Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 11:28 am I'm still waiting for your answer, AJ. You say that you have come to some sort of conclusive realization about homosexuality being wrong action, would you share it with the rest of us?

I phrased it differently, of course, and I notice how you rephrase it for your own purposes.

Thinking over the issue of the appearance and rise of the homosexual normalization movement in America, which is a post-Sixties movement inspired by the radicalism of the era, and as part of my own process of review of the social and historical processes culminating in “our present”, I referred to the movement that gained steam in the late 1980s and defined, or outlined, in the manual or manifesto by Kirk and Madsen “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s”. One author being a psychologist, the other an advertising expert and as such a propagandist, homosexuality was repackaged as a manifestation of normality, and the traditional social opposition to it branded as the real deviance. Here I noticed the “transvaluation of values” but one brought about through campaigns of media productions introduced into popular culture.

Now, in my own case I also did at that time (10-12 years ago now) study essays such as “The Marketing of Evil”, a polemical exposition by a dedicated Christian who pointed out, convincingly, how marketing techniques were and are used to introduce products and ideas that, just a while earlier, were considered “wrong” “destructive” and also as “evil”. So for example take the social phenomenon of Only Fans which is said to influence girls and young women to sell themselves like prostitutes for material gain. Why would someone define this as wrong or, going further, as an “evil”? In your case — you have your own private perversions of course, but you are not stupid — I assume that you could examine a cultural movement that markets the prostitution model to girls (say your own daughter though you are an incel) as being both “bad” and possibly as “evil” but of course, given your own deviancies, I cannot be 100% sure.

That was just an example of the notion of “the marketing of evil”.

Now we know that homosexuality will always be present in human culture. Roger that. But we can simultaneously see that if, as in campaigns involving selling it as a viable alternative to traditional male-female matrimony and family life, if it becomes a pervasive movement, let’s say a social fad, that it will have negative effect socially and culturally. I.e. as part of an “attack” on the traditional family and of “family values”. And we can also very easily notice the evolution of the normalization of deviancies in our present: gender dysphoria they call it. Mental illness surrounding one’s gender “assignment”, profound disassociation from what one is — briefly a whole raft of strange psychological maladies.

I regard all of this as “concerning” however it is possible that you might see it all as “positive evolution”.

To recap: I believe we must accept homosexuality and in this sense tolerate it, but it is best if a culture generally holds it in distain. I.e. does not encourage it. Does not advertise it. Does not “sell” it. What would be the mechanism by which this distain is manifested? Just exactly what I have done here: explained marketing and propaganda; defined normal and even eternal social structures (the family and family life) and associated certain deviancies with certain forms of “attack” on these structures.

It is only when there is a general mood in a culture that discourages these manifestation (when they go to excess) that could rein-in a toleration that has become unhealthy.

You can do your own research: look up both Kirk and Madsen’s book and read (if it pleases you to do so) The Marketing of Evil. You will 1) see and understand the advertising and public relations techniques and strategy that normalized homosexuality and shamed opposition to it, and 2) understand a coherent outline of a morality and ethics-based opposition to the selling of all things that we might consider bad, wrong, destructive and “evil”.

There is much more to be said on the topic, as well as that of “sexual morality”. And it is really merely “the tip of the iceberg” when conscience — our conscience, what it is and how it developed — is considered as a topic.

[I forgot to mention the cost of the preceeding post is $2,299.00 but I got a notice that you do not have enough in your account to cover the withdrawal. Please deposit more funds ASAP.]

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 2:23 pm Now we know that homosexuality will always be present in human culture. Roger that. But we can simultaneously see that if, as in campaigns involving selling it as a viable alternative to traditional male-female matrimony and family life, if it becomes a pervasive movement, let’s say a social fad, that it will have negative effect socially and culturally. I.e. as part of an “attack” on the traditional family and of “family values”. And we can also very easily notice the evolution of the normalization of deviancies in our present: gender dysphoria they call it. Mental illness surrounding one’s gender “assignment”, profound disassociation from what one is — briefly a whole raft of strange psychological maladies.

I regard all of this as “concerning” however it is possible that you might see it all as “positive evolution”.

To recap: I believe we must accept homosexuality and in this sense tolerate it, but it is best if a culture generally holds it in distain. I.e. does not encourage it. Does not advertise it. Does not “sell” it. What would be the mechanism by which this distain is manifested? Just exactly what I have done here: explained marketing and propaganda; defined normal and even eternal social structures (the family and family life) and associated certain deviancies with certain forms of “attack” on these structures.

In what way does someone merely being homosexual represent an "attack" on the "traditional family" and "family values"? Can you elaborate more on that point? For example, if a family isn't Christian, does that represent an "attack" on "traditional family values"? So we've got to purge society and the world of non-Christians? (And are there any sects within Christianity that are just plain "wrong" about Christianity? And if so, which ones?)

I understand you don't like it being "marketed", no sane person likes things being marketed, marketing is just a form of deceit to get people to buy into something that they otherwise wouldn't want. However, if homosexuality is kept as an alternative lifestyle for those who feel drawn to it, then why can't that be the case? Marketing is a problem of all markets and all products. It doesn't necessarily mean that something being marketed is evil or "wrong". Can you demonstrate what is evil or wrong about homosexuality being practiced responsibly, respectfully or in good taste?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 3:09 pm In what way does someone merely being homosexual represent an "attack" on the "traditional family" and "family values"? Can you elaborate more on that point? For example, if a family isn't Christian, does that represent an "attack" on "traditional family values"? So we've got to purge society and the world of non-Christians?

No Gary, I will not until you resolve to pay your debt!

I encourage you to entertain your own questions by taking the time to read and understand those who write and discourse on the topic. Then, come back with your findings.

However here is a tid-bit given through sheer generosity: I have been explaining that Hebraic Christianity, though it has certainly molded our civilization, and our own selves, can be transcended and understood on another plane if we realize that it expresses metaphysical principles that can be understood independently of that specific matrix.

Because of your mental illness, and your obsession of resistance to the Christian bugaboo that, unless I am not seeing straight, has you in its grip, I must side-step your neurotic relationship to it and emphasize the development of conscience, which has long historical roots.

If a family is not “Christian” and Christianity is the religious matrix through which conscience is understood and expressed in a civilization, and if the family and matrimony are understood sacramentally, then don’t you think it rather obvious that if that family loses that relationship to this matrix that a) they suffer a veritable loss and b) will need to replace the matrix with another, or c) do without one entirely?

What I ask of you is that you think about the concept of attack on the family is. For example, you could do that through a critical analysis of Marxian praxis and radical feminism in the Sixties and pist-Sixties. Are you able to understand that there has been an ideology that “attacks” the family unit, and both paternalism and maternalism? Describe what you have read on this topic.

Gary wrote:…marketing is just a form of deceit to get people to buy into something that they otherwise wouldn't want.

I see your point but think of “marketing” as rhetorical embellishment of what can be both good and very good, or bad and very bad. It is a technique or if you will a science used to influence men, their choices and behavior.

Marketing is, ultimately, a form of “speech” and, as Richard Weaver pointed out, “all speech is sermonic” because in one way or another it influences thought and behavior.

The marketing of sexual deviancy within the social body is a form of applied rhetoric that encourages behavior that can be coherently explained as contrary to family values. I mean, the exposition can be presented and considered and, I suggest, it is compelling and influencing. Similarly, there is obviously the other side of the coin: what is productive and conducive the the family, to family life, to matrimony.

Right?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 3:40 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 3:09 pm In what way does someone merely being homosexual represent an "attack" on the "traditional family" and "family values"? Can you elaborate more on that point? For example, if a family isn't Christian, does that represent an "attack" on "traditional family values"? So we've got to purge society and the world of non-Christians?

No Gary, I will not until you resolve to pay your debt!

I encourage you to entertain your own questions by taking the time to read and understand those who write and discourse on the topic. Then, come back with your findings.

However here is a tid-bit given through sheer generosity: I have been explaining that Hebraic Christianity, though it has certainly molded our civilization, and our own selves, can be transcended and understood on another plane if we realize that it expresses metaphysical principles that can be understood independently of that specific matrix.

Because of your mental illness, and your obsession of resistance to the Christian bugaboo that, unless I am not seeing straight, has you in its grip, I must side-step your neurotic relationship to it and emphasize the development of conscience, which has long historical roots.

If a family is not “Christian” and Christianity is the religious matrix through which conscience is understood and expressed in a civilization, and if the family and matrimony are understood sacramentally, then don’t you think it rather obvious that if that family loses that relationship to this matrix that a) they suffer a veritable loss and b) will need to replace the matrix with another, or c) do without one entirely?

What I ask of you is that you think about the concept of attack on the family is. For example, you could do that through a critical analysis of Marxian praxis and radical feminism in the Sixties and pist-Sixties. Are you able to understand that there has been an ideology that “attacks” the family unit, and both paternalism and maternalism? Describe what you have read on this topic.

I find that many "popular" books on the topic aren't worth the paper they're printed on and I don't like to waste time with them. If you've read about homosexuality and have answers, then you should be able to put them in your own words. But I don't think you think through your beliefs or like them challenged and consistently overestimate your knowledge and intelligence. You're closed to alternative viewpoints because they espouse something you detest which isn't detestable on further glance and are unable to prove your points. I don't admire that.

.
.
.
You can do your own research: look up both Kirk and Madsen’s book and read (if it pleases you to do so) The Marketing of Evil. You will 1) see and understand the advertising and public relations techniques and strategy that normalized homosexuality and shamed opposition to it, and 2) understand a coherent outline of a morality and ethics-based opposition to the selling of all things that we might consider bad, wrong, destructive and “evil”.

What you have here is the evolution of capitalism.

Everything can be considered a product and sold by using the same advertising and marketing techniques which were originally developed to sell inanimate objects.

Now, there are laws which forbid the sale of certain products. (And let's just consider adults and not get bogged down with issues of selling to children.)

What is the foundation of those laws? It tends to be some sort of physical harm to the buyer.

So is there a reason not to market and advertise homosexuality? Is there a reason for laws against the marketing, advertising and "sale" of homosexuality?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:04 pm If you've read about homosexuality and have answers, then you should be able to put them in your own words. But I don't think you think through your beliefs or like them challenged and consistently overestimate your knowledge and intelligence. You're closed to alternative viewpoints because they espouse something you detest which isn't detestable on further glance and are unable to prove your points. I don't admire that.

I already did just that. Homosexuality will always be with us. It must be tolerated. But should not be encouraged or, if you will, sold as an alternative to traditional family life. It must be culturally frowned upon.

And I say additionally that sexual morality is an involved topic and there is much more to say about it.

Perhaps you can articulate what you imagine the “alternative viewpoint” to be …

What I can say is that, years back, I had different opinions and views. Then I did challenge myself to examine the (conservative) viewpoints and overall I became convinced by them. But I certainly am versed in the other sexual-liberation propositions.

But make your case, Gary, there are others here who might be influenced by your rhetoric ).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:24 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:04 pm If you've read about homosexuality and have answers, then you should be able to put them in your own words. But I don't think you think through your beliefs or like them challenged and consistently overestimate your knowledge and intelligence. You're closed to alternative viewpoints because they espouse something you detest which isn't detestable on further glance and are unable to prove your points. I don't admire that.

I already did just that. Homosexuality will always be with us. It must be tolerated. But should not be encouraged or, if you will, sold as an alternative to traditional family life. It must be culturally frowned upon.

And I say additionally that sexual morality is an involved topic and there is much more to say about it.

Perhaps you can articulate what you imagine the “alternative viewpoint” to be …

What I can say is that, years back, I had different opinions and views. Then I did chalkenge myself to examine the (conservative) viewpoints and overall I became convinced by them.

But make your case, Gary, there are others here who might be influenced by your rhetoric ).

I'm waiting for you to make your case that homosexuality must not be tolerated. Can you explain? I would not be surprised if you don't know why homosexuality should not be tolerated, I don't think you think your points through, because most of the time, they don't hold up to scrutiny.

I am waiting for you to do more extendive research.

And no, I say that it must be tolerated but discouraged. And the reasons why sexual deviancy in general should be discouraged can be presented convincingly. But I do not see my role as that of convincing you. I can however refer you to resources where you can access alternative viewpoints. However if you have determined that “they are not worth the paper they are printed on” you have made your decision and closed your mind.

"traditional family values"

One has to realize that those values were formed under conditions which no longer apply in the West.

Taking care of the family was a full time job for the woman ... cooking, cleaning, raising children took a lot of time and effort.

Technology has reduced that burden. Washing machines, dishwashers, vacuums, refrigerators, electric and gas stoves all reduce the time and effort required. Changes in food production makes it possible to easily buy prepared meals, further reducing the need to cook.

Advances in medicine and availability of food means that a woman need not get pregnant and give birth as many times as before when she could have expected several of her children to die.

That's one aspect ... the role of women in the family. There are many others : work stability and mobility, the pension system, insurance, etc.

Which "family values" are still pertinent in this day and age?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:33 pm Which "family values" are still pertinent in this day and age?

As family and family life — and raising children — were undermined, not in all cases consciously or nefariously, many societies cannot reproduce themselves and are destined to collapse. The core human value (as I see it) is precisely in the family, and precisely in marriage. It really must be in that. In this sense, unless we start producing beings in vats like in Brave New World, the family is and will be eternal.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:27 pm I would not be surprised if you don't know why homosexuality should not be tolerated, I don't think you think your points through, because most of the time, they don't hold up to scrutiny.

Except in this instance, if “scrutiny” is exercised, a stronger case for discouragement than for encouragement, wins out.

I do not place over-emphasis on homosexuality per se, but rather on the wider topic of sexual morality. My research has concluded in the understanding that sexual morality is necessary and good, and that sexual immorality is not good, often bad, and also has a destructive aspect or result.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:40 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:33 pm Which "family values" are still pertinent in this day and age?

As family and family life — and raising children — were undermined, not in all cases consciously or nefariously, many societies cannot reproduce themselves and are destined to collapse. The core human value (as I see it) is precisely in the family, and precisely in marriage. It really must be in that. In this sense, unless we start producing beings in vats like in Brave New World, the family is and will be eternal.

So you're saying that the greatest family value is reproduction. And possibly the passing on of knowledge from parents to children?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:47 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:27 pm I would not be surprised if you don't know why homosexuality should not be tolerated, I don't think you think your points through, because most of the time, they don't hold up to scrutiny.

Except in this instance, if “scrutiny” is exercised, a stronger case for discouragement than for encouragement, wins out.

I do not place over-emphasis on homosexuality per se, but rather on the wider topic of sexual morality. My research has concluded in the understanding that sexual morality is necessary and good, and that sexual immorality is not good, often bad, and also has a destructive aspect or result.

Fair enough.