An emailer makes a challenging point:
When I read the Derbyshire bit on your blog today, I was thinking about his negative view on homosexuality: if he thinks that who one desires is not a matter of choice (as he implies by saying it is an ‘unfair’ truth that men really only want 15-20 year olds), then how can he possibly justify marginalization of gay relationships?
I did a Google search to see if he thought homosexuality was inborn, and it turns out he does. That does not, however, mean that gays shouldn’t be marginalized, according to him. Homosexuality is a ‘social negative,’ he says. In fact, it would be better for everyone, he thinks, if they marginalized themselves. He says,
“Tolerance is not approval; and while I do not agree with the pope that homosexuals are called to chastity, I do think that they are called to restraint, discretion, reticence, and a decent respect for the opinions of the majority. I certainly do not think that they ought to be allowed to transform long-established institutions like marriage on grounds of ‘fairness.’ Nor do I think they should be allowed to advertise their preference to high-school students, as they do in some parts of this country. Nor should they be strutting about boasting of ‘pride.’ (How can you feel pride in something you believe you can’t help?)”
Seems to me that freely and publicly admitting pedophilic tendencies (and lusting after 15-year-olds still counts – at least, adults sleeping with 15-year-olds is illegal, and most people are agreed that it’s illegal for good reason) is advertising a preference of a far greater social negative. I’m sure many, or some, high school students read NRO. And if he’s not strutting about boasting, he’s certainly saying it with a ‘wink-wink, come on guys, you know I’m the only one who’s brave enough to say what we’re all thinking’ kind of bravado. If he thinks gays should exhibit restraint, discretion, etc., my goodness, by his own reasoning, why shouldn’t he?
Good question, I’d say.
The Dish 