Ryan Sorba, an ISI Campus Representative at Cal State-San Bernardino gave a lecture last week at his school. That's right, HE gave a lecture. I know Ryan well and he is almost an "expert" on the subject of his lecture and I hope he writes and speaks more on the subject of homosexuality.

Through a psychological approach, Ryan not only views homosexuality as against the natural law, but he also points out the "homosexualist" political movement that has arisen in the past few decades and the many fallacies in their argument that some people are "born gay." Ryan's lecture insists that all people are "born straight" and that there is a "born gay" hoax that has been furthered without any scientific evidence. The idea of being "born gay" is relatively new to the homosexualist movement, yet this idea has had terrible consequences.

You can watch the full hour-long lecture (and believe me you will learn alot!) via this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4207851797866730699

wow, go Ryan!

As a good friend and the amateur film maker in this case, I can attest to Ryan's performance.

He took on 50 students and shot them down with facts, logic and a moral imagination.

Great job, Sorba!

I'm unimpressed with Ryan Sorba's presentation. Where analysis like Ryan Sorba's fall short is his complete focus on the "Born Gay" strategy of the modern Gay movement, which is actually self-evident. It doesn't take 20 or 30 minutes to dismiss this point of view. Nor is it big news.

In large part, today's gay political activism part of the Left-wing "Identity" Politics of the 60's---cultural Marxism---with it's roots in classical Marxist Leninism. Much of the cultural vitality of the hippie era is gone. But what remains of the legacy of the 60's and 70's "Liberation" movements are the big three: 1) People of Color, 2) Gay Sexual Liberation, and 3) Women's Liberation. Of course, we all know from the experience of real communism in practice that once in power, most "identity" politics is forgotten, and that communism turns out to be similar to a classic cult group dynamics, and merely a new way for the elite to control the rest of us for their own benefit, ie "Animal Farm".

It would be more interesting---and more effective---if Ryan Sorba would direct his attack at identity politics directly instead of making a big deal of gay political activism.

Interestingly enough, identity politics, like communism itself, falls apart under it's own weight. Nothing is more illustrative of this then the seeing that the Black Community is in the forefront of the opposition to gay marriage. Who is more qualified then those who suffered under Jim Crow to distinguish between a real Civil Rights issue, and what is plainly a personal liberation issue?

Which of course, brings me to the second failing of Ryan Sorba's analysis, is the question of personal liberation. "Gay Sexual Liberation" is part and parcel of the changes in attitudes toward sexual intimacy that are defined in the "Playboy Philosphy" or Helen Gurley Brown's famous essay in Vogue Magazine, "Sex and the Single Girl."

There is a lot of insight to be gained by grouping the gay lifestyle with the sort of garbage spouted in the media, such as the Tv series, "Sex and the City". (The joke I've heard from many gay people is that this TV show is about 6 modern gay men trapped in women's bodies.) Nor is anything much different in the gay lifestyle that you don't see among many straight men, for whom marriage is a 'trap', and that sex is another form of consumption, ie the "Playboy Philosophy".

The lack of personal fulfillment, and ultimately the boredom and meaninglessness that is the consequense of these sorts of attitudes toward sexual intimacy is a much more fertile area of exploration then what I heard from Mr. Sorba.

I'm afraid that as long as what others have described as the "culture of appetite" reigns supreme in our moral system combined with increasing urbanization of our culture, gay people will be here to stay as part of that "New World Order". Rather, preservers of tradition need to speak to these issues in a larger context or they will be left in the hopeless position of holding back the flood with a single finger in the dike, and will be swept away, if indeed they have any influence left at all.

Ultimately, Sorba would be more effective if he would enlarge his line of argumentation from a specific focus on gay political activism, to a wider critique of the modern culture of secular humanism and consumer oriented materialism. What gays and lesbians are really saying, is that given the fact that the 'culture of appetite' reigns supreme, and that marriage and family are already defined as secular and legalistic, then why exclude gays? Arguments like Sorba's seem irrelevant to what the public discussion is all about.

As a side note, I noted Sorba's reference to a quote by Camilia Pagelia, and wonder what his response is to a radical traditionalist like Pagelia? Pagelia's book was largely about the prevalence of distinct "sexual personae" across time and culture. In general, there are many gays would would disagree with the Left-wing Identity politics, yet cannot lend their voices to simplistic views of homosexuality that many people like Sorba or Pat Buchanan espouse. What does Sorba say to them? Death? The perpetual closet? Perpetual fear of bodily harm? Homosexuality has exhibited itself across all cultures and time, and it's not going away. What's really the danger to the stablity of our "Republic" is the prevalence of the "culture of appetite", of which gay identity politics is only a small part.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: davidnownthen,