Yes, Peter's always had a bee up his arse about this one. Understandable in an old fogey, but pathetic in one who at his age should be sowing his oats. Not for pleasure, you understand, but for the procreation of decent, moral, upright people.

Your friend James is right. By Peter's own logic, if he keeps reading the Guardian he'll turn into a gay pinko. Still, he's already halfway there with his demagoguery of forcing the taxpayer to continue subsidising people to have children for 'society's' benefit.

Reminds me of that poem (?sonnet) from Larkin's juvenilia, going something like "Having grown up in shade of Church and State, / Been given his first cricket bat, aged eight, / A perfect stroke (one sees the dotted line) [...] / And reads The Modern Boy in bed at night [...]" and ending "We diagnose a case of good old sex."

James' site sucks in every sense of the word. (fuck Christianity, anybody who disagrees that homosexuality should have any limits is a closet fag..etc.). Utter shit in other words and rather pedestrian shit at that. I'm sure once James gets into full swing there'll be a post on how the state has no business interfering between a man and his toddler. I couldn't get away from it fast enough and can only pray I didn't read enough to get visual aids. Here's to James ending up like Freddy Mercury - without the money. I would have left this turd in his comments but he doesn't have any. Shame on you Alex for linking raw sewage in a post.

But James Stanley is straight, so it's pretty unlikely he's going to be the next Freddy Mercury.

Ian,

Peter can and probably will speak for himself. Personally, I think you are committing a somewhat tawdry error in your comment. You ascribe an attitude to Peter and, by extention, all social conservatives, which only an utterly reactionary cartoon character would profess. Such personalisation of the issues is akin to the sort of invective that the left so regularly employs when it has no counter argument. It's a tactic that should have no part in serious debate, certainly not among friends on the right - all of whom, I might add, love freedom.

Having said that, your error is in part forgiveable because one of the private delights of being a conservative of any sort is playing up to the image. It might be trolling but life's no fun, whatever your political stance, if you go totally ignored. Still, there is substance to social conservatism. By now I would quite like to have seen a few libertarians raise their game and debate seriously. Who knows, perhaps that will happen today.

James Stanley tells us that:

"Heterosexual sex is not a great chore that they would abandon if homosexual sex was easily available."

But for many people, of course it is. There are plenty of men who get fed up with their wives and decide to take up the gay life. As homosexuality becomes more socially accepted and tolerated more and more men are taking it up. This is what one would expect. No doubt there are some men who have heterosexual relations because they actually do like women rather than because they are bullied into it by state and social pressure; but who knows for sure how few this is? Of course homosexuality can be promoted and people be encouraged to take it up, it happens all the time. Nothing of any moral significance flows from this though. It wouldn't matter a jot if the whole world turned gay.

Paul,

I'm pretty relaxed about what anyone else's sexual orientation may be. But you say 'It wouldn't matter a jot if the whole world turned gay'.

Erm...Wouldn't there be any negative consequences? Like the human race dying out within a generation?

Some men may be interested in first time gay sex, especially if sex with women is not ringning their bell, and they have a previously unrecognised propensity for it. But human nature and hormones dictate that this will always be a minority. Most guys just like the ladies. Tell me it's not so.

Sorry, Paul, that's just not incendiary enough to merit a response. Try harder.

Patrick W,

You seem to be under the false impression that there is something more than a merely instrumental connection between sex and procreation. The notion that our sexual natures are 'dictated' by hormones - or any other purely biological phenomena - is another popular, yet false, idea.

Your knowledge of being gay is so deep Paul. Wouldn't matter if the whole world turned queer eh? You know so much. Don't stop with boys though, teach us all your wisdom Paul. What do you think of goats and sheep? How about pigs or are they unclean? I'm starting to see why islam is the fastest growing religion and why islamics hate the west.

Saaay, wouldn't it be twisted if samizdata turned out to be a clever front for recruiting muslim converts through the practice of linking to sites - like "permissive society" - that are guaranteed to trigger revulsion against western civilization? This could blow the lid off the whole libertarian movement. Nice try guys. You can come out of that there mosque Alex, now that the veil has been lifted we see through your flimsy fascade.

A bit better, Paul.

The basic, sexual nature of homo sapiens is determined by natural selection. Contingent upon this is a domain-specific (ie racial) ethic of reproduction and, indeed, child care, which influences many things including hormonal levels and organ size. Orientation is determined by family genes. Individual sexual attitudes are determined by the modifying impact of local culture and life's serendipity upon inherited psychological attributes.

You seem to be implying that the latter differentiation is "it" in our sexual natures. I'm not sure that's a sustainable argument but I would like to see you try.

What a peculiar little fellow you are Arty. Was your penis very badly mutilated in that tragic boyhood accident?

Goodness me Guessedworker! What a lot of long words you've managed to string together there. I wonder if you know what any of them mean?

Woo! Yey! Proper flame war!

Excellent site, Mr Stanley (though add comments would make life more amusing, particularly in the case of crazies like Arty...). And thanks for reminding me that unlike most political orientations, libertarianism is entirely compatible with fun.

Ooh, and since I'm surrounded by libertarians... what do people think about the German cannibal scandal? Is consensual cannibalism acceptable?

I don't think I've seen such an amusing bunch of lunatics for quite some time. Who would have thought a single link to a site about permissive society would create such a stink?

Arty seems to equate libertarianism (and libertinism) with Islam. Interesting, if only for its value as a curio. I'd say the Islamic culture he rails against has more in common with social conservatism than he is likely to believe.

And while Guessedworker has baffled me with a series of confusingly termed points (over my head after just waking up, I'm afraid), Paul Coulam seems to be equally off on one.

A lovely bunch, to be sure.

My question, which I suppose is at the heart of permissive society and social libertarianism: if it doesn't harm anybody, what's wrong with it?

(I'm also waiting for Samizdata to post about the German cannibalism trial... what's does your meta-context say about that one, people?)

Paul,

I'm not saying that there is more more than an instrumental connection between sexual attraction and procreation (or if there is it's way deep in the background - certainly for men but probably less so for women who are by nature broodier than men). I'm only saying that most guys want to do it with girls. The vast majority.

Your original post seemed to be saying that as social taboos break down then there will be ever more gay people. I disagree. I think all studies suggest that most people are either naturally inclined to being gay or they are not. I don't think any amount of propaganda either for or against will make any significant change to the proportion of people who are gay. Some will come out of the closet, some will feel free to realise that this is the way they were all along but we are simply not going to see a tidal wave of homosexuality.

Dolphins and chimpanzees and dogs and, as far as I know, all higher mammals exhibit homosexuality - but only to a limited extent. I doubt very much if their society places cultural barriers to it! They only exhibit a certain amount because that's just the way they are. I doubt if we're so different.

That's why the James Stanley post is probably right. Relax. Not much will change.

Out of interest. Are you yourself homosexual? (Not that I care).

Paul, I don't know what any of them mean, no. But I like the way they sort of hang together. And then they go and box you in a corner ... just accidental good fortune on my part, of course, but fun all the same.

But, no we can't have that. What would the world come to if an urbane and eloquent spokesman for boho culture couldn't lecture straight little ole me about the sexual nature of Man? C'mon, enlighten me. What the hell are you talking about?

They used to charge people to go look at insane people in asylums.

Now we can watch insane people on these blog comments for free. Huzzah!

Guessedworker,

Where's the tawdry error? Inferences from Larkin aside, I ascribe no attitude to Peter that he does not reveal there or elsewhere. And he's not averse from indivualising his attacks, either. What's sauce for the goose....

Peter believes that homosexuality can be taught, promoted, that people will 'go gay' because of this. Maybe he believes that children will become Moslems because they learn about Islam at school, too, I don't know. After all, I'm sure schools these days make it seem much more exciting and tempting than Christianity.

But he certainly believes that the taxpayer should subsidise people to have children. The only difference in this regard from his adversaries on the left is, one presumes, the amount of taxation and the provision of childcare, state benefits and other doles.

And yes, he does have a bee up his arse. No one I know of his age gives a fig one way or the other, but Peter believes that the state should promote and subsidise ways of life it finds congenial or vote-winning. He's a man on a mission....

My wish is simply that the state butt out of all private arrangements. The state cannot, by definition, be a moral agent.

And you, not I, have extended Peter's attitude to all social conservatives. I wouldn't know. Some of them hold considered views against homosexuality, others have just taken agin it, some come up with illiterate biblical proscriptions against it, others with coherent biblical proscriptions. There appears to be no especial coherence among these views. I would merely

...I would merely point out the contradictions between Peter's soi-disant libertarianism and his social engineering, which differs from the socialists' only in the groups it patronises and the in the rate of taxation to pay for this patronage.

I don't think PC has ever called himself a libertarian; he's a social conservative, which is a very different beast. Although the boy's opinions are more than a little leftfield (or rightfield, I guess), he's pretty good at avoiding hypocrisy and self-contradiction.

BTW - cannibals?

No, he has at times called himself a libertarian and at others said that he is of libertarian tendencies - or at least wishes to hang around libertarians. But this does not go the whole way even on the economic side of things and extends little into the social side.

Patrick W,

As social taboo's break down the number of people opting to be gay will certainly increase. One can see evidence of this already. In ancient Sparta male homosexuality was legally compulsory, not very libertarian but it had the effect of making it a very common practice. Their sexual nature was completely separated from procreation as women lived isolated from the men and the children were raised communally.

Your error is in assuming that what you see around you now is some necessary outcome of biology. Notwithstanding any 'studies' you claim to have read the sexual nature of any particular person at any particular time is the resultant of many different social, biological, economic, political and other factors operating with differing levels of variability. Many erstwhile heterosexual men when deprived of suitable female company, say in prison or on pirate ships of old, quickly and willingly adapt to homosexuality. This cannot simply be dismissed as faute de mieux since every instance of sexual, or any other, behaviour is executed faute de mieux.

So Peter C's the libertarian equivalent of a fag-hag, whatever that may be? Cripes!

Paul C - that's not a sensible argument, and you know it. A more convincing explanation for the examples you cite is that lots of men would likely go for sex with other men over no sex at all forever - but would go for sex with girls over sex with other men if offered the choice.

john b,

I see that you prefer your explanations to be 'convincing' rather than true. When making any choice we can only choose from what is currently available at the time and within a social context that prevails at the time. Where homosexuality is vigorously persecuted it is cut off as a realistic option for many and the number choosing homosexuality will decline. Where it is vigorously promoted, as in Sparta, many more, possibly a majority, opt to choose it. There is no such thing as an intrinsic homosexual, or heterosexual for that matter. If you habitually choose to have homosexual sex then it would be fair to say that you're an homosexual. It's no good saying that were circumstances different then you would act differently - this is true of everyone about everything.

Paul C - but nobody's suggesting that hetero sex should be outlawed. Or if they are, then they can fuck right off...

john b,

Indeed not, but what I am saying is that where the taboos against homosexuality decline then the popularity of homosexuality will increase. This is infact happening. I'm not suggesting that heterosexuality will likely become a minority activity under any forseeable trends at the moment, only that it is possible under certain conditions and at particular times and places in history, this has been the case.

Where's Kodiak got to?

Surely he could reprise Edith Casson's views of the English, just to encourage you guys a bit more.

Not that you really seem to need it.

Surely the real issue here, though, which I am afraid you are all skirting around, is whether consensual cannibals ought to be allowed to marry.

Of course they should - it's an excellent demonstration of the 'one flesh' principle...

Everyone seems to be dancing around the fact that no one can ever be certain why someone chooses homosexuality or heterosexuality as it is an internal decision that no one but the perpetrator can hope to know why and not likely too often even then.

At the risk of opacity, it is my belief that there are fundemental physical realities we are given genetically (nature) but is simply acts like a boot-up program or simple executable programs on a motherboard. The rest is nurtured through a realitively haphazard set of experiences called life. IMO homosexuality may be completely genetic in one case but nurtured in another. A person's sexual drive can be intertwined with the experiences producing the sexual behavior. Therefore it is likely there will be more homosexuals as a result of liberalization of the culture against it since it will increase the instances that someone will be exposed to such notions as their sexual drive develops and what they associate it with. On the other hand, if it is completely genetic, it may also increase merely because it is not stigmatized any longer and people can follow their true natures.

Either way I don't support using the force of the state to alter the situation one way or the other and whatever cultural paradigms for or against sexual orientation be allowed to exist unfettered by the state. I wouldn't support laws making the practice illegal nor would I support laws forcing a private individual or association to contract with a person when a decision has been made not to contract based on sexual orientation, as irrational as that decision might be.

toolkien,

What you say seems about right and fits entirely with my thesis on this matter. Perhaps these biological determinists should stick a dildo up their arse to stop them talking out of it.

Of course, since many people abide by the laws and cultures of their society and avoid breaking taboos, there will be less recorded instances of homosexuality in a culture where gay sex is illegal.

On the flip side; in a society where homosexuality is accepted as a viable choice, of course there are going to be more open displays of homosexuality; but that doesn't mean that everybody (or even a majority) is gay.

Not everybody who experiments with gay sex is going to become homosexual (in the sense that they are exclusive) - after all, those who have used drugs are not drug users, and those who have read the daily mail are not daily mail readers.

As for nature/nurture: it could be either, it could be both.

Who cares? The world's not going to end because of people indulging in consensual activities. Civilisation isn't going to end. It doesn't matter a tiny bit, since there's nothing wrong with being gay.

And for reactionary Pete: of course consensual cannibals should be allowed to marry. Isn't it a long-held tradition to toast the bride and groom?

As for consensual cannibalism I don't have a problem with it. I would certainly keep my eye on anyone with a palate for such delicacies and is likely a sign of deeper psychological problems. I do see the problem of allowing even consensual cannibalism as it would leave the state, whose function is to preserve people's rights in life and property, having to decide when it was consensual or coerced, directly or indirectly, leading to whole system of regulation. Imagine having to hire an attorney to file the proper forms to perfect rights to cannibalize. I can concede that the state might invoke a ban simply because of the difficulty of determining when it is voluntary and when it isn't. But then the same argument is used by those opposed to assisted suicide.

bobbie,

Indeed, no behaviour is intrinsic, whether reading the Daily Mail, using drugs or having homosexual or heterosexual sex. But if you choose to read the Daily Mail often enough then it would be fair to describe you as a 'Daily Mail reader'. The reasons why someone would choose to do such a disgusting thing are many and varied; perhaps for some it is entirely genetic, others are maybe responding to the lack of social stigma against such practices and in societies where they are not actively reviled then one would expect to see an increase in this type of behaviour. Of course, as a libertarian, I stand stongly against any legal discrimination against such people and am even prepared to tolerate them getting married.

Not everyone who experiments with reading the Daily Mail will end up as an habitual 'user' in the sense that they are exclusive.

Paul,

Like the worst leftists your object is to cleanse the source of your pain. In your case that is the permanent disadvantage at which you dwell in consequence of your defective sexual orientation. If you could somehow equate the hetero and homo you'd equalize the rest of us with you own poor self at one stroke, so to speak.

You have to begin, of course, by separating procreation from recreation since homosexuals can't procreate. Then you set about developing a theory of interchangeability of orientation. Just like environmental marxists who claim that race doesn't exist so all phenotypes are interchangable, you are foisting a falsehood on people who, frankly, don't have much cause to think about buggery and so easily overlook your little scam.

So, I offer these corrective facts. If men are sufficiently corrupted in spirit and desperate for company they'll shag a sheep. Wandsworth prison has more potential sheep shaggers than, say, the Brecon Beacons. To make this stark bollock naked plain, it isn't the number of sheep that causes this phenomenon but the content of the soul.

For Paul's little scam to have any credibility it must must rely upon love transferred. He hasn't proved that because it doesn't happen. And it doesn't happen because the basis of sexual nature is genetic, not environmental.

Ah! Guessedworker,

One more time around the wedding cake then Miss Haversham! Like many rightists you try to cleanse the source of your pain. In your case the social disadvantage at which you dwell in consequence of your defective morality. First you develop a theory of social conservatism that tries to equate some arbitrarily selected set of moral norms with nature. For your scam to work you then try to pass off your own degraded and bigoted soul as a consequence of nature and mock all who prefer something else as immoral.

If you really think that people's sexual natures are fixed and immutable then why do you persist in railing against homosexuality, since on your own account, it will do no good?

As for homsexuals not being able to procreate, that is just factually incorrect, as you well know.

It must be difficult struggling by with your sadly disordered mind but please keep coming back here for more therapy if you think it does you some good.

Perhaps as social taboos decline there will be a decline in homosexuality as it will no longer be seen as shocking by ones elders nor exciting and daring to ones peers.

Paul Coulam - Re Miss Haversham - who left *you* in the lurch that you're so hissy?

Read the book Brainsex. It describes how, for whatever reason, women who had a strong flow of females hormones during their pregnancy may produce gay sons. This is why, in case anyone has missed it, their are often families with gay brothers. The overflow of female hormones suppresses the development of the male side of the brain - to whatever extent. Some gays are very effeminate and some are very butch. During their development, some of their male hormones were overwhelmed - or never developed - to varying degree by what was going on in their mothers' bodies.

This could be the reason there are infinitely more gay men than gay women. How many pregnant women have too many male hormones coursing through their bodies?

Read the book

Unlike some commenters I don't find this amusing so much as depressing, especially when conveyed with Paul Coulam's unappetising combination of bile & ad hominem invective. He comes across as one of those humourless autodidacts who is convinced that no-one else has ever read anything: his statements are profound observations based on wisdom, others' are mere clumsy assertions...
By the way Paul, to add credibility to your literary qualifications, be aware that it's Miss Havisham in Great Expectations, not Miss HavERsham. And your punctuation still lets you down.
Re cannibalism, would anyone care to eat Mr Coulam? Ethics aside, he'd need prolonged marinading to get rid of that bilious flavour, and lots of seasoning.

Paul my old fruit, I do accept your correction about the reproductive ability of homosexuals. I meant to say that homosexuals cannot procreate together. My apologies for such carelessness. But you still need to separate procreation and recreation in order to raise homosexuality to the level of an equally valid life-choice - which is your aim. But it's a scam and you know it. Exit validity.

The margin in which heterosexual and homosexual love are genuine alternatives is, I think, genetic and rather narrow. Where love is absent we are back in sheep-shagger country. This is an environmental effect but its specificity in type (all male) and character disqualifies it totally from application to life in general.

I just don't believe you can make your thesis work, though I understand why you need to try. For my part I oppose it, as perhaps you know in your heart, because it is a selfish assault on truth and on the nature of love between man and woman.

Interesting speculations above about increasing proportions of men becoming homosexual.
Can I just say I am hoping to wake up one fine morning and find that ALL men have.

Except me.

Question: When does libertarianism become libertinism?
Answer: About nine thirty Friday evening, generally speaking.

Oh dear Tony H. Are you getting the red mist again? I notice that this time you're not threatening me with physical violence (yet) but you still feel the need to dish out some unprovoked bile and ad hominem invective; you might reflect on what a fatuous hypocrite you are while you're nuturing your cannibalistic fantasies about me.

And are you really so insecure that you still need to make pointless comments about punctuation and spelling?

Verity,

Indeed I am aware of the theory in 'Brainsex'. It is an interesting theory and probably has some truth in it as do others. It is also entirely compatible with my thesis as one of the variable biological factors which combine with myriad other causal factors to produce a resultant sexuality in any one person at a particular time. If you read what I actually said with any degree of care before rushing in you would see that it is Guessedworker who is trying to twist the facts to suit his daft ideas about the 'naturalness' of social conservatism.

Social conservatism however, when advocated by the likes of Guessedworker, is just rhetorical cover for bigotry. Gay people and ethnic minorities just seem to set Guessedworker's 'id' twitching.

Where these social conservatives are concerned I think that it's about time that 'we condemned a little more and understood a little less'.

Guessedworker,

Your revised theory that 'homosexuals cannot procreate together' is again still wrong. To the best of my knowledge it is quite a simple matter for a homosexual man and a homosexual woman to procreate as much as they want. Indeed many do.

What you actually mean is that two people of the _same_ sex cannot procreate, and this is true whether they are homo or heterosexual.

I wonder when it's going to dawn on you that it is YOU here who is unable to raise his game in debate.

Paul C - you missed out the first "r" from "nurturing". And please note that I expressed no desire to eat you myself, merely wondered whether anyone else might so abuse his palate. Yours very securely...

My "game" is one of intellectual honesty, Paul, and transparency of motive, much as you might dislike these things. Since, as usual, you cast aspersions on my modest debating capacity allow me to remind you of the last time we broached the "H" issue. I am sure you will recall it. You posted that had absolutely no desire to pass on your genes which, of course, begs the question as to what you are, in fact, trying to do with your sexual parts every night of the week - and I said so. Alas, you fell into an unaccustomed silence.

I do acknowledge your intelligence and courage, Paul, but by golly you come up with some daft stuff at times. So let's reprise:-

You are obviously convinced that homosexuality is important. It is not. As I have said before on these threads, there is little reason why the world should bother it at all. It has no engagement with Nature's purpose in sex, which is reproductive and evolutionary. This purpose is perfectly indivisible from male and female sexual drive and from the two incentives which Nature employs - sexual pleasure and maternal feeling.

It's a big picture, Paul, of which you choose to see but a fragment, and then through a cracked lens. However, you have taken it upon yourself to publish a deceit in furtherence of your personal and group self-interest. That I and others on this thread deplore.

I hope this explains for you the difference between objection to homosexuality, which is both unnecessary and boorish, and objection to an equasion based on deceit and self-interest, which is just.

Guessedworker,

What business is it of any of us what anyone else does with their private parts every night of the week? No one is asking what you do with them, and I'd guess you're neither impregnating a different woman every night of the week nor firing blanks with your wife in a vain and years-long attempt to get her pregnant.

Vaginal intercourse using contraception (including Vatican roulette), or oral sex, for that matter, also "has no engagement with Nature's purpose in sex, which is reproductive and evolutionary."

So why should the world bother with recreational sex at all?