A homosexual contributor for Virtus
The main contributor to the section called "Virtus: Men's Studies" at Alternative Right is a homosexual.
This is how Wikipedia defines "Virtus."
Virtus was a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carries connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths (from Latin vir, "man"). It was thus a frequently stated virtue of Roman emperors, and was personified as a deity.But, once again according to Wikipedia,
Virtus applies exclusively to a man's behaviour in the public sphere, i.e. to the application of duty to the res publica in the cursus honorum.And,
His private business was no place to earn virtus, even when it involved courage or feats of arms or other qualities associated to it if performed for the public good.Thus,
While in many cultures around the world it is considered "manly" to father and provide for a family, family life was considered in the Roman world to be part of the private sphere. During this time there was no place for virtus in the private sphere.This separation of the public from the private makes sense if one accepts that having children is a natural aspect of being a male (anyone can have children), whereas courage in war needs to be cultivated, as does good judgment in public office. In addition, these two public duties are selective – some are more courageous than others, some have better judgment.
While any man can have children, being a good father and family man is not intrinsic to everyone. It is something that needs to be taught and cultivated. And some are better fathers, and better at maintaining their families, than others.
At the cost of refuting a whole tradition of Ancient Rome, I will say that at least in our modern world, a man as a heterosexual being, who has a family of a wife and children, and who maintains that family through the years, ranks high with the virtue of Virtus. Various levels of heterosexual men (married without children, unmarried) can also subscribe to this virtue.
In my humble assessment, I think to qualify for Virtus, a man needs to exhibit both these private and public qualities. This sounds harsh, but look at our modern leaders. Although the attention given to spouses and children is unduly high these days, there is a greater respect given to a leader if the public feels that the leader has accomplished an exemplary private life together with a noteworthy public career.
A homosexual can never achieve both conditions.
