Ben Shapiro's Take on Homosexuality, Stanford U Speech, November 7, 2019: A Reflection

"How does anal sex help us win the culture war?"

That's a question which one of the Groypers asked Turning Point USA at The Ohio State University in October, 2019.

Ben Shapiro responded to this question at the outset during his Stanford University Speech on November 7th, 2019.

Here's the entire speech.

Here's the Daily Wire upload of the speech, with the questions that followed. Click here.

Here's the portion of the speech that I wanted to focus on in particular:

"Criminalizing consensual activity without externality is by definition losing the culture war. What helps America win the culture war is freedom, and liberty, and the government not being involved in your life.

"And if you, like me, believe that certain personal activities are a sin, you know how you win that culture war?  By having people join your church, by engaging with your community, by teaching your children your values. That's the way you win a culture war.

"In fact, I'm bewildered by it, there's great irony in watching alt-righters claim that they should use the commanding heights of government to cram down their viewpoints on others, while complaining that the left uses the commanding heights of government to cram down their viewpoints on others. You can't really whine about using the government shutting down your viewpoint if you plan on using the government to shut down everyone else's viewpoint.

"But many folks on the alt-right are playing true believers by suggesting that social conservatives like me, people who wrote entire books on the evils of pornography in American society, or people like David French, who spend their days fighting for religious freedom, are standing ardently in favor of Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library. 

"I also think that in governmental terms, if you allow the library to decide which speech to ban, it's much more likely to ban the Bible than drag queen story hour. I'm for limited government, because I do not trust the government to decide what kind of speech it wants to ban."

The biggest point of departure for me in this speech occured when Shapiro declared the following:

"Criminalizing consensual activity without externality is by definition losing the culture war."

This standard, this metric is deeply flawed. If we apply it fully, that means that prostitution should be legal. For many intents and purposes, prostitution is a consensual activity between adults, right? The externalities are not flagrant or manifest are they?

Actually they are, because fundamentally sexual conduct, even between two consenting adults, automatically has externalities. Sexual activity leads to the conception and birth of children, for example. There are the mental and emotional and psychological consequences which follow after two people have sex. The impact on human capital, the integrity of the family, the effects on public health--all of those outcomes are clear-cut externalities.

Yes, indeed, the government can, does, and should regulate what behaviors happen in the bedroom. The question is "which ones?" Again, prostitution should not just be regulated, but it is both necessary and proper to criminalize the conduct. The unintended society and cultural consequences cannot be ignored. Beyond the potential spread of venereal disease and unintended pregnancies, there is the degradation of the moral culture, the public health problems which ensue, and the inevitable rise of sex trafficking, human trafficking, and drug trafficking which ensues. Legalizing everything is not going to solve the problems. There are corrosive aspects of human nature which need to be confronted fully, not pandered to. 

Incest can also be construed as consensual conduct between adults. Yet too this behavior should be criminalized. Such abominable conduct has larger, initially unforseen consequences which cannot be ignored. Allowing for relentless sexual license does nothing but harm for a community. With the collapse of sexual mores comes the collapse of the entire civilization. This sad pattern has repeated itself from one empire to the next. The United States has fallen into that same pattern, as well.

So, prostitution should remain criminalized, along with incest. One can make the stronger argument for recriminalizing sodomy, as well. Shapiro was dismissing the notion that the state should take a stronger role in disapproving of this conduct because "consensual conduct without externalities." 

However, the normalization of homosexuality has led to all kinds of problems in the public sphere. As Paul Johnson documented in his autobiography "The Quest for God", homosexuals have been able to form militant lobbies that push their agenda into every facet of the public square. They are now eroding the natural rights of all while redoing the whole purpose of government to please themselves and grant them a place of prominence, at the expense of everyone else.

Indeed, it's time for conservatives to restore moral order in the public square, and it is appropriate to use government sanction to discourage and restrain evil. Consensual activities and their consequences do not stay in the bedroom, and it is wrong to believe in this libertarian "Live and Let Live" naivete as an answer to many of society's ills.

What is Wrong With Decriminalizing Homosexuality? Answer for Conservatives

I have received this question multiple times from other conservatives. They are pro-life, they are pro-family, and they do not want to cede anymore political territory to the left.

However, when the discussion turns toward what to do about homosexuality, the confrontations emerge: "You think it should be recriminalized? Why not just decriminalize these behaviors? It's not like what people do in the privacy of their own homes affects us.

"What is wrong with decriminalizing homosexuality?"

To those conservatives, I say --- Thank you for asking the question, fellow conservatives!

This is an issue which must be confronted adequately, accurately, and cogently.

First of all, I want the natural rights of all individuals to be respected and honored. Homosexuality and transgenderism are not natural rights, but unnatural acts. They violate the laws of nature and Nature's God, and thus they are an affront to the law of nations.

Under no circumstances would I celebrate or press for individuals in bondage to these behaviors to be thrown off of buildings or hung from cranes. Not at all.

Regarding the executions which take place in Islamic countries, what most people do not realize is that in the many cases in which homosexuals are hanged or thrown off of buildings to their deaths, these executions occur in connection with child abuse or rape. The narrative that those individuals are executed simply for "being gay" is not true.

Now, regarding the matter of liberty ...

There can be no liberty in any country without morality. Review the histories written by ancient Greco-Roman historian Polybius, who described the total breakdown and collapse of Greek city states following the disregard and disruption of natural relations between man and woman.

The state does have a role to play in ensuring public health and public safety.

Private acts do indeed have public consequences. For example, it is wise and good for a nation to criminalize prostitution and incest. Such behaviors are harmful to morale as well as the morale fibers of a community. One could argue that in the vast majority of cases, those behaviors are private, consensual acts. They wreak untold, unintended public consequences--the breakdown of healthy families, the health problems, the conginental and moral defects which ensue from such corrupted beahviors.

The same consequences hold true for homosexuality. Where homosexual acts are permitted and even celebrated, there is a stunning rise in disease, dysfunction, and death. Contrary to the arguments proferred by LGBT activists, indifviduals in bondage to these behaviors suffer high rates of morbidity and mortality due to the nature of the acts themselves, and not from political or cultural persecution. In the most LGBT affirming locales, the suicide and mortaity rights for these behaviors are actually much higher. The lifespan of homosexuals declines by an average of 20%.

Again, most people will contend: "What people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business." Paul Johnson, a pre-eminent British historian unveiled to the world one of the most horrendous public conequences which followed the decriminalization of homosexuality in Great Britain.

He wrote:

"There were many of us, in the 1960s, who felt that there were grave practical and moral objections to the criminalisation of homosexuality, and who therefore supported, as happened in most Western countries, changes in the law which meant that certain forms of

homosexual behavior ceased to be unlawful. 

"We were proved totally mistaken. 

"Decriminalisation made it possible for homosexuals to organise openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched. Next followed demands for equality, in which homosexuality was officially placed on the same moral level as standard forms of sexuality, and dismissal of identified homosexuals from sensitive positions, for instance in schools, children’s homes, etc., became progressively more difficult. This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality but privilege." (The Quest for God, pages 28-29)

Homosexual conduct, and the movement which inevitably ensued, was never about "Live and Let Live". It was never about expanding the notion of liberty. Homosexual conduct, and the inevitable lobby which follows, will never cease making more demands for its normalization, acceptance, and celebration at the expense of the natural rights of all.

I have no interest in seeing the Bad Old Days of the sexual license, in which men abused other men for pleasure, diminishing the rights and privileged roles of women and children. This perversity was rampant not just in Ancient Greece, but also in Ancient and even Mediaval Europe and China.

The introduction of Judeo-Chrisitan mores in all domains, including sexual expression, helped foster stable, strong, and prosperous societies. Abandoning these principles is hurting our communities, our country, our culture. When Great Britian colonized Southeast Asia, the instituted this strict ban on immoral acts, which in turn helped those regions to prosper economically and culturally. To be truly progress, a nation, a country must honor natural marriage--one man and one woman.

As for making the arugment that one is arguing for a theocracy by sanctioning homosexuality, one can consider the Republic of Singapore, which is hardly a religious state, yet which has maintained the anti-sodomy statute 377a on its books. No, the Republic of Singapore does not actively enforce that law, but it forestalls all the corrupt perversions which inevitably follow:

1. False, aka same-sex marriage
2. Homosexual adoption (which harms the children)
3. Enactment of civic codes to grant special protections to them, and at the expense of everyone else
4. Punishment for those who do not agree to or celebrate LGBT behaviors

Karen Siegmund mentions that we are living in the slippery slope, and I agree--but that does not mean would should settle for the slide and enjoy the perverse ride until our culture, country, and communities collapse.

It's time to push back, to build a big, beautiful wall around the civic order which makes Western Civilization possible. 

I would submit that homosexuality should be treated like smoking:

1. We limit its practice
2. We actively encourage people, especially young people, to avoid practicing those behaviors
3. We offer assistance to help people break free of those habits.

Thank you for your time.

(PS for a more thorough breakdown why sanctioning sodomy is wise public policy, please look over the speech of Dr. Thio Li-Ann of Singapore:

http://aschaper1.blogspot.com/2019/10/bold-speech-against-lgbt-in-favor-of.html

The State of the Union: Bold Speech Against LGBT, In Favor of Sanction (Parliament Building, Singapore, 2007) Two camps championing two distinct criminal law philosophies are polarised over whether to retain or repeal s377A which criminalizes public or private acts of gross indecency between two men, such as sodomy. aschaper1.blogspot.com

Decriminalization of Homosexuality Has Led to the Criminalization of the Natural Order: Time to Fight Back

I cannot tell you how many complaints and criticisms I receive from people because of my work for MassResistance.

"Arthur, why are you so obsessed about LGBT?"

"Arthur, don't you realize that we are not going to win elections if people think that Republicans, that conservatives are 'anti-gay'"?

"Arthur, gay marriage has left the barn. It is too late to stop that horse. Get over it."

"Arthur, the best way going forward when dealing with LGBT is 'Live and Let Live'"

But is "live and let live" the wisest course of action? Is it too harsh for pro-family activists to call out homosexuality, transgenderism, bisexuality, etc. for what they are: destructive behaviors which undermine the natural order? Is it really the proper course of action for us to seek compromise and common ground with homosexuals, whether individuals or the activist lobby groups which represent them? Was it right for conservative leader Margaret Thatcher during her days in the minority Tory government to fight for the decriminalization of sodomy in her own country? Was it right for the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on this matter in 2015 and strike down all lives barring the redefinition of marriage beyond the union of one man and one woman? Is it a good idea for President Donald Trump to appeal to world leaders to decriminalize homosexuality?

Paul Johnson

Preeminent British historian and scholar Paul Johnson writes (as quoted by Peter LaBarbera) offers some controversial, yet compelling and ultimately correct assessments on this:

"The radical agenda [or the worldly, progressive movements] …with its strong appeal to the idealistic, as well as the materialistic, instincts of mankind, especially among young people, does constitute an alternative religion. Like any other form of humanism, it replaces God by man, and the welfare – or supposed welfare – of man, rather than the worship of God and obedience to his commandments, as the object of human existence and the purpose of society. That, of course, is its defect. The Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner once argued that it is the consciousness of God, the acceptance that there is power outside and above ourselves, to whom we owe allegiance and whose guidance we must follow, which essentially distinguishes mankind from other creatures.

....

"There were many of us, in the 1960s, who felt that there were grave practical and moral objections to the criminalisation of homosexuality, and who therefore supported, as happened in most Western countries, changes in the law which meant that certain forms of homosexual behavior ceased to be unlawful.

...

"We were proved totally mistaken.

"Decriminalisation made it possible for homosexuals to organise openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched. Next followed demands for equality, in which homosexuality was officially placed on the same moral level as standard forms of sexuality, and dismissal of identified homosexuals from sensitive positions, for instance in schools, children’s homes, etc., became progressively more difficult. This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality but privilege: the appointment, for instance, of homosexual quotas in local government, the excision from school textbooks and curricula, and university courses, passages or books or authors they found objectionable, special rights to proselytise, and not least the privilege of special programmes to put forward their views – including the elimination of the remaining legal constraints – on radio and television.

"Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice and we ended up with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamouring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental – and to most of us horrifying – changes to civilised patterns of sexual behavior.

"Here indeed we have sexual politics in action. And, as with other alternatives to God, the result is not human happiness, but human misery. The homosexual community, as they now styled themselves, by their reckless promiscuity during the 1970s and 1980s, helped to spread among their members the fearful scourge of AIDS, a killer disease of a peculiarly horrible nature, for which there is no cure, and no immediate likelihood of a cure…." (The Quest for God: A Personal Pilgrimage, by Paul Johnson, pages 28-29)

Long before Johnson detailed the deleterious consequences of decriminalizing LGBT behaviors, thus allowing them full and free reign in the public square, the Bible provides another historical account, one which warns all of us about the militancy of homosexuality and homosexuals when they are permitted to identify with and engage in their perversion openly:

"[T]he men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." (Genesis 19: 4-9)

The homosexuals had so overrun the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that Lot, the only righteous man in the entire city, pleaded with the two angels who were visiting him, not to spend any time in the public square. He feared for their safety, because they would be preyed upon, sodomized, and very likely murdered. Notice also how Lot tries to placate the rabid homosexuals surrouding his home. He was willing to give up his own daughters to their own perverse sexual dictates. Not only did the sodomites reject Lot's offer, but they determined to "deal worse with" him. Lot tried to appease the homosexuals, and they responded by wanting to do him more harm!

I submit to you that because conservatives in general, and the pro-family movement in particular, has chosen the easier, softer approach of not confronting the whole LGBT agenda in its entirety, we are now facing the unprecedented immoral avalanche of Drag Queen Story Hour, Comprehensive Sexual Education, Homosexual Shame Parades, Satanic occult, and other detestable policy demands. The conservative, pro-family movement has sought to placate homosexuals repeatedly, from decriminalizing their perversion, to granting them civil unions, to allowing them gay marriage (in the United States and Taiwan, this immoral travesty was imposed by judicial fiat, not democratic exercise).

But the demands never ended. They want benefits, they want to adopt children. They want to be celebrated. As one homosexual activist had told me, quite pointedly and without reserve, in Hermosa Beach, CA: "You have to accept me. I will not accept 'tolerance!''"

Johnson his extended remarks in 1996. Fast forward to 2019, and let's consider what we are facing today from the LGBT lobby:

1. They demand that they can promote their deviant lifestyles in public libraries, at taxpayer expense, i.e. Drag Queen Story Hour

2. They demand the right to teach these perverse behaviors to children, with or without the parents' knowledge or consent, in government-run, taxpayer-funded schools.

3. Every time an individual in bondage to these perversions is held accountable for criminal or unethical conduct, they cry "victim" and expect to be exonerated. Consider the latest example of this with the exposure of now-resigning Congresswoman Katie Hill (D-Santa Clarita), whose numerous dalliances with men and women, all at taxpayer expense, were exposed to the public, and thus forced her resignation. In a final video statement informing the public of her resignation, she blames everyone but herself for the sad predicament she faces. No accountability whatsoever!

4. Not only are the LGBT ideologues lobbying other countries to repeal their anti-sodomy laws, but they want to sanction, fine, and imprison those who speak out against their destructive behaviors and deviant lifestyles. In their view, anyone, whether priest, parent, or professional, who condemns these unnatural acts should be driven from the public square, drained of all their resources, and deprived of their liberty.

5. The LGBT lobby has even gone to such lengths that they want their perverse behaviors recognized as civil rights, deserving of complete protection and government oversight at the expense of the rights of all. The Equality Act, HR 5, is full proof of this immoral tyranny, of this political madness all being forced on us under the guise of "tolerance, acceptance, and diversity."

The fight against the LGBT Agenda is real, and it's time to take it seriously. It is time for men and women of common sense and courage to stop treating this agenda with platitudes and niceties, and it's time to start calling out LGBT behaviors and the agenda as a whole. It's a tyrannical, unnatural perversion which should not be permitted in the public square. LGBT behaviors and ideas should not be celebrated, but denigrated, denounced, and dismissed from public welcome.

MassResistance, the pro-family organization that I serve as Organization Director, has been making the case for this hard-core, uncompromising approach since its inception in 1993. In order to fight against the LGBT Agenda, accommodation and compromise cannot be allowed. Homosexuality, transgenderism, and like sexual perversions are not identities, nor are they genetic behaviors. They are mental disorders, moral failings, "monsters in our midst" (to quote Paul Johnson) which must be rejected and treated with justice and sanction. It is not enough to say:

"You can have your sexual preferences, but let us have our individual liberty."

That approach has not worked, and it will never work. The LGBT agenda, the homosexual lobby is not interested in compromise and accommodation, or "live and let live." The whole agenda was never based on any concept of tolerance, but rather forced acceptance, i.e. tyranny. In fact, from the outset homosexual activists had announced that they wanted their behaviors to be regarded on par, in parity with normal and healthy sexual relations, i.e. singlehood or marriage of one man and one woman.

Based on history, based on biology, based on Biblical revelation and scientific truth, such demands cannot, should not be realized.

It's time to oppose with full conviction this whole LGBT agenda. It's time to stand for truth. To respond to my critics who declare that I should not be focused to intently on stopping the LGBT agenda, I retort: "On the contrary, it's time for us to start fighting, and fighting to win! We cannot afford to give one more inch. We cannot afford to lose any more ground."

In other words: It's time for MassResistance!

 It’s time for us to make a clear stance against homosexuality and for natural marriage, life, and family. It’s time to declare to a minuscule subset of the population that the vast majority of are not going to be content with being bullied into accepting, accommodation this perverse LGBT agenda.

We need to push homosexuality, transgenderism, and the like back into the proverbial closet. There is nothing wrong with sanction and recrimination, to the degree that these efforts serve to instructive the general public that such behaviors are wrong and should be discouraged. In no wise should the natural rights of anyone be abridged or abolished. But let us be clear: homosexuality, transgenderism, and other sexual paraphilias are not rights. They are behaviors, and our governments, our cultures, our moral expectations have every right to prohibit and sanction those behaviors.

We have no time to lose. It’s time for us to shake off our sense of shame-induced silence from the LGBT lobby and tell it like it is. LGBT is not OK, and we should have every right to see these behaviors, this agenda pushed out of the public square and sequestered from harming our children, our communities, our culture, and our country.

Decriminalization of homosexuality is leading to a criminalization of the natural order in our country and in nations around the world, and it's time for us to fight back.