Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
The Gaffer's Philosophy:
Part 119: Homophobia:
September 6, 2004:
I have discussed homosexuality at other times in other places, including my book, The Gaffer's Shorts. I would not be discussing it here were it not for slippery politicians. This is a minority issue that I had intended to cover briefly near the end of this series of essays. A minority issue is one that will have no effect on the majority of Americans. The issue itself may or may not be legitimate, but in either case, it legitimately involves only a few people. There are several such issues that get way more attention and resources than is warranted by the number of people involved. I am being forced to address this one immediately because of our criminally dishonest politicians.
One major thing that makes these minority issues seem more important than they are is the large numbers of people who have no legitimate interest muscling their way into them. In all cases I have seen, these people are fundamentalist religious fanatics. They are people who want to impose their personal version of morality onto the nation at large. I speak of dishonest rabble-rousers like Robertson and Falwell among others.
This current surge of homophobia has a political cause. It is nothing more than a massive government subterfuge with the intent of deflecting attention away from the failed policies of the current government. For sure, this is not just a failure of the current administration. If it had not been for the disaster of 9-11the degeneration of government would still be unnoticed. 9-11 exposed our current batch of buffoons, but it also exposed the ineptness of many previous administrations. As I pointed out early in this series, our government has been degeneration fo a very long time. No one is Washington is innocent.
We have failures in foreign police, leadership, and the economy. To cover that, the rabble's attention is being deflected into the trivial issue of same sex marriage. The frightening thing is, the rabble being what they are, the effort is likely to succeed. The reality is the average American voter is too easy to con. They only know what they are seeing in front of them right now. Their minds, through disuse, have shrunk to where they cannot entertain more than one notion at a time. When they are conned into arguing about same sex marriage they will forget everything else. They have already forgotten what happened last week. They will forget the kids who died for George's vendetta. They will even forget that their friends and family members are out of work. This is the reality of the American voter. They are trivial minded and easily conned into perceiving trivial things as important.
Like too many of the issues of this culture, the issue of same sex marriage has become polarized around the concepts of morality with screaming and shouting on all sides. As usual when this happens, the government, along with most everyone else, is blinded to the truth of the issue. The purpose of the noise is exactly that, to deflect attention away from the real merits of the case. Those who make the most noise are sure to be the ones who are least sure of their ground.
The morality of homosexuality is irrelevant. If that were the only case we could make, I would have to support the demand for government recognition of the so called same sex marriage. If prohibition taught us anything at all, we should have learned that concepts of morality cannot be enforced. If we want to make a case, there is a much more compelling argument against government ratification of the issue.
To wit:
Implicit in the institution of marriage is the concept of exclusion.
We pledge our troth.
Same sex marriage, then, implies exclusive homosexual behavior
which, by it's nature, is sterile.
Now, take a step back.
From a cultural and racial standpoint, exclusive homosexual behavior
is suicidal. It is aberrant in the extreme from that standpoint.
The explicit function of government in a democracy is to sustain,
promote and preserve the state, its culture and its people.
Thus, from that perspective the state should not endorse same
sex marriage.
To be fair, I must point out that abstinence is also aberrant for the very same reason. The difference is, to my knowledge, no priest or nun has ever demanded that the government recognize or endorse the celibacy of the priesthood or of nuniness. They only ask that we leave them alone. I can say "amen" to that. I can also say "amen" to leaving homosexuals alone.
The truth is, our culture is full of abnormal, not necessarily crazy, behavior of various kinds. We are a free people and diversity, even aberrance, is the price and the blessing of that freedom. Sometimes, abnormal thinking and behavior produces delightful results, as in the case of Buckminster Fuller's domes. There is no reason to attack unusual behavior so long as it does not threaten us. Neither do we need to sanction it.
We could hope the homosexual people would let us take the reasonable course. Ignore the private behavior and accept the human. If I went about flaunting my personal sexuality in the public arena I would expect to be ostracized if not arrested. I don't accept the notion that homosexuals should be exempt from the common civil behavior which makes us a functioning society. It's not about hiding what you chose to be. It's about being civil.
I will continue to resent any kind of discrimination be it against or in favor of homosexuality, but we don't need to legalize same sex marriage to show tolerance of homosexuals. That's a phony argument. There are no special political rights inherent in aberrant behavior. We do need to understand that the homosexual community is a very small minority. They have no inherent political power except, perhaps, in California.
The ex-senator Dole could best demonstrate the foolishness of being influenced by noise. He discarded the larger population and embraced an extemely loud and obnoxious, right wing minority, giving away an election he had locked. I told my spouse so at the time. I said, "That mistake will cost him the election." If he had asked me, I would have told him too. He didn't ask me! Can you imagine that?
There is one other important feature of this same sex marriage issue that the right wingers would like us to overlook. That is the legal, nonpolitical, rights and privileges of the people involved. I believe most thoughtful people will agree that we should not abridge certain human rights and privileges that are basic to our way of life. Among these are the rights of inheritance, spouses insurance coverage, and pension rights. A homosexual union should not bar people from having these things. We must have some kind of legal union agreement that would guarantee equality for homosexual unions in these areas. In that sense, I have no real objection to same sex marriage as one of several possible ways of doing that.
There is one other point the rabid homophobic people tend to ignore, sometimes on purpose. That is the self limiting nature of the aberrant behavior. Since it is naturally sterile, it is also self limiting. The truth is there has been homosexual behavior throughout human history. There is adequate evidence to believe that Socrates, several other Greeks, Caesar, and several other Roman Emperors were homosexual or AC-DC. That has not affected history at all.
Homosexuals really are a very small minority. The condition has never been and never will be a threat to the stability of any culture. It is an aberrant emotional condition that poses no threat to anyone but the victim. I believe it has a cause and is curable, but recovery is not likely in most cases. That is because the victims prefer to remain as they are. In that, they are all too normal.
As to the morality of homosexuality. So what? Where is our
writ from The Big Guy in the Sky which gives us the power to define
morality? If homosexual behavior is immoral, then most of us,
in our hearts, are immoral. Most of us have felt an emotional
attraction to one of our own sex at one time or another. Few of
us act on it because we are more attracted to the opposite sex
and we know it would screw up our lives.
Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
|
|
|
|