have no desire to see the truth of the situation. That’s what makes them so dangerous. They not only don’t understand what’s happening--as barbaric brutes aren’t known for their intellectual capacity--but the more ground they feel they’re losing, the more desperate they invariably become.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

[SIZE=1]

I almost said yes, but no. I’m not talking about anyone who fits into the category of “constructed identities were stripped away,” I’m talking about people for whom that “constructed identity” IS their core identity.

A constructed identity cannot be a core identity.

Okay. . . .

Wait. . . .

You mean someone for whom the construct *has replaced* the core identity? Yes? That would make the construct the "host" identity, if you will, for that person. The core would be inoperable for some reason, replaced by the construct. They would then believe their construct was a core identity.

Is *that* what you're talking about?



The identity that feeds all the rest - husband, father, preacher, etc.

Without that identification with the OVER-importance of the established role of men, nothing else would make sense. Nothing else would be enough. Not family, nor their role in society, nor even their relationship with God. Because their true love, is to be God. And the only means they have to do that with, are the rest of us.

Okay. Following you.


Look at every truly heterosexual man on Earth as being of one mind. Not their personalities, but their core sense of masculinity, manliness, maleness, etc.
Mmmmm. . . woods getting pretty thick here.

Does not the above assertion presuppose that all heterosexual men have an experience of their masculinity, maleness, etc. that is the same as every other? Can't be. Too many individual and cultural variables.




We emasculate them not necessarily by existing, but by our existence, we demonstrate the existence of our ability to oppress their ability to oppress us.

What?! What ability to "oppress their ability to oppress?" If you mean resistance such as SF and other organizations in the socio-political realm, how on earth do you characterize steps in the direction of fairness and equality as "oppression?"

For some of them, especially the ones leading the anti-gay fight, their core identity is based specifically on the over-identification with their over-importance--in regard to ALL aspects of their identity--their role in family, society, the world, creation, God, etc.,

So basically I’m talking about those heterosexual males who’s core identity, above all else, is that of dominator. Domination is an expression of the male energy, or perhaps the perversion of it. None the less, it’s intrinsically masculine in nature.

Ick. That's a role. How can anyone's core identity be merely a role? That completely, utterly dehumanizes the men you speak of. (Not that I'm exactly keen on defending them, but still.)


Now take a dominator who worships his masculine nature, and you have a dominator who worships dominance above all else. THESE are the people who feel the most threatened by us.



Slight leap, and conclusion; inherent within the dominionist theology, is the literal worship and idolization of the male ego.
I wouldn't know. You may be correct.


First of all, and without pontificating on it--any way you slice it--if you took gay men out of their bodies, and put them in female bodies, we would all be heterosexual females. Fact.

Ummm. . . oh! I get it! Yes, numerous (straight) people have said to me "Gay men are women." And I'm like, errr, well they sure look like men to me!

Well, whatever they/you/we/etc are, I them/you/us/etc.

I'm confused.





They see our femininity by default, because they see our need for completion as being that of male.

Huh? "our need for completion"???? What need for completion???
"as being that of male." Huhhh????? Looks like a sentence fragment - I don't see your idea.


But they don’t understand it as we do, as part of the created design, they see it as a usurpation of that design (whether willful or not), due to “man’s fallen nature.” And therefore it must be suppressed at all cost, lest it spiral out of control and destroy us all.

There, I’ve said it. Death by entertainment is their greatest fear.

I am so confused.


.

When I first tried to read the anti-gay psycho-babble stuff yearrrrrs ago I became confused. I attributed my confusion to the fact that the psychiatrists did not know what they were talking about and had started from an essentially flawed premise. And I'm sticking with that explanation!

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Not quite sure about the equal part. While Plato and Socrates (and others) wrote about same-sex relationships- and idealized them as being the highest form of relationship, the notion that the participants in a sexual encounter were (from all that I've gleaned reading about the subject) equal is something of a modern interpretation.

Could there have been men of equal status (Roman citizens) who where both 'passive' and 'active' with each other? To be frank- that's what equality means sexually speaking. It's possible- but we have little historical record of it. History does record that it was more likely that an older man would be the insertive partner to a younger man, who, upon becoming a full man with a beard, would now become the active participant.

We think of ancient society as being liberated, but from the writings left, it seem to have had their own brand of homophobia (a word not evented yet) to deal with. Sexual relations were class oriented: a Roman citizen could have relations with his slave, but he latter was passive. In that sense, sexuality itself was- in terms of society- subject to ideas about power and manhood etc.

What's interesting to me is that we still have the same, though not identical issues to deal with: men who are 'tops' are given more status that men who are bottoms. And in latin societies, like in ancient times, a man can still be a 'man' if he has sex (is the inserter) with other men.

Perhap context is everything, which is why the whole modern notion of gay marriage is so mind-expanding for mnay straight people.

Case in point: my husband and I have talked about how we use that word 'husband'. We find ourselves using it depending on who is listening: sometimes a straight person starts thinking about which one of us is the 'wife'.

My sense? Those people aren't really listening at all, but are wrapped up, and reacting, out of their assumptions.

But we live differently now, right? it's not about who does what to whom anymore. Gay rights and marriage is about Love.

And that- to me- is the really radical idea. The love part.

I thought of the 'passive'/'active' thing as I wrote my response, but kind of left it out. I was mainly focusing on Crete and Sparta (and I believe Thebes as well). From what I remember, John Boswell wrote that in those two societies it was the (in present language) "gay" relationships that were valued over the "straight" ones, because of the sense of equality that I mentioned before. I remember especially in Sparta, the women would generally dress and act as men did in order to "please" the men. Maybe there was some sort of tension, or the issue was regional, or it occurred in different time periods. I would go with the first one and the second. But, I'm no historian, and therefore cannot speak authoritatively on the issue.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Gregory_de_Bois

I thought of the 'passive'/'active' thing as I wrote my response, but kind of left it out. I was mainly focusing on Crete and Sparta (and I believe Thebes as well). From what I remember, John Boswell wrote that in those two societies it was the (in present language) "gay" relationships that were valued over the "straight" ones, because of the sense of equality that I mentioned before. I remember especially in Sparta, the women would generally dress and act as men did in order to "please" the men. Maybe there was some sort of tension, or the issue was regional, or it occurred in different time periods. I would go with the first one and the second. But, I'm no historian, and therefore cannot speak authoritatively on the issue.

If I remember my Boswell- which was a while ago- you are exactly right: the church did institute a formalization of relationship between monks- marriage if you will- before marriage as we understand it was on the map for anyone. And what a mind blowing thing that is! These were men in religious orders making a commitment to each other.

And equally, the Theban Band was an army of lovers- so your point about equality it true- historically speaking. Please forgive my oversite- I should have remembered that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

Sacred Band of Thebes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sacred Band of Thebes (ancient Greek: Ierós Lókhos tón Thibón; the holy strike-force of Thebes) was a troop of picked soldiers, numbering 150 age-structured pairs which formed the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC.

It was organized by the Theban commander Gorgidas in 378 BC and it played a crucial role in the Battle of Leuctra, and was completely annihilated in the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.

Plutarch reports that the Sacred Band consisted of homosexual couples and the reason was that lovers would fight more fiercely and more cohesively at each other's sides than would strangers with no ardent bonds. So according to Plutarch (in his Life of Pelopidas, the inspiration for the Band's formation came from Plato’s Symposium, wherein the character Phaedrus remarks:

And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?

The Sacred Band originally was formed of picked men in couples, each lover and beloved, selected from the ranks of the existing Theban citizen-army. The pairs consisted of the older "heniochoi", or charioteers, and the younger "paraibatai", or companions. They were housed and trained at the city’s expense.[4] During their early engagements, in an attempt to bolster a general morale, they were dispersed by their commander Gorgidas throughout the front ranks of the Theban army.

After the Theban general Pelopidas recaptured the acropolis of Thebes in 379 BC, he assumed command of the Sacred Band in which he fought alongside his good friend, Epaminondas. It was Pelopidas who formed these couples into a distinct unit: he “never separated or scattered them, but would stand [them with himself in] the brunt of battle, using them as one body.”[5] They became, in effect, the “crack” force of Greek soldiery [6], and the forty years of their known existence (378 – 338 BC) marked the pre-eminence of Thebes as a military and political power in late-classical Greece.

The Sacred Band under Pelopidas fought the Spartans at Tegyra in 375 BC, vanquishing an army that was at least three times their number. It was also responsible for the victory of Leuctra in 371 BC, called by Pausanias the most decisive battle ever fought by Greeks against Greeks. Leuctra established Theban independence from Spartan rule, and laid the groundwork for the expansion of Theban power, though possibly also for Philip II's eventual victory.

Defeat came at the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), the decisive contest in which Philip II of Macedon (with his son, Alexander the Great, as he would later be known) extinguished the authority of the Greek city-states. The traditional Greek hoplite infantry were no match for the novel long-speared Macedonian phalanx: the Theban army and its allies broke and fled, but the Sacred Band, though surrounded and overwhelmed, refused to surrender. They held their ground and fell where they stood. Plutarch records that upon encountering their corpses “heaped one upon another”, King Philip, understanding who they were, exclaimed:

"Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly."

In about 300 BC, the town of Thebes erected a giant stone lion on a pedestal at the burial site of the Sacred Band. This was restored in the 20th Century and is standing today. Though Plutarch claims that all three hundred died that day, excavation of the burial site at the Lion Monument in 1890 produced only 254 skeletons, arranged in seven rows.

I stand corrected!

Pax,

Daniel

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Originally Posted by Daniel

If I remember my Boswell- which was a while ago- you are exactly right: the church did institute a formalization of relationship between monks- marriage if you will- before marriage as we understand it was on the map for anyone. And what a mind blowing thing that is! These were men in religious orders making a commitment to each other.

And equally, the Theban Band was an army of lovers- so your point about equality it true- historically speaking. Please forgive my oversite- I should have remembered that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes



I stand corrected!

Pax,

Daniel

Not that you haven't corrected the rest of us so very many times.

[paul]

I’ve been coming to the conclusion of late that the men leading the anti-gay fight don’t just worship their own ego’s, they worship their own masculinity. In light of that, their appeals to tradition, among other things, seem to make perfect sense.

Gay men represent the ultimate form of emasculation, thus, we are the antithesis of masculinity to them, and to demand equality is to demand that the antithesis of masculinity be treated as equal to masculinity -- effectively knocking the idol of masculinity off its pedastal.

Hiya Patrick,

This has been bouncing about in my head on and off since I first read it yesterday, here's some of my random thoughts.

I am having a hard time with the word "masculine" because in my mind masculine simply equals male. Sure, there are traits that we typically attribute to "masculine" (or "feminine" for that matter). But, in essence, don't those terms refer to gender? I dunno, I think I am may be going basic to try to make this less cumbersome. Seems we always encounter the devil in the details.

I tend to identify the male you describe here more as the "alpha male," (which you bring up later in the term "dominator"). It's interesting in the animal kingdom that a male mounting a male is often seen as an assertion of dominance, male on male sex becomes part of the equation of group survival. From an evolutionary standpoint, the alpha male in a pack asserts dominance to ensure that the physically fittest male is the one making the next generation. In the animal world, dominance is all about survival of the pack, not the individual dominate male.

I don't think of the alpha male as more "masculine," when it comes to humans, because humans don't only act from a "core" or instinctual source. We have reason. Though, when we look at the history of humankind, there seems to be a constant competition between reason and instinct. It seems to me that in a world full of nuclear weapons, the person who does not look to dominate, but rather cooperate, is the one who is promoting survival of the species and is thus exercising the intent of dominance. I guess it's obvious, I tend towards group selection vs. individual selection when it comes to evolutionary theory, so I don't look at individual dominance as an attempt to preserve the individual.

Giant leap. Is the gay male going to be the new 'dominate' male? I can go all sorts of fun places with this speculation. Gay guys don't want to kill men, we want to love them. Women, traditionally, haven't fought in wars. Is that because men didn't want to kill the object of their, er, desire?

One other random thought. Gay men tend to be "creative," at least sterotypically. That energy not spent making and raising babies is spent making a prettier, more accomodating world. , have I gone to the outer edge here?

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

A constructed identity cannot be a core identity.

Okay. . . .

Wait. . . .

You mean someone for whom the construct *has replaced* the core identity? Yes? That would make the construct the "host" identity, if you will, for that person. The core would be inoperable for some reason, replaced by the construct. They would then believe their construct was a core identity.

Is *that* what you're talking about?

That would go with this:

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I wouldn't know. You may be correct.

That's acutally at the heart of it. They're interpreting their ego as the real thing--as their real identity. That’s basically what I mean when referring to “constructed identity.”

There’s nothing uniquely masculine about over identifying with one’s ego, we all do it.

What I’m getting at, is that some males are seeing the typically-masculine attributes of the ego (kill or be killed, I'm better than you are, etc.), as not just as being uniquely masculine, but also as being ordained by God.

Because… God IS all power, and since God gave men all the “power” to rule the world, their sense of superiority, must also have been given to them by God.

So I’m talking about those males who not only worship their egos as gifts from God, but do so based on the ideology that the humanistic "I am male hear me roar" aspect of their egos, is also a gift from God.

Their superiority isn’t just a gift, for them, it’s a special gift.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Mmmmm. . . woods getting pretty thick here.

Does not the above assertion presuppose that all heterosexual men have an experience of their masculinity, maleness, etc. that is the same as every other? Can't be. Too many individual and cultural variables.

I’m mostly only talking about the virulently anti-gay males who are running the anti-gay / dominionist agenda. THEY are the ones who look upon all heterosexual men -- that are, and ever were -- as a whole unit.

They plainly witness that men are highest on the food chain -- due specifically to their masculine energy -- whether expressed through physical or emotional strength.

Strength is power. Any very simply, power is the most important thing a person can have in/over their own life -- or at least the most desired thing, and that’s universal.

So, if men have all the strength, and God gives all power, and strength is power, then God gave all the men the power. And basically God did, men got the brute strength necessary for survival that even women and children should be blessed with.

The anti-gay guys I’m talking about though, look upon humanity, see the importance of maledome within it, and then decide that having a penis, with all of it’s practical and societal testosteronie accolades, is the be all end all to God’s love and adoration in physical form.

The gift of power being the gift of life, to them then, history shows us that God loves men much more so than women.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

What?! What ability to "oppress their ability to oppress?" If you mean resistance such as SF and other organizations in the socio-political realm, how on earth do you characterize steps in the direction of fairness and equality as "oppression?"

Sorry, I had originally clarified that I was speaking in their terms, but I decided it was out of place. I should have left it in.

But to clarify further than that even, I’m alluding to things like coming out, and simply being seen in the media, etc. Every human face that is put on the so-called homosexual agenda, helps to “oppress” their ability to oppress us.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Ick. That's a role. How can anyone's core identity be merely a role? That completely, utterly dehumanizes the men you speak of. (Not that I'm exactly keen on defending them, but still.)

First of all, it SHOULD dehumanize them, at least as far as understanding that their egotistical approach to life is morally depraved.

Beyond that, it’s not about the role of their ego itself per se, it’s about the over emphasis they place on the importance of their male-ego in regard to all other aspects of their life -- Something along the lines of, "there but for the grace of God, I am male."

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I wouldn't know. You may be correct.

That's acutally the heart of it. They're interpreting their ego as the real thing--as their real identity.

We all do, at least to the extent that we feel separate from others or anything, we are identifying with our ego. Yet it has no more substance than an idea.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Ummm. . . oh! I get it! Yes, numerous (straight) people have said to me "Gay men are women." And I'm like, errr, well they sure look like men to me!

Well, whatever they/you/we/etc are, I them/you/us/etc.

I'm confused.

I think that one goes with the next one:

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Huh? "our need for completion"???? What need for completion???
"as being that of male." Huhhh????? Looks like a sentence fragment - I don't see your idea.

It’s called love, silly. Generally speaking, male needs female, and vice versa, to complete the positive/negative love circuit. Fuse them together and you create, or “make” love.

And when you “fuse” energy, it results in even more energy, in human terms - children. The same principle applies from the molecular level, all the way up to the macrocosmic God level. Someone just happened to figure out how to split the God atom, and thus, humans were born.

The anti-gays understand this intuitively about nature, they just don’t have the intellectual where with all to articulate it, at least not without referring to “the” book - and He created them male and female blah blah blah, the nature argument.

In the case of we gays however, they refuse to see the nature of change as being an intrinsic aspect of nature itself.

To put it bluntly, we’re all half of a soul, one part male, one part female, in constant, continual intimate communication.

So yes, in an eternal sense, we’re all always complete, but the wiles physical life, and identification with gender, make it almost necessary to find a mate to help us to live out the understanding of that completion.

(I’m assuming I just made things worse, you have to forgive me. I swear to you Zerbie, I’m never not in God mode. We could be talking about Q-tips and it would come back to God and the nature of oneness/everything. That’s so much of the “nature” of my perfectionism, and why I have such trouble responding sometimes. I can’t just look at a portion of the whole and say that it is somehow separated here…aaand…here… )

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I am so confused.

Ok, that last line was a joke, but the rest of it, the “man's fallen nature” bit, that part they believe, and even admit to.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

When I first tried to read the anti-gay psycho-babble stuff yearrrrrs ago I became confused. I attributed my confusion to the fact that the psychiatrists did not know what they were talking about and had started from an essentially flawed premise. And I'm sticking with that explanation!

Ok, now I’m confused, was someone talking about what I’ve been talking about, years ago, and their premise was flawed?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

That would go with this:

That's acutally at the heart of it. They're interpreting their ego as the real thing--as their real identity. That’s basically what I mean when referring to “constructed identity.”

There’s nothing uniquely masculine about over identifying with one’s ego, we all do it.

What I’m getting at, is that some males are seeing the typically-masculine attributes of the ego (kill or be killed, I'm better than you are, etc.), as not just as being uniquely masculine, but also as being ordained by God.



Oh please be wrong!

(furrows brow and )

I'm going to be on the Lookout for this tendency now. Funny - I had missed your post, but have been really speculating on what the Bleep is go anyway, mode for days on end. Since the 3rd, incident'ly.




Strength is power. Any very simply, power is the most important thing a person can have in/over their own life -- or at least the most desired thing, and that’s universal.
In survival terms, sure. That's raw, and hard to compete with. What Gandhi and MLK are on to is that the brute force, the raw stuff, is NOT true power. True power is being master of oneself. I am getting some kindergarten-level glimpses of what this might really mean. Oh aww-right, pre-school glimpses.


Sorry, I had originally clarified that I was speaking in their terms, but I decided it was out of place. I should have left it in.
Sometimes your writing is a little bit unclear. Yes, DO spell things out as much as possible. Otherwise, we WILL find a way to misunderstand your meaning.


First of all, it SHOULD dehumanize them, at least as far as understanding that their egotistical approach to life is morally depraved.

That should not be DEhumanizing but REhumanizing.


That's acutally the heart of it. They're interpreting their ego as the real thing--as their real identity.

We all do, at least to the extent that we feel separate from others or anything, we are identifying with our ego. Yet it has no more substance than an idea.
Oh, oh, the places we'll go.

Let's make this a separate discussion, Idea Man.


I think that one goes with the next one:

It’s called love, silly. Generally speaking, male needs female, and vice versa, to complete the positive/negative love circuit. Fuse them together and you create, or “make” love.
So when you said "need for completion," you meant sexual drive? Or you meant the nesting instinct to set up house with a lifelong partner? (Or partnerS, in Scotty's case.)


And when you “fuse” energy, it results in even more energy, in human terms - children.

You know that's only one possible creative result of sexual union, opposite-sex shenanigans included.

The same principle applies from the molecular level, all the way up to the macrocosmic God level. Someone just happened to figure out how to split the God atom, and thus, humans were born.



The anti-gays understand this intuitively about nature,

Sorry - not with you. They understand WHAT intuitively about nature? To what does the word "this" refer?

I learned a great tip early in graduate school: always, ALWAYS clarify a "this" with a noun. I try to remember to do so.

they just don’t have the intellectual where with all to articulate it, at least not without referring to “the” book - and He created them male and female blah blah blah, the nature argument.

As above, to articulate what?


In the case of we gays however, they refuse to see the nature of change as being an intrinsic aspect of nature itself.

To put it bluntly, we’re all half of a soul, one part male, one part female, in constant, continual intimate communication.
Going with the Platonic (it WAS Plato, wasn't it?) theory of the bodies that were split in half and always searching. Didn't the original theory account for male, female, and hermaphrodite? (Hermaphrodite in this case referring to the complete being which when split, becomes a straight couple.) Anyone remember??


So yes, in an eternal sense, we’re all always complete, but the wiles physical life, and identification with gender, make it almost necessary to find a mate to help us to live out the understanding of that completion.

(I’m assuming I just made things worse, you have to forgive me.

Nah, well I'm clear on what you're saying now. I've forgotten the context in which it originally belonged though.

I swear to you Zerbie, I’m never not in God mode. We could be talking about Q-tips and it would come back to God and the nature of oneness/everything.

Why shouldn't it?


That’s so much of the “nature” of my perfectionism, and why I have such trouble responding sometimes. I can’t just look at a portion of the whole and say that it is somehow separated here…aaand…here… )

But for writing's sake, we have to divide analytically.


Ok, now I’m confused, was someone talking about what I’ve been talking about, years ago, and their premise was flawed?

Nay, darlin'. Years ago (mostly in my teens, tho some prior) I read some psychology textbooks with chapters on homosexuality described as mental illness. They confused me. Upon unraveling the logic-threads that had confused me, I found that each led back to a flawed premise. Seemed to me the simplest solution should be the one followed, not the one most complex and most full of pain.


Since you asked (long):

I was 7. Got scared when I heard the grownups talking about homosexuals because I had a feeling deep in my gut that something was really, really wrong - like racism kinda wrong.

I knew my mom had psychology books stowed away in the basement and vaguely knew that psychology purported to explain human problems. Snuck into my mom's old psych texts and looked up H. In fact, had to go into a scary dimly lit room in the basement that I was afraid of in order to do it. Read for a few pages before I gave up in hopeless struggle at all the clinical language.

But not before I read a case example, given as THE prime example of how sick and twisted homosexuals are. In fact, I read the case example because it was NOT in clinical language and therefore possible for me to understand. It was indented, in dialogue format.

The format was of an interview with an adult gay man who was institutionalized in a psych hospital ostensibly to cure his homosexuality (didn't catch the year, would have not meant much to me then, presumably pre-1973?), and was undergoing a series of experimental 'treatments,' including electric shocks and 'aversion' therapy (nausea-inducing drugs).

In the dialogue, his typically shame-laden self-talk at one point became, "If I could JUST be allowed to find a man who I love who loves me and marry HIM, there would be no problem at all." This remark was cited by the textbook authors as an indication of the depths of perversity to which the patient had sunk. At that point, I drew the conclusion that psychiatrists didn't know the first thing about human love or sexuality and had begun from a completely flawed premise.

[Emproph]

I just want you all to know, especially Zerbie and Paul, that I’m feeling horrendously guilty about not having gotten back to this thread.

And with no promise of ever coming back to it, I’m hoping this admission will buy me some time.

[Zerbie]

Oh dear!

I had long since forgotten this thread even existed. Don't feel guilty Emp, sometimes conversations just fade away. . . .

[paul]

Originally Posted by Emproph

I just want you all to know, especially Zerbie and Paul, that I’m feeling horrendously guilty about not having gotten back to this thread.

And with no promise of ever coming back to it, I’m hoping this admission will buy me some time.

Patrick,

Between being gay and not getting back to this thread you are practically ensuring that you are going to go to hell....relax friend, we're not nearly as vindictive as some gods seem to be.