Jul

8

Derbyshire versus Sullivan, Part XXVVCCII

Filed Under Books and Culture 

It was bound to happen with the recent Lawrence decision and the subject of gay marriage being blogged about. It seems Our friends Derbyshire and Sullivan have gotten into another dust up. By dust up I mean Sullivan has written a scathing critique of Derbyshire’s latest completely non-pc article. Derbyshire’s article posits Derbyshire’s law:

Any organization that admits frank and open homosexuals into its higher levels will sooner or later abandon its original purpose and give itself over to propagating and celebrating the homosexualist ethos, and to excluding heterosexuals and denigrating heterosexuality. The key phrase there is “frank and open.” These things I am talking about are new in the world. Catholic seminaries of 50 years ago were not, to judge at any rate from the novels of J. F. Powers, plagued with the kinds of issues detailed in Michael Rose’s book, though there must have been lots of homosexuals in them. In this sense, the problem is not homosexuals or homosexuality. I am sure that God loves homosexuals and has a purpose for them. (I even think that their prowess in the “caring professions” offers some clue as to what that purpose might be.) The problem is the sexual revolution. The problem is hedonism. The problem is the preening vanity and selfishness of “coming out,” of parading private inclinations, of a kind that repel normal people, as if those inclinations were, all by themselves, marks of authenticity and virtue, of suffering and oppression. A large part of the problem, too, is “heterophobia” ? the dislike, mistrust, and contempt which many homosexuals feel towards normal people.


Is John’s article a bit over the top in spots? Does go out of its way to unnecessarily offend? Probably, perhaps. But I think John does have a valid point. It seems that those who seek to break down barriers to gays in these organizations carry with them a mindset that is destructive to the organization itself. As a result when gays are introduced into the structure in a political and celebratory way the seeds are planted that change the institution. It is part of the sexual revolution part of the relativist and post-modern view of “tolerance” disallowing strongly held beliefs. It is a complicated mix of a lot of things. But there is a truth to what John is a saying.

This is the same argument that Stanley Kurtz and others are making about marriage. Once you change the nature of the institution even in the name of conservative goals, you open the door for unwanted change. You risk losing the original core.

Andrew Sullivan of course has a somewhat different reaction to say the least. Sully immediately sees homophobia and a dangerous trend on the religious right. Not content with accusing the Derb of this he goes on to connect it to anti-Semitism. Now I can understand why Andrew feels strongly about this subject and I can see why he finds Derbyshire so infuriating. Heck I might even see his point on some occasions. But I think his link with anti-Semitism is over-the-top. Derbyshire went out of his way to explain that it is not individual gay people that he thinks undermines these institutions but rather it is the celebratory process and building of a critical mass of gays within that organization that carry with them the seeds of the sexual revolution. Surely Sullivan must know that their are people who would like to destroy the Catholic Church for example. Surely he must know gays who would like nothing better than to destroy the concepts of morality and faith that Christianity holds dear. These people don’t want to reform the Church - Anglican, Catholic, Protestant, whatever - and make it stronger they want to destroy it or change it beyond recognition.

The problem lies in the complicated tension between individual rights and freedoms and the political agenda of group politics. Accepting that gays have no choice in their sexual orientation does not change the fact that appointing an openly gay priest to a position of leadership is a political act. Sullivan wants to change culture and the beliefs of the church in a significant way and then acts like he is only asking for fairness. Being gay isn’t like being Jewish, rather it brings with some baggage and worse sexual baggage which is always controversial and emotional. Derbyshire is simply saying that based on what he knows he thinks breaking down this barrier is dangerous in many ways. That if we aren’t careful we will destroy important institutions in the name of equality. He is in no way saying that we have to seek out gays and destroy them - in fact he states that individual gays can and should be respected members of society - but he is saying that allowing gays into institutions and organisations in large numbers may have adverse unintended consequences.

I wish I had an easy answer but I don’t. You don’t have to be homophobic, however, to wonder if the battle over gay rights and access to hitherto blocked institutions wont further erode the social and moral foundation of those institutions to the great detriment of society.

Comments

Comments are closed.