These discussions would benefit from integrating the lessons of economic history. The most applicable theme seems to me is the Christian faith’s upholding the value of each person puts downward or restraining pressure on initiatives that appropriate labor or oppress. Leadership representing so many becomes leadership representing nobody. The leadership becomes emboldened to try his/her/their ‘big idea’ without sufficiently valuing the shaping voices of those given to know perspectives, mostly because of the human impossibility of enough seconds in the day to connect with so many.

In our American case we have more highly educated people in the cities and towns than ever before per capita, while proportionately ever fewer per capita in distant centers. So few’representing’ so many is beyond the means of human processing. But without the sense of ‘being the same as them’, ‘the leadership; nevertheless take decisions and ‘because they can handle it’. The loss of Christian humility and trust that those closer to the scene can manage. Wonder why all the buildings in Soviet Russia looked the same? There becomes a willingness impose detailed one-size-fits-all policies on those that know the local situation best. A lack of empathy toward those who ‘slip through the cracks’ of ‘their great policy’. It’s the sort of thinking that lowers the restraint against blunt measures such as chemical weapons, etc.

One way to measure the extent of the decay is to guage the extent to which loyalty is ‘two way’ or ‘one way’ among leadership.

David, you write that “Secularism aims to protect the freedoms of people from all backgrounds.” You are correct in the sense that secularism protects “secular” freedoms. However, from the Christian perspective, the ultimate freedom is the freedom from sin and death. Secularism, by definition, has absolutely nothing to say about this ultimate freedom, does it?

Mr. Bradshaw,

There two recent interesting studies, one published as a systematic review of prevention strategies & racial disparities (J Gen Intern Med 27(8):1047–67, 2012) and one on the role of “stigmatizing” conditions in minority communities (AIDS Educ Prev. 2013 June ; 25(3): 179–189) that analyze the fact that African-American & Hispanic Americans have grossly accounted for a disproportionate number of infection cases for nearly thirty years. While these authors have drawn no startling conclusions, they certainly have provided a sobering context by placing HIV/AIDS among the healthcare issues in which minorities are disproportionally represented in general: hypertension, diabetes, colon cancer, lung cancer, obesity, mental illness, and chemical dependency. And what are the causes: lack of knowledge, a tradition of poor choice-making in healthcare matters, lack of access to the preventative healthcare system, poorer overall health in general, over-reliance by necessity on the emergency healthcare system, delays in diagnostic testing, blah, blah, blah. Specific to HIV/AIDS, because of cultural stigma and ignorance, they are less likely to be tested for sexually transmitted disease, less likely to seek treatment in general, less likely to complete treatment for sexually transmitted disease, etc.

I don’t know if you recall, but in the first “wave” of the epidemic, intravenous drug users (IVDU) were nearly exclusively minorities, and when the NYS Dept. of Substance Abuse Services projected in the late 1980’s that 250-275,000 IVDU’s were infected in NYC alone, they foretold a minority holocaust. And as you allude, the stigma & intolerance of homosexuality in the African-American & Hispanic communities is well known, but the lack of services for drug users forced IVDU’s to surreptitiously seek medical services in the gay community. It was amusing but sad to have my IVDU patients present me with gay pornographic newspapers that also happened to have large classified sections with services for people with AIDS.

So, Mr. Bradshaw, the short answer as to why there is a disproportionate level of HIV in African-American and Latino gay men (and you must include female partners of “men who have sex with men” as it is the leading cause of death of African American women) are the same reasons that minorities are over-represented in the healthcare system: hypertension, diabetes, colon cancer, lung cancer, obesity, mental illness, and chemical dependency. Why not offer some form of healthcare alternative to Medicaid that focuses on preventative care? Don’t ask somebody who stayed up too many nights with all the king’s horses and all the king’s men… Like the brooms carrying water for the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, they just keep coming.

Mr Stankovich: What do you make of the disproportionate levels of HIV in African-American and Latino gay men? According to the CDC in 2010, black and Latino men combined were responsible for around 17,000 new infections, while white men accounted for only 11,000 or so.

I hope this doesn’t sound like a racist ploy. I’m merely reporting the facts. Is this a lack of education and knowledge regarding how the disease is spread? Is there something about the culture of these communities that makes the acquisition and transmission of the disease more likely for some reason?

My experience of both minority communities is that they are much less accepting of any form of homosexual conduct (even as the culture at large is increasingly accepting). If you look at the NOM traditional marriage rallies, you’ll find them very often over-represented by minorities. As such, gay men and women in those communities might be less likely to seek monogamy and instead resort to living on the “down low” (as they call it), looking for anonymous sexual encounters in bath houses and the like.

Of course, this doesn’t deny the reality of promiscuity on the part of too many white gay men and the need for reform within that culture as well. It’s a question of degree.

Larry,

Epidemiology in complex, diverse populations is difficult enough, but add the dimension of “stigmatizing disorders” and the subjective variable of “self-report,” and you radically exacerbate the problem. You can begin to image that your conclusion – “monogamous relationships under the guise of marital equality should reduce new instances of HIV infection” – is naive.

The rates of infection determined by the CDC derive from “men who have sex with men” (MSM) which includes men who identify as homosexual,but also those who identify as bisexual, heterosexual, the imprisoned, etc. who have had sex with men. [I would note that enough heterosexual men report homosexual behaviour but deny homo/bisexuality for the CDC to consider it in this category, and prison inmates, as a rule, do not continue this behaviour upon release, or so they report]. So, how could I possibly demonstrate any of this is true? Perhaps by examining the partners of the “non-homosexual” MSM’s? Who’d have thought? Unprotected sexual partners of AIDS-infected individuals are most often the second source for new infections – the irony being some of the the increase in HIV infection could be directly attributable to “monogamous homosexual relationships under the guise of marriage equality.”

As to your first point, in my mind it most certainly was germane to the issue: with the greatest voter turnout in CA history – 80%+ of all registered voters – Prop 8 passed by a margin of less than 2% of the vote. This was hardly a “mandate,” but it certainly was a call to action. a call we failed to answer.

M. Stankovich,

I was merely referencing the actual election result where the advocates for same sex marriage “lost” in 2008. What occurred in the courts thereafter isn’t really germane to the point that I was trying to make.

Secondly, with regard to the statistics, I wasn’t aiming for dramatics so much as I was aiming for pith. Irregardless of the sample size, what is inherent is the reality that an INCREASING number of new HIV infections are as a result of homosexual activity during a time when the ACCEPTANCE of their lifestyle is gaining traction. To wit: the idea of monogamous homosexual relationships under the guise of marriage equality should result in DECREASED new instances of HIV within the homosexual community, only to find out that this hasn’t been the case.

“We still have laws against pedophilia, we don’t allow fathers to marry daughters or mothers their sons, outlaw polygamy, and so forth. All these prohibitions seem natural to us because they reference a deeper moral sensibility.”

Don’t be surprised to see these try to get normalized next…

Larry,

I would suggest that you clarify your “facts”: Prop 8 was not “lost” prior to the recent decision of the SCOTUS. While the CA Supreme Court determined the proposition to be unconstitutional, the ruling had no effect in lifting the order of the Federal Court of Appeals that CA could not conduct same-sex marriages until all avenues of appeal had been exhausted. Secondly, without providing something of context for your statement that 78% of all new cases of HIV/AIDS are attributable to homosexuals, the statement is hardly as dramatic as you apparently intended. Every few years, the journals of epidemiology routinely feature a commentary of “Whatever happened to the AIDS epidemic in heterosexuals?” 78% of 5, 000 is significantly different than 78% of 5,000,000. Personally, I too would have presumed the rate significantly higher among homosexuals, obviously for different reasons than you. And so it goes…

I agree wholeheartedly. Especially with your last comment. I dare say this activism leading to marriage equality is proving to be counter productive. Advocates often argue with me because they believe they have a right to be happy. Ostensibly, happiness is the central aim in marriage equality, but it really has to do with acceptance. To believe that the lifestyle is acceptable to society. Looking at it from that perspective, homosexuals observing that their lifestyle is gaining acceptance is leading them to become more irresponsible. The CDC website issued statistics about new HIV/AIDS infections. In 2008, when marriage equality was gaining real traction after the loss of prop 8, homosexuals were responsible for 63% of the new cases of HIV. In 2010, that number burgeoned to 78%! More recent data has yet to be published, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the rate of infection on the rise as of late.

No, secularism is not really capable of protecting people if by the term you mean denuding the public square of any reference to Christianity. OTOH, if you mean by the term that religions are free to engage the public square then, yes, the term works.

There is much confusion about state and religion. For example, take the case of the Oklahoma judge who just invalidated a law barring Sharia Law. She seems to think that liberty exists apart from any moral reference, outside of any moral vision (and thus religion), and is somehow self-generating and self-sustaining. The Muslims of course are under no such illusion and any imposition of Sharia Law would blow the assumption out of the water at the first opportunity.

The only other solution is that the State itself becomes the final arbiter of all things moral in which case it also asserts for itself the authority to define what morality is. It’s already doing that by declaring couplings not found in nature, history, or the moral tradition as morally licit marriage. This arrogation of authority portends the the loss of liberty since liberty rests in virtues that State cannot define or provide. In this way same-sex unions and dictatorships are related.

Met. Hilarion says that the legalisation of homosexual marriage represents the state raising itself up as a moral arbiter. Really, only just now? In the past, the state used to prevent homosexuals from getting married – isn’t that a kind of ‘moral arbitration’? It also used to jail people for being homosexual – that is certainly a kind of moral arbitration! In Russia, the state will fine people for TALKING about homosexuality.

All law draws from the moral consensus operating in the larger culture. We still have laws against pedophilia, we don’t allow fathers to marry daughters or mothers their sons, outlaw polygamy, and so forth. All these prohibitions seem natural to us because they reference a deeper moral sensibility.

The difference between the codification of a homosexual coupling as a legal marriage and traditional marriage however, is that the homosexual coupling is not in accord with natural law, historical practice, or moral tradition. It is solely an invention of the State and thus reveals an arrogation of authority in which the State asserts itself as both the source and judge of the moral validity of human relationships. This is a dangerous development. Once the citizenry grants that type of authority to the State, the State becomes Leviathian and the organs and prerogatives of the State turn to serve the State rather than the people.

I’ve cautioned homosexuals in the past (and do it again here) that the activism might come back to bite them. If society hits on harder times (and it will), the homosexual as scapegoat can rear its head again. For example, if Obamacare survives and rationing starts, do you really believe the monies devoted to AIDS treatments today will remain? I don’t. I know that some homosexual commentators agree with me. The role of outsider might actually be safer, at least if the reach of the State increases. Natural law cannot be nullified; only our comprehension of it wanders and wanes.

Larry, Nietzsche predicted the same thing. It’s not that hard to see actually. When Western Civilization abandons Christ, the categories and institutions shaped by the Christian faith get gravely distorted. The sense of judgement that held private passions in check on the one hand, and the enervating creativity that Christianity unleashed in the world on the other, both weaken. This devolution has grave cultural ramifications in the long term.

The rise of ideologies in the last century was the manifestation of the decline of Christianity and if you look at them closely, particularly Marxism, you see their dependence on Christian categories although the New Jerusalem is of course temporalized (immanentized). The future, barring no repentance and thus intervention from God (do we need another Great Awakening?), portends a suffering as great as Soviet Russia experienced under Communism. Someone told me that St. John Maximovitch predicted such a calamity for America. I need to find out if that is accurate, however.

Nietzsche simply projected the (de-Christianized) categories forward. He possessed a prescient sense of how societies worked which is why his predictions are reliable. That understanding came I think (apart from his native talents) from his boyhood as the son of a Lutheran pastor. (His background and subsequent work may also confirm that at the core of the embrace of nihilism lies the willful rejection of God and the hierarchies God’s creative Word brought into being. These kind of conclusions however, lie in the realm of the unseen [non-empirical] and are thus subject to hot debate.)

Repentance and turning back of the secular machine is not outside the realm of the possible. Some historians argue that the egalitarian virus unleashed by the French Revolution did not jump the English Channel because John Wesley roused the English back to Christ. Secular ideologies always bow to the strong man – Napoleon in the case of the French.

Yes Met. Hilarion. Prelest was not the best word to use, perhaps deluded would have been better.

His whole premise that legalization of same sex unions is plunging the “West” into dictatorship is just silly. Most western countries still have a democratically elected government, and so if the people are not happy with the laws their leaders are making, they can freely vote for someone else to change the law.

Secularism aims to protect the freedoms of people from all backgrounds. If there is any country that is moving more and more towards dictatorship and authoritarian rule, it’s Russia with the enactment of new laws designed to imprison anyone that dare speak out against the state or the Church.