Here, of course, is one of the great ironies of the issue. Both the Marxist-Leninist and Christian-socialist (e.g., Canada's CCF party) movements were vehemently anti-gay. With its intillectual roots in Christianity, Marxism regarded homosexuality as an unproductive, hedonistic and bourgeois activity. The CCF's founders--Revs. Woodsworth and Douglas--would be agast at the latter-day NDP's stance on gay marriage. When the Republicans cozied-up with the religious right, that 'De Lovely' nancy culture went out the window. Bill Buckley belonged to an earlier generation of conservative fruit-flies.

Joyner indulges in a little meditation on the subject of William F. Buckley's relationship with homosexuality. (And, by the way: my congratulations to anyone who can decipher what Vidal and Buckley were saying during that infamous heated exchange in ...

Thanks for the reminder of just what a solid intellectual adult among children Mr. Buckley truly was!

Sadly, No! Encouraging sexually active children to use condoms not only protects the child from catching a disease, it also reduces the chance that he or she will pass one on, which makes it morally different than just minimizing the risk of negative consequences to oneself.

Burglars use gloves to not get caught, people use condoms to avoid a terrible disease. Getting caught is a minor problem.

This criticism of WFB is off-base.

Burglars do wear glove not to get caught.

Condom-wearers wear them not to catch stuff.

Its all about being caught or catching. Its a brilliant analogy befitting a sesquipedalian like WFB.

Religious believers also apply a more secular measure of how a sin actually hurts others and/or society. Rampant premarital sex may cause problems but not nearly the problems of rampant stealing.

Unfortunately Buckley's test of equivalence here is wrong. Burglars use gloves to not get caught, people use condoms to avoid a terrible disease. Getting caught is a minor problem.

Regardless, the man was a giant in my mind. A fine example and role model for those of us who trade ideas in the public square.

I think you have that reversed.

Fixed now.

I think you have that reversed.

And from the perspective of a religious true believer, he was likely right. From any other, though, the moral equivalence of consensual sex and burglary is ridiculous.

Perhaps a more troubling aspect of his legacy was his enthusiastic defense of Jim Crow--something that is not only antithetical to the intellectual basis for conservatism, but was pretty remarkable coming from Buckley's position as an effete a northern "intellectual."