You've probably noticed that I haven't posted anything in a few days. Once again, I've been extremely busy handling my partner's health problems. I spent the better part of the last two days in the hospital. I didn't sleep much during that time and when I got up this morning I was too exhausted to think, let alone generate a decent post. Aside from that, I was out of town this weekend and have been occupied with lots of new things; and don't worry: They are good for me!
Still, all these events have denied me my writing time. That bothers me on many levels. It makes me feel better just to let you all know what's going on with me, since I'm accustomed to a certain weekly output. On the other hand, I realize that life does not always offer the best circumstances in which to create. And if I have to go into "writing dormancy" more than usual in the coming weeks, I will have to face it. I apologize in advance if I don't crank out my hoped-for three or four posts every week.
I always get so many ideas during my breaks. When I just live and observe, I amass new thoughts, experiences and impressions. I know those ideas will all buoy me when I settle down into another long writing phase. I've actually jotted down three big ideas for longer pieces in the future. Although I do not have the time or space to discuss them all here, I will say that they involve these issues: Truth; confessions; power; capital punishment; free will; death; sexuality; categorization; identity; desire; subjectivity; happiness; prejudice and reflection. I have conceived both fictional and nonfictional structures in which to explore these themes. But my piece on sexuality will be part reflective, part anecdotal and part polemical. Think of it as a sequel to Foucault's work on sexuality, with a personal twist to make it accessible.
To share some detail from my own personal experience lately, I have been entertaining serious doubts about my own sexuality. And my doubts move in an unconventional direction. Namely, for almost 14 years I have been quick to characterize myself as "gay." But in fact I'm not so sure what that means anymore. By the same token, I cannot say what "straight" means, either. In truth, the only reliable conclusion I've made in this inquiry is that sexual identity is never clear-cut. That is because it reflects basic desire. Basic desire, in turn, is purely subjective. It is impossible to categorize desire because there is no limit to individuals' deepest subjective tastes.
I don't think people appreciate just how fluid sexual identity is. That is what I will address in my piece. In the process, I will discuss the unfortunate human tendency to associate absolute meaning with artificial categories. I plan to show that categories like "gay" and "straight" are not talismanic. Rather, I will show that they are at best "rough guidelines" that exist in various proportions in us all at different times in our lives.
I also plan to discuss why I think the term "gay" is absurd. When it comes to categorizing groups, sexual "orientation" is a dubious--and barely unifying--characteristic. That is not to say that people who identify themselves as "gay" do not merit certain assistance or solicitude under law. My main argument will be that "gay" is not a good identifier, nor is it absolute. There are plenty of people in the world--including me--who find men attractive, yet have no difficulty whatever finding women attractive, too. The bottom line is that one desire never excludes another. And "gay" is a category that essentially implicates a particular sexual desire.
So that's what's on my mind these days. Forgive me for the sparser posting. I promise there is plenty more to come. I have a whole list to get to!
Take care. And thanks as always for reading my archives.
Oesterhoudt
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL : A BAD ARGUMENT, AND AN EMBARRASSING DOUBLE STANDARD
OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
Last week, former Supreme Allied Commander (Atlantic) General John Sheehan testified before a Senate subcommittee investigating whether it was prudent to repeal the American military's ban on openly gay soldiers. General Sheehan argued that the military should not alter its policy. He said that openly gay soldiers reduce morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.
To support his assertion, General Sheehan referenced an incident in which the Dutch army failed to defend a Bosnian town against Serbian aggression during Yugoslavia's Civil War in 1995. Although he could not directly attribute the Dutch army's failure to individual gay soldiers, General Sheehan explicitly said that Holland's "socialized" and "permissive" attitude toward homosexuality in the military made its armed forces "ill-equipped" to fight battles.
Dutch officials reacted with surprise to General Sheehan's remarks. They found it bizarre that anyone could link military ineffectiveness to a policy permitting openly gay men and women to serve in the military.
I find General Sheehan's argument bizarre, too. Moreover, I also find it foolish, hypocritical and ignorant. I have long criticized the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as reflecting a fundamental double standard. It not only assumes that abstract homosexuality makes a person a bad soldier. It also assumes that there are no gay people in the U.S. military. Anecdotal evidence suggests that homosexuality is rife in the armed forces. It's just that no one talks about it. And yet General Sheehan does not suggest that the U.S. military is "ineffective," even though it certainly has gay people in it. Policies do not change the way people are.
But these are not the only flaws in "don't ask, don't tell." Put simply, the entire policy functions on logically untenable premises. First, the policy purports to "strengthen morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" by eliminating openly gay people from service in the ranks. The argument is that openly gay men might form emotional relationships with one another that could jeopardize a particular "mission." Morale and combat effectiveness, in turn, depend on the chain of command. Morale and combat effectiveness require unswerving loyalty to the chain of command. And if men develop romantic connections to one another, then perhaps they will be loyal to one another, not the chain of command. Thus, it is proper to exclude openly gay men from military service: Gay relationships threaten the chain of command because romantic connections switch loyalties from the mission to individual men.
But what about women? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy assumes that romantic connections are only dangerous to the "mission" when they exist between two men. Yet the military allows straight women to serve alongside straight men. Human beings will develop romantic connections with anyone to whom they feel attracted, no matter the gender. Straight men fall in love with straight women just as deeply as gay men fall in love with each other. In that light, the fact that the U.S. military permits straight women to serve with straight men poses the same theoretical danger to morale as allowing openly gay men to serve. Straight people develop romantic connections just like gay people. And according to the army's rationale for "don't ask, don't tell," romantic connections are "bad" because they divide loyalties. Apparently, however, love affairs between men and women in the army do not divide loyalties as strongly as love affairs between men.
This is just ignorant: If the problem is potential romantic connections between soldiers, then neither straight women nor gay men should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no qualitative difference between romantic connections among gay people versus straight people. According to the army's logic, such connections are equally "dangerous to morale" and "unit cohesion." The fact that the U.S. military presumes that gay relationships are somehow "more dangerous to morale" is logically untenable.
I can see no good reason to keep gays from the U.S. military beyond naked prejudice. The only thing that seems to support "don't ask, don't tell" is a historical animus directed from straight men against gay men. Straight men feel "weird" when they know they are sitting next to a gay man, so the policy aims to eliminate that awkwardness. Yet there is no principled reason for this. It functions on the bare assumption that "gay people are different" and therefore must be excluded. To quote Justice Stephen Breyer's observation from the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003)(the case striking down State gay sodomy laws), "don't ask, don't tell" invokes this reasoning: "I do not like thee, Doctor Fell; the reason why I cannot tell." Straight people in the army just plain don't like being around gay people. That's the only reason for the policy.
I also question the military's assumption that gay relationships could somehow damage unit effectiveness. Leaving to one side the consideration that thousands of gay people already serve in the military without saying so, divided loyalties dominate military service. Men (and women, too) form extraordinary bonds with one another under the stress of combat. Their camaraderie deepens from the moment they enter training to the toughest moments in battle. I have written that the military is inherently socialistic because it cares about its own people; and soldiers are also socialistic because they are all willing to die for their brothers. In fact, they are all willing to die helping to save their brothers, even if their actions "endanger the mission." Put simply, soldiers will always divide their loyalties because they care for each other, romance or not. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the army will not change all soldiers' natural commitments to each other.
Finally, General Sheehan implied that the mere presence of gay people in the Dutch army made it a poor fighting force. This is ridiculous. There is simply no historical correlation between homosexuality and military ineffectiveness. Alexander the Great, Peter the Great and Frederick the Great were all allegedly gay, yet they went down in history as model soldiers. To suggest that an aesthetic sexual taste for members of one's own sex somehow renders a person "effeminate, weak, womanly and unsoldierlike" is simply rank stereotyping. Although history has placed restrictions on the manner in which gay people express their sexuality, it is indisputable that they have served with distinction as soldiers, officers and even conquerors. In that light, General Sheehan's argument that "the presence of gay people" in the Dutch army made it "weak" ignores history.
In conclusion, there is no logical or historical reason to continue the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It makes pernicious assumptions about the relationship between sexuality and military competence. And it also functions on a double standard because another policy permits straight women to serve alongside straight men. The policy identifies "romantic connections between soldiers" as a reason to exclude openly gay men. Yet it allows straight women to potentially compromise straight men with "romantic connections:" "Romantic connections" are only dangerous among gay men, not straight men. The U.S. military offers no justification for the differential treatment. In that light, it is logically untenable. It simply reflects gross and outdated adolescent stereotypes. Romance is romance; it poses the same "dangers" whether it exists between boys and boys or boys and girls.
Last week, former Supreme Allied Commander (Atlantic) General John Sheehan testified before a Senate subcommittee investigating whether it was prudent to repeal the American military's ban on openly gay soldiers. General Sheehan argued that the military should not alter its policy. He said that openly gay soldiers reduce morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.
To support his assertion, General Sheehan referenced an incident in which the Dutch army failed to defend a Bosnian town against Serbian aggression during Yugoslavia's Civil War in 1995. Although he could not directly attribute the Dutch army's failure to individual gay soldiers, General Sheehan explicitly said that Holland's "socialized" and "permissive" attitude toward homosexuality in the military made its armed forces "ill-equipped" to fight battles.
Dutch officials reacted with surprise to General Sheehan's remarks. They found it bizarre that anyone could link military ineffectiveness to a policy permitting openly gay men and women to serve in the military.
I find General Sheehan's argument bizarre, too. Moreover, I also find it foolish, hypocritical and ignorant. I have long criticized the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as reflecting a fundamental double standard. It not only assumes that abstract homosexuality makes a person a bad soldier. It also assumes that there are no gay people in the U.S. military. Anecdotal evidence suggests that homosexuality is rife in the armed forces. It's just that no one talks about it. And yet General Sheehan does not suggest that the U.S. military is "ineffective," even though it certainly has gay people in it. Policies do not change the way people are.
But these are not the only flaws in "don't ask, don't tell." Put simply, the entire policy functions on logically untenable premises. First, the policy purports to "strengthen morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" by eliminating openly gay people from service in the ranks. The argument is that openly gay men might form emotional relationships with one another that could jeopardize a particular "mission." Morale and combat effectiveness, in turn, depend on the chain of command. Morale and combat effectiveness require unswerving loyalty to the chain of command. And if men develop romantic connections to one another, then perhaps they will be loyal to one another, not the chain of command. Thus, it is proper to exclude openly gay men from military service: Gay relationships threaten the chain of command because romantic connections switch loyalties from the mission to individual men.
But what about women? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy assumes that romantic connections are only dangerous to the "mission" when they exist between two men. Yet the military allows straight women to serve alongside straight men. Human beings will develop romantic connections with anyone to whom they feel attracted, no matter the gender. Straight men fall in love with straight women just as deeply as gay men fall in love with each other. In that light, the fact that the U.S. military permits straight women to serve with straight men poses the same theoretical danger to morale as allowing openly gay men to serve. Straight people develop romantic connections just like gay people. And according to the army's rationale for "don't ask, don't tell," romantic connections are "bad" because they divide loyalties. Apparently, however, love affairs between men and women in the army do not divide loyalties as strongly as love affairs between men.
This is just ignorant: If the problem is potential romantic connections between soldiers, then neither straight women nor gay men should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no qualitative difference between romantic connections among gay people versus straight people. According to the army's logic, such connections are equally "dangerous to morale" and "unit cohesion." The fact that the U.S. military presumes that gay relationships are somehow "more dangerous to morale" is logically untenable.
I can see no good reason to keep gays from the U.S. military beyond naked prejudice. The only thing that seems to support "don't ask, don't tell" is a historical animus directed from straight men against gay men. Straight men feel "weird" when they know they are sitting next to a gay man, so the policy aims to eliminate that awkwardness. Yet there is no principled reason for this. It functions on the bare assumption that "gay people are different" and therefore must be excluded. To quote Justice Stephen Breyer's observation from the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003)(the case striking down State gay sodomy laws), "don't ask, don't tell" invokes this reasoning: "I do not like thee, Doctor Fell; the reason why I cannot tell." Straight people in the army just plain don't like being around gay people. That's the only reason for the policy.
I also question the military's assumption that gay relationships could somehow damage unit effectiveness. Leaving to one side the consideration that thousands of gay people already serve in the military without saying so, divided loyalties dominate military service. Men (and women, too) form extraordinary bonds with one another under the stress of combat. Their camaraderie deepens from the moment they enter training to the toughest moments in battle. I have written that the military is inherently socialistic because it cares about its own people; and soldiers are also socialistic because they are all willing to die for their brothers. In fact, they are all willing to die helping to save their brothers, even if their actions "endanger the mission." Put simply, soldiers will always divide their loyalties because they care for each other, romance or not. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the army will not change all soldiers' natural commitments to each other.
Finally, General Sheehan implied that the mere presence of gay people in the Dutch army made it a poor fighting force. This is ridiculous. There is simply no historical correlation between homosexuality and military ineffectiveness. Alexander the Great, Peter the Great and Frederick the Great were all allegedly gay, yet they went down in history as model soldiers. To suggest that an aesthetic sexual taste for members of one's own sex somehow renders a person "effeminate, weak, womanly and unsoldierlike" is simply rank stereotyping. Although history has placed restrictions on the manner in which gay people express their sexuality, it is indisputable that they have served with distinction as soldiers, officers and even conquerors. In that light, General Sheehan's argument that "the presence of gay people" in the Dutch army made it "weak" ignores history.
In conclusion, there is no logical or historical reason to continue the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It makes pernicious assumptions about the relationship between sexuality and military competence. And it also functions on a double standard because another policy permits straight women to serve alongside straight men. The policy identifies "romantic connections between soldiers" as a reason to exclude openly gay men. Yet it allows straight women to potentially compromise straight men with "romantic connections:" "Romantic connections" are only dangerous among gay men, not straight men. The U.S. military offers no justification for the differential treatment. In that light, it is logically untenable. It simply reflects gross and outdated adolescent stereotypes. Romance is romance; it poses the same "dangers" whether it exists between boys and boys or boys and girls.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
BIRTHRATES AND HOMOSEXUALITY : A CLASSICAL PERSPECTIVE AND A WORD ON TRADITION-BASED ARGUMENTS
AN ESSAY
Over the last few weeks, I have been delving deeper into Aristotle's Politics. In a previous essay, I wrote that I had begun to read Aristotle with more forgiveness. Now, I can confidently say that some of his ideas actually "work" for me. I no longer cast a suspicious eye on everything he writes. Rather, I closely evaluate his arguments to parse points that make sense to me.
In the past, I criticized Aristotle because he was too metaphysical. He presumed that everything on earth has an identifiable "purpose," and that absolute "truth" was obtainable by analyzing various interactions between "purposes." I first read Aristotle when I was college. At the time, I was making discoveries about my own sexuality. Aristotle's metaphysics appeared to argue against "non-procreative" sexuality because "male sexual organs" and "female sexual organs" have absolute, reproductive "purposes." Accordingly, using sexual organs for purposes beyond procreation amounted to "misuse." It is not surprising that the medieval Church and the modern Catholic Church closely read Aristotle. They used this very argument to demonize all sexuality-- with special vehemence reserved for homosexuality.
But a much different picture emerged when I sat down to read Aristotle again. Rather than condemning homosexuality as an abomination--as I always assumed he did, without ever reading as much--he espoused a much less judgmental attitude. To the contrary, he seemed to echo my own belief that homosexuality exists in nature, and that it makes little sense to condemn it. See, e.g., http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/01/oesterhoudt-strikes.html.
In analyzing the Spartan Constitution, for example, Aristotle reasons as a biologist, observing: "[C]ertainly all people seem compulsively attracted by sexual relations, either with males or females." The Politics, Book II, Ch. ix ¶ 1269b23. Earlier in the same paragraph, he actually praises "societies in which male homosexuality is openly esteemed," because male-centered societies--unlike Sparta--tend to keep avaricious women in check. Id. Aristotle believed that males "naturally" ruled females; thus, it was more an abomination to tolerate females "ruling" men than to allow males to have sex with each other. But in the final analysis, Aristotle suggests that sexuality is natural, no matter whether it involves males or females. Human beings are simply "compulsively attracted" by sexual relations. And that "compulsion" does not draw a bright gender line.
Aristotle does not simply conclude that homosexuality is natural. He even observes that homosexuality performs an essential State function by restraining birthrates. In analyzing the Cretan Constitution, he notes that the lawgiver actually prescribed "sexual relations between males" in order to "keep[] down the birthrate." The Politics, Book II, Ch. x ¶ 1272a12. He also notes that the lawgiver strictly separated males and females in order to prevent unnecessary pregnancies. Id. Put another way, the Cretan lawgiver understood that all human beings are "compulsively attracted by sexual relations" with each other, so he allowed both men and women to find sexual outlets in a manner that would not bankrupt the Kingdom by overpopulation.
I found this fascinating for several reasons. First, I never thought that a classical philosopher--let alone Aristotle--would argue that homosexuality could actually be exploited to fulfill a beneficial State objective. I always thought that Western governments took a moral stance against homosexuality. Apparently that is not true. In the Politics, Aristotle frankly discusses homosexuality as both a natural phenomenon and worthwhile social policy. Morality does not even enter the analysis.
Second, I found it interesting that Aristotle repeatedly speaks out against birthrates. Although he only mentions homosexuality in connection with birthrates in the Cretan example, he mentions low birthrates many times throughout the Politics. He equates high birthrates with poverty, discord and ruin. At the same time, he praises States that carefully control their populations. This makes sense given Aristotle's belief that States should strive to cultivate "good" people, not just "many" people.
Aristotle's views on homosexuality and birthrates fundamentally differ from modern views on the same subjects. For centuries, Western society has learned to revile homosexuality in all its manifestations. Church dogma called homosexuality a "sin;" it warned homosexuals that they would go to hell if they "practiced" it. The law labeled it a "crime;" it warned homosexuals that they would be executed or imprisoned for it. Even the scientific community diagnosed it as a "disease;" psychiatrists did not remove it from the book of "mental illnesses" until about 1970.
Although extreme institutional intolerance toward homosexuality has slowly weakened over time, there remains a virulent moral strain against homosexuality in Western societies. It is still "not normal." It is still somehow illegitimate and "disgusting." Put another way, it may not be "illegal" anymore; but it is still "immoral." Despite some modest legal advances in recent years (i.e., it is no longer constitutionally permissible to jail gay men for having sex), these attitudes force homosexuals to live on the fringes of society. They risk everything by living truthfully. They face a difficult decision whether to tell others about their own sexuality, a decision that no other people need to worry about in society. Or they can simply to choose to live in secret.
These are hardly appetizing decisions to make in life.
Against this background, it is almost inconceivable that a respected scholar would suggest that homosexuality is "natural," let alone that it could serve a "beneficial social purpose." If anything, attitudes toward homosexuality in Western civilization reveal little more than contempt. Until the late 19th Century, "sodomites" hanged in Great Britain. That is a far, far cry from Aristotle's argument that homosexuality actually could provide a benefit to society through lower birthrates.
But Western societies traditionally do not like low birthrates, either. That is why Aristotle's views on low birthrates seem so fascinating today. Historically, Western societies have done their best to encourage high birthrates. They have generally wanted to increase their populations. This coincided with Church dogma that men and women should "honor God" by "blessing Him" with as many offspring as possible. Just as the Church preached against homosexuality, so too did it praise prolific childbearing.
Modern America is no exception to these attitudes. For the most part, the United States encourages procreation among its citizens. Families with many children earn social praise, even congratulations. By the same token, modern America does not fully tolerate homosexuality. Homosexuals, after all, do not procreate. Is there a conceptual link between historical hatred for homosexuals and their inability to contribute to the birthrate?
Is there a moral link? After all, Western history shows that high birthrates bespeak "moral" living, while homosexuality bespeaks "immorality" because it does not contribute to the birthrate. In this sense, there is an inverse relationship between homosexuality and birthrates in modern society: The capacity for high birthrates is moral and good, while homosexuality is immoral and bad because it does not lead to high birthrates.
These views have reigned in the West for centuries. But a quick read through Aristotle reveals that it has not always been so. If a philosopher as renowned as Aristotle suggested that homosexuality is natural and that low birthrates are good, what does that say about "traditional" Western views on these subjects? After all, those who demonize homosexuality as an immoral abomination prize arguments based in "tradition." They say that "tradition" provides a reason to hate homosexuality because "our society has always reviled homosexuality."
But what if "tradition" is wrong? Or at least conveniently tailored to meet ideological ends? When it comes to homosexuality, Aristotle provides a historical example that not everyone in the "Western tradition" thought homosexuality was an abomination. Put simply, Aristotle's divergence from the so-called "tradition against homosexuality" shows that "tradition" arguments can be very misleading. After all, it is easy to just ignore inconvenient voices in a historical tradition, then call the tailored version "tradition."
I do not think that "tradition" categorically supports an argument that homosexuality is necessarily "immoral," or that high birthrates are necessarily "good." We simply must reference Aristotle to wreck any argument that "tradition" on these subjects has been unanimous. It hasn't.
And to those who think arguments based in tradition somehow carry special weight, I offer another quote from Aristotle to temper reliance on tailored history: "Generally, of course, it is the good, and not simply the traditional, that is aimed at." The Politics, Book II, Ch. viii ¶1269a3.
Put another way, it is no answer to a problem to say: "That's the way we've always done it." Solving problems takes independent thought, not blind imitation or historical charades.
Over the last few weeks, I have been delving deeper into Aristotle's Politics. In a previous essay, I wrote that I had begun to read Aristotle with more forgiveness. Now, I can confidently say that some of his ideas actually "work" for me. I no longer cast a suspicious eye on everything he writes. Rather, I closely evaluate his arguments to parse points that make sense to me.
In the past, I criticized Aristotle because he was too metaphysical. He presumed that everything on earth has an identifiable "purpose," and that absolute "truth" was obtainable by analyzing various interactions between "purposes." I first read Aristotle when I was college. At the time, I was making discoveries about my own sexuality. Aristotle's metaphysics appeared to argue against "non-procreative" sexuality because "male sexual organs" and "female sexual organs" have absolute, reproductive "purposes." Accordingly, using sexual organs for purposes beyond procreation amounted to "misuse." It is not surprising that the medieval Church and the modern Catholic Church closely read Aristotle. They used this very argument to demonize all sexuality-- with special vehemence reserved for homosexuality.
But a much different picture emerged when I sat down to read Aristotle again. Rather than condemning homosexuality as an abomination--as I always assumed he did, without ever reading as much--he espoused a much less judgmental attitude. To the contrary, he seemed to echo my own belief that homosexuality exists in nature, and that it makes little sense to condemn it. See, e.g., http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/01/oesterhoudt-strikes.html.
In analyzing the Spartan Constitution, for example, Aristotle reasons as a biologist, observing: "[C]ertainly all people seem compulsively attracted by sexual relations, either with males or females." The Politics, Book II, Ch. ix ¶ 1269b23. Earlier in the same paragraph, he actually praises "societies in which male homosexuality is openly esteemed," because male-centered societies--unlike Sparta--tend to keep avaricious women in check. Id. Aristotle believed that males "naturally" ruled females; thus, it was more an abomination to tolerate females "ruling" men than to allow males to have sex with each other. But in the final analysis, Aristotle suggests that sexuality is natural, no matter whether it involves males or females. Human beings are simply "compulsively attracted" by sexual relations. And that "compulsion" does not draw a bright gender line.
Aristotle does not simply conclude that homosexuality is natural. He even observes that homosexuality performs an essential State function by restraining birthrates. In analyzing the Cretan Constitution, he notes that the lawgiver actually prescribed "sexual relations between males" in order to "keep[] down the birthrate." The Politics, Book II, Ch. x ¶ 1272a12. He also notes that the lawgiver strictly separated males and females in order to prevent unnecessary pregnancies. Id. Put another way, the Cretan lawgiver understood that all human beings are "compulsively attracted by sexual relations" with each other, so he allowed both men and women to find sexual outlets in a manner that would not bankrupt the Kingdom by overpopulation.
I found this fascinating for several reasons. First, I never thought that a classical philosopher--let alone Aristotle--would argue that homosexuality could actually be exploited to fulfill a beneficial State objective. I always thought that Western governments took a moral stance against homosexuality. Apparently that is not true. In the Politics, Aristotle frankly discusses homosexuality as both a natural phenomenon and worthwhile social policy. Morality does not even enter the analysis.
Second, I found it interesting that Aristotle repeatedly speaks out against birthrates. Although he only mentions homosexuality in connection with birthrates in the Cretan example, he mentions low birthrates many times throughout the Politics. He equates high birthrates with poverty, discord and ruin. At the same time, he praises States that carefully control their populations. This makes sense given Aristotle's belief that States should strive to cultivate "good" people, not just "many" people.
Aristotle's views on homosexuality and birthrates fundamentally differ from modern views on the same subjects. For centuries, Western society has learned to revile homosexuality in all its manifestations. Church dogma called homosexuality a "sin;" it warned homosexuals that they would go to hell if they "practiced" it. The law labeled it a "crime;" it warned homosexuals that they would be executed or imprisoned for it. Even the scientific community diagnosed it as a "disease;" psychiatrists did not remove it from the book of "mental illnesses" until about 1970.
Although extreme institutional intolerance toward homosexuality has slowly weakened over time, there remains a virulent moral strain against homosexuality in Western societies. It is still "not normal." It is still somehow illegitimate and "disgusting." Put another way, it may not be "illegal" anymore; but it is still "immoral." Despite some modest legal advances in recent years (i.e., it is no longer constitutionally permissible to jail gay men for having sex), these attitudes force homosexuals to live on the fringes of society. They risk everything by living truthfully. They face a difficult decision whether to tell others about their own sexuality, a decision that no other people need to worry about in society. Or they can simply to choose to live in secret.
These are hardly appetizing decisions to make in life.
Against this background, it is almost inconceivable that a respected scholar would suggest that homosexuality is "natural," let alone that it could serve a "beneficial social purpose." If anything, attitudes toward homosexuality in Western civilization reveal little more than contempt. Until the late 19th Century, "sodomites" hanged in Great Britain. That is a far, far cry from Aristotle's argument that homosexuality actually could provide a benefit to society through lower birthrates.
But Western societies traditionally do not like low birthrates, either. That is why Aristotle's views on low birthrates seem so fascinating today. Historically, Western societies have done their best to encourage high birthrates. They have generally wanted to increase their populations. This coincided with Church dogma that men and women should "honor God" by "blessing Him" with as many offspring as possible. Just as the Church preached against homosexuality, so too did it praise prolific childbearing.
Modern America is no exception to these attitudes. For the most part, the United States encourages procreation among its citizens. Families with many children earn social praise, even congratulations. By the same token, modern America does not fully tolerate homosexuality. Homosexuals, after all, do not procreate. Is there a conceptual link between historical hatred for homosexuals and their inability to contribute to the birthrate?
Is there a moral link? After all, Western history shows that high birthrates bespeak "moral" living, while homosexuality bespeaks "immorality" because it does not contribute to the birthrate. In this sense, there is an inverse relationship between homosexuality and birthrates in modern society: The capacity for high birthrates is moral and good, while homosexuality is immoral and bad because it does not lead to high birthrates.
These views have reigned in the West for centuries. But a quick read through Aristotle reveals that it has not always been so. If a philosopher as renowned as Aristotle suggested that homosexuality is natural and that low birthrates are good, what does that say about "traditional" Western views on these subjects? After all, those who demonize homosexuality as an immoral abomination prize arguments based in "tradition." They say that "tradition" provides a reason to hate homosexuality because "our society has always reviled homosexuality."
But what if "tradition" is wrong? Or at least conveniently tailored to meet ideological ends? When it comes to homosexuality, Aristotle provides a historical example that not everyone in the "Western tradition" thought homosexuality was an abomination. Put simply, Aristotle's divergence from the so-called "tradition against homosexuality" shows that "tradition" arguments can be very misleading. After all, it is easy to just ignore inconvenient voices in a historical tradition, then call the tailored version "tradition."
I do not think that "tradition" categorically supports an argument that homosexuality is necessarily "immoral," or that high birthrates are necessarily "good." We simply must reference Aristotle to wreck any argument that "tradition" on these subjects has been unanimous. It hasn't.
And to those who think arguments based in tradition somehow carry special weight, I offer another quote from Aristotle to temper reliance on tailored history: "Generally, of course, it is the good, and not simply the traditional, that is aimed at." The Politics, Book II, Ch. viii ¶1269a3.
Put another way, it is no answer to a problem to say: "That's the way we've always done it." Solving problems takes independent thought, not blind imitation or historical charades.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
MORALITY FIRST : MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IS DISGUSTING AND MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS
By : Dr. G. Strong Wacker, M.D., M.P.H.; Commissioner, The National Board for Family Health (1998-present); Physician (Urological Reconstruction & Urethral Science); Member, The Morality First League for Equal Protection Under Law (1993-present); Theater-Goer; Amateur Florist & Gardener; Senior Coordinator, Zac Efron Fan Club (San Francisco Branch)(2006-present).
In 2004, President George W. Bush made a concerted effort to ban gay marriage. Although Congress did not amend the Constitution to forever prohibit men from marrying men, he made his point. In fact, Americans cared so much about the marriage issue that they reelected him President that very year. Put simply, Americans know that male homosexuality is morally wrong. Bush won reelection because he publicly declared that no male would ever make vows to another male.
But stopping gay marriage did not end the debate. George W. Bush may have saved the country from gay marriage, but he did not save the country from male homosexuality. We believe that we must prohibit all male homosexuality, not just homosexual marriage. It is not enough to stop two men from combining their finances to cheat the Internal Revenue Service. Nor is it enough to stop two men from exchanging rings and swearing fidelity to each other. No, we must go further. As a society, we must say what we all feel: “Male homosexuality is disgusting and must be stopped at all costs, no matter who dies.”
As a society, we have a right to stop disgusting behavior. Our deepest moral impulses empower us to outlaw disgusting things, including public defecation, slovenliness and grime. When behavior arouses our disgust, we have a right to suppress it. When behavior smells bad, we must punish it. After all, it is disgusting. It makes us pinch our noses, recoil and cry out: “Yuck!” No one deserves to live around foul odors and disgusting behaviors. Indeed, bad smells and immorality form the basis for all our criminal law. Male homosexuality, like public defecation, slovenliness, fraud and theft, is both disgusting and immoral. We just don’t like it. We must remove its stink from our midst, just as our earliest ancestors removed decaying carcasses from their settlements.
We don’t like male homosexuality for many reasons. First, the idea of two men groping and fondling each other makes us uncomfortable. It is just not right. It looks disgusting, too. If it appeals to you, there is something very, very badly wrong with you. Second, male homosexuality presents a public health hazard. Homosexuals are disease-ridden, promiscuous, dissolute, lustful infiltrators who spread pestilence and death through our communities. Third, male homosexuals defraud our society by wasting their reproductive capacity on furtive pleasures. Rather than commit themselves to fatherhood and childrearing, they abandon themselves to aesthetic preening, perverted flirtation and “fun.” This costs our community live births and future citizens. Fourth, male homosexuality harms children. Homosexuals ritually rape children every day; if we care about our children, we must act to stop the homosexual menace. Fifth, homosexuals have untold political influence. According to United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “[Those] who engage in homosexual conduct tend to…have high disposable income [and] they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 645-646 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Put simply, homosexuals are devious, dangerous, disgusting, harmful to children, insolent, irresponsible, wasteful and seditious. We must act now, before it is too late. Our children and our sensibilities demand swift action.
Tradition justifies our effort to stamp out homosexuality. Justice Scalia is a brilliant jurist. We take heart in his legal pronouncements concerning the homosexual menace. He has written at length about government’s traditional right not only to criminalize homosexuality, but also about society’s basic right to hate homosexuals as part of our “moral heritage:” “[] I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 644 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Justice Scalia correctly equates homosexuality with murder, polygamy and cruelty. He knows what he is talking about; he went to Harvard Law School and he has served on the United States Supreme Court since 1986. According to Justice Scalia, homosexuality is just as morally wrong as killing your neighbor or torturing a dog. As a society, we have a right to condemn such abominable outrages. We have always had a right to condemn murder, just as we have always had a right to condemn male homosexuality.
In many ways, male homosexuality is more despicable than murder. After all, some murders offend us less than others. For example, we do not condemn a man who kills his wife’s lover in a jealous rage as much as we condemn a man who carefully plots his wife’s death with equanimous efficiency. Murder does not always arouse our deepest disgust; sometimes we even look with sympathy on the killer. Male homosexuality, on the other hand, is irretrievably disgusting. Nothing mitigates anal sex between two men; it is categorically disgusting. It is so revolting that no reasonable person could ever forgive it or look upon it with sympathy. The mere idea of two naked men kissing is simply nauseating. Murder does not always arouse such deep, rancid disgust. In that light, male homosexuality deserves our strongest condemnation.
Female homosexuality, on the other hand, presents a different question. Lesbians are beautiful to behold. I feel no disgust whatsoever when I think about two naked women caressing one another. In fact, I would very much like to join in any amorous adventures between two beautiful women. Unlike male homosexuals, lesbians pose no public health hazard. They do not spread pestilence and death. They do not rape children, nor do they have unlimited resources with which to overthrow the government. They do not waste their reproductive potential; lesbians can always get pregnant at some later date.
Put simply, lesbians are neither immoral nor disgusting. On the contrary, they are beautiful, especially when they allow men like me to join them in erotic contact. I speak for every American when I say that lesbian sex is neither dangerous nor unhealthy, provided that the lesbians in question are good-looking and would allow me to join in. I would not mind looking at two hot lesbians having sex; indeed, thinking about it arouses me to some extent. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not immoral.
I am certain that Justice Scalia would agree with me about lesbians. There is nothing in our moral tradition that recoils from lesbian sex. Our moral tradition recoils from ugly penises and anuses, not appealing breasts and vaginas. Males smell. Females do not. I would not mind looking at lesbian sex. For that reason, lesbianism presents no danger to society or our children. Lesbianism is not immoral.
Only male homosexuality is immoral. It is both dangerous and unhealthy. I would not want to look at it. We have a traditional right to hate it. For these reasons, we must stand fast against male homosexuals. We must heed Justice Scalia’s advice. We must defend against their disproportionate political influence. If we relax our stance toward male homosexuals for even a moment, they will take over Congress and legalize child rape. If we relax our stance toward male homosexuals for just one moment, they could infect our entire society with venereal diseases, canker sores, rickets, scabies, herpes, cooties and parasites. If we care about morality, health and reproduction, we must sound the alarm on male homosexuality. Stopping gay marriage is not enough. That is why we, the Morality First League for Equal Protection Under Law, are committed to stopping all homosexual immorality, no matter who dies. Tradition supports us. Justice Scalia supports us. Male homosexuals are no better than murderers, polygamists and animal torturers. Plus they smell and I would not want to watch them have sex.
We cannot be tolerant when so much is at stake. It may be 2009, but male homosexuals are just as immoral and dangerous today as they were in 1500. In 1500, governments burned male homosexuals because they honestly recognized how dangerous they were. We must not allow “progressivism” to blind us to those dangers. We must merely remember that male homosexuality is disgusting. No matter how fashionable it may be to “understand” male homosexuals, we cannot forget that they engage in smelly, abominable conduct that we have a right to hate. And by “understanding” male homosexuals we play directly into their hands. As Justice Scalia pointed out, they are politically powerful. As soon as we ease the pressure on them, they will overthrow the government and institute Federal policies subsidizing child rape and debauched all-male nude beach parties. Put simply, we must stand firm against this menace. We cannot afford to be tolerant with immoral deviants, especially when—as Justice Scalia told us—they have high disposable income and disproportionate political influence.
In sum, we have a political, moral and medical duty to stamp out male homosexuality because it is disgusting. Thinking about it makes me uncomfortable and nauseous. I would probably vomit if I stumbled across two men having sex. We must implement laws that correspond to our basic moral feelings. We must outlaw male homosexuality because it arouses my disgust, just as public defecation does. Like public defecation, male homosexuality smells and presents noxious public health hazards. If we care about health, morality and our children, we must take every measure necessary to suppress male homosexuality. Tradition demands no less. Our children expect no less. We must act now before homosexual conspirators topple the government and transform the United States into a vast disco Empire led by shirtless go-go dancers.
Yet we must spare lesbians. There is nothing immoral about them. I really like to look at them. I even think about them quite a lot in my spare time.
Monday, June 22, 2009
THE PROCREATION PROBLEM : WHO WANTS KIDS AND WHY?
AN ESSAY
Last week, a friend told me an amusing story. He told me that a woman sued a man for battery after he put horseradish sauce in a used condom to determine whether the woman was “using” his sperm without his consent after they had “protected” sex. Sure enough, the couple had sex and the man threw the condom in the bathroom trashcan. Then he put horseradish sauce in it while she was in a different room. He went back into the kitchen. She went into the bathroom, and a few moments later the man heard a bloodcurdling scream. The woman irritated herself with the horseradish sauce; she did not suffer permanent injury. The relationship did.
This all might sound funny. But it raises some interesting issues about men, women and procreation. In vitro fertilization aside, men and women need to have sex with each other to reproduce the species. That, in turn, implicates monumental emotional problems, because men and women view sex in very different ways. In the horseradish story, for example, there was tension between the man and the woman because the woman was in her 30s and said she wanted to start a family. To use a cliché, her “clock was ticking.” The man, by contrast, said he just wanted to have sex. He didn’t want to be a father or alter his lifestyle to care for a child. More cynically, he also did not want to pay child support and compromise his income. This difference in opinion led to mutual mistrust between the two parties, which ultimately culminated in the woman’s duplicity and the man’s mean-spirited trick. Men and women do not see sex in the same way. And amid all this suspicion, children usually are a consequence to be either feared or exploited, not a gift to be treasured.
Several male commentators asserted that the horseradish story proved women are “natural gold-diggers.” That assertion assumes that women only want to procreate because it entitles them to a paternity check. It does not acknowledge the fact that women may have deep spiritual and emotional reasons for wanting to have children. Nonetheless, these commentators marshaled some evidence to support their conclusion that women “just want to make a profit” from “unauthorized procreation.” Specifically, they pointed to recent “legal warnings” issued to NBA stars “to guard their used condoms” and always to “assume that women want to get pregnant for money.” In a less extreme example, they also pointed to the right-wing-proverbial “welfare mother” who just wants to mass produce living children in order to maximize her individual benefit check.
As superficially convincing as this “evidence” may be, I am hesitant to label all women inveterate gold-diggers. I have no doubt that some unscrupulous women are willing to bear the pain of childbirth and the difficulty of motherhood in order to get a check. But there are unscrupulous men, too. Women do not have a monopoly on duplicity and deception. In this sense, these modern “male as victim” arguments are at best self-righteous and at worst hypocritical. Historically speaking, men have always enjoyed superior power over women. As recently as the 19th Century, for instance, women faced “petty treason” conviction (and burning at the stake) for killing their husbands, while men only faced “murder” prosecution (and hanging) for killing their wives. In virtually every way, the common law regarded the woman as the husband’s “property” and, as such, the husband had “exclusive rights to use it.” At common law, a husband could not legally “rape” his wife, even if the sexual intercourse was nonconsensual (“Rape be the carnal knowledge of a woman, not the perpetrator’s wife, against her will”)(common law rule, emphasis added). Women could not vote or serve in official positions (unless they were monarchs). They were barred from traditional employment. They depended on men for income and inheritance. At the same time, men had virtually free rein to “discipline their wives;” husbands’ domestic brutality toward their wives rarely troubled the law or society. In short, women have not been roughly “equal” to men until relatively recent times. And for centuries, men could freely tyrannize women without the slightest consequence. To that extent, I find these modern “male as victim” arguments strangely pathetic.
When it comes to procreation, why do men consider themselves victims? Obviously they do not like the law’s approach to child support. For better or worse, the law throws the financial risk of sexual activity on the male. It does not matter whether the male employed measures intended to prevent pregnancy; if the condom breaks, he is the “father” and he owes child support payments. He might consider this unjust, but society has decided—through legislation—that men must pay to help raise their children, whether they wanted them or not. This indirectly benefits women, since a wealthier father must pay more money to support the child. But in the abstract, child support laws are not intended to provide a windfall to women. Nor are they intended to express moral contempt for irresponsible men, no matter what the talk shows say. Rather, child support laws are intended to promote procreation and to protect children. The fact that they breed mutual suspicion and enmity between men and women does not alter their social purpose.
We have seen that men and women think about procreation in very different ways. But child support laws reveal that society and government see procreation in yet another way—a demographic way. For law and government, procreation is not about emotion, love or even suspicion; it is about numbers. Specifically, the law vigorously promotes procreation. After all, the law would not force unwilling fathers to pay money to support unwanted children if it did not have a policy preference for births. The law could care less about a woman’s comfort; the law merely wants women to give birth. More births mean more citizens. And more citizens mean more workers. More workers mean a bigger economy in the future, and a bigger economy means more taxes and more national power. National strength has everything to do with population. Nations with large populations can produce more than nations with smaller populations. More production means more power and influence. Just look at China. The fact that China has the most people means it has more labor capacity and the best economic potential. These are fundamental government interests—and they depend on procreation. No matter how mechanized a Nation’s economy may be, there is always strength in raw numbers. Nations with flat birthrates will not stay strong forever.
In America, both State and Federal governments employ many subtle methods to further their policy preference for greater procreation. Mandatory child support payments are only one example. More significantly, American governments frown upon abortion and contraception, even though the Federal Constitution technically provides a right to both. Many States, for instance, carefully regulate the circumstances under which citizens may obtain consultation about abortion or birth control. They purposely bias the informational debate to favor procreation over contraception and abortion. They tell women who want abortions that the State will pay for hospital stays and adoption services. They exclude contraception from health plan coverage. And from a historical perspective, American governments criminalized “frauds on procreation,” including homosexual sex and nonprocreative heterosexual practices. From the government’s perspective, every ejaculation should be well spent because it needs more citizens to compete in the global economy. Wasted sexual energy, in other words, represents wasted national potential. This is not a moral question. It is an economic one.
In short, governments in America take a positive stand for “potential life” and “procreation,” even if the woman—or the man—does not want to procreate. After all, America needs more Americans. If America promoted contraception and abortion too much, it would flatten the birthrate and allow China and India to overtake us.
I am not writing satirical scrawl. I am reflecting on genuine geopolitical strategy. Governmental support for procreation has nothing to do with mistrust between men and women, nor does it reflect real compassion for children. Government does not care about children’s emotional lives or spiritual well-being; it simply wants them to be alive and healthy so they can mature into productive citizens. Of course, government takes a risk that every live birth may degenerate into a crack addict, welfare recipient or murderer. But every live birth also represents a chance that the child will become Albert Einstein, Bill Gates or at least a bourgeois with taxable income. Abortion may snuff out future criminals, but it also may snuff out future industrial barons. Government would rather save everyone in order to protect the potential industrial baron. Again, this has nothing to do with caring or compassion. It has merely to do with national strength. Government’s support for procreation over contraception, then, reflects government’s national self-interest, nothing more.
There are two realities at work here. On the micro level, men and women bicker with one another over money and child support. Men want orgasms without financial consequence; women want orgasms, child support payments and the emotional fulfillment of motherhood. On the macro level, government just wants men and women to keep having sex. It does not foist financial obligations on men to morally denounce their ill-advised (or even unlucky) sexual practices. Rather, it foists financial obligations on them so that their offspring can develop into productive citizens. Indeed, government may say it prefers that men and women procreate only when married. But from a geopolitical standpoint, this is an inane requirement. Children are children. They all have the potential to later pay taxes, serve in the army and perhaps invent things. Marriage may provide a stable platform for procreation and a child’s emotional well-being, but government just wants births. A child’s emotional well-being is a peripheral concern.
Governments do not exist without people. Procreation is the only way to generate more people. Bearing that in mind, it should not surprise us that government prefers procreation in every circumstance. As obvious as this sounds, however, it is somehow unnerving to think we are just grist for the governmental mill. After all, we were all children once. Although our family lives may all differ in some respects, we all experienced family dynamics. We experienced love in some form. Some of us were more fortunate than others on that score. When we were children, we did not think about our country’s geopolitical fortunes or the State’s goals. Rather, we just wanted to live and experience life because it was new. We knew our families and little else. Yet little did we know that government had very different ideas about our existence. Our concerns and our emotional connections to our families meant nothing. Rather, we were simply “new citizens” with “future potential.” We not only would pay taxes and contribute to the economy, but our future sexual activity might one day result in more taxpayers and workers. Emotion and compassion have nothing to do with these expectations. No: For the government, procreation is about national survival, not the individual mystery of existence. And no matter what private squabbles men and women wage with regard to procreation, they are mere pawns in a much larger chess game.
Procreation is valuable because more people mean more power. Our sex is instrumental in creating power because it creates more people. Government does not want us to waste it. If we did, government would eventually have nothing left to rule.
Women want children for their reasons. Men want children for their reasons. Sometimes neither men nor women want children; they fight about it. But government always wants children. And it wants them for very different reasons than any individual man or woman.
Last week, a friend told me an amusing story. He told me that a woman sued a man for battery after he put horseradish sauce in a used condom to determine whether the woman was “using” his sperm without his consent after they had “protected” sex. Sure enough, the couple had sex and the man threw the condom in the bathroom trashcan. Then he put horseradish sauce in it while she was in a different room. He went back into the kitchen. She went into the bathroom, and a few moments later the man heard a bloodcurdling scream. The woman irritated herself with the horseradish sauce; she did not suffer permanent injury. The relationship did.
This all might sound funny. But it raises some interesting issues about men, women and procreation. In vitro fertilization aside, men and women need to have sex with each other to reproduce the species. That, in turn, implicates monumental emotional problems, because men and women view sex in very different ways. In the horseradish story, for example, there was tension between the man and the woman because the woman was in her 30s and said she wanted to start a family. To use a cliché, her “clock was ticking.” The man, by contrast, said he just wanted to have sex. He didn’t want to be a father or alter his lifestyle to care for a child. More cynically, he also did not want to pay child support and compromise his income. This difference in opinion led to mutual mistrust between the two parties, which ultimately culminated in the woman’s duplicity and the man’s mean-spirited trick. Men and women do not see sex in the same way. And amid all this suspicion, children usually are a consequence to be either feared or exploited, not a gift to be treasured.
Several male commentators asserted that the horseradish story proved women are “natural gold-diggers.” That assertion assumes that women only want to procreate because it entitles them to a paternity check. It does not acknowledge the fact that women may have deep spiritual and emotional reasons for wanting to have children. Nonetheless, these commentators marshaled some evidence to support their conclusion that women “just want to make a profit” from “unauthorized procreation.” Specifically, they pointed to recent “legal warnings” issued to NBA stars “to guard their used condoms” and always to “assume that women want to get pregnant for money.” In a less extreme example, they also pointed to the right-wing-proverbial “welfare mother” who just wants to mass produce living children in order to maximize her individual benefit check.
As superficially convincing as this “evidence” may be, I am hesitant to label all women inveterate gold-diggers. I have no doubt that some unscrupulous women are willing to bear the pain of childbirth and the difficulty of motherhood in order to get a check. But there are unscrupulous men, too. Women do not have a monopoly on duplicity and deception. In this sense, these modern “male as victim” arguments are at best self-righteous and at worst hypocritical. Historically speaking, men have always enjoyed superior power over women. As recently as the 19th Century, for instance, women faced “petty treason” conviction (and burning at the stake) for killing their husbands, while men only faced “murder” prosecution (and hanging) for killing their wives. In virtually every way, the common law regarded the woman as the husband’s “property” and, as such, the husband had “exclusive rights to use it.” At common law, a husband could not legally “rape” his wife, even if the sexual intercourse was nonconsensual (“Rape be the carnal knowledge of a woman, not the perpetrator’s wife, against her will”)(common law rule, emphasis added). Women could not vote or serve in official positions (unless they were monarchs). They were barred from traditional employment. They depended on men for income and inheritance. At the same time, men had virtually free rein to “discipline their wives;” husbands’ domestic brutality toward their wives rarely troubled the law or society. In short, women have not been roughly “equal” to men until relatively recent times. And for centuries, men could freely tyrannize women without the slightest consequence. To that extent, I find these modern “male as victim” arguments strangely pathetic.
When it comes to procreation, why do men consider themselves victims? Obviously they do not like the law’s approach to child support. For better or worse, the law throws the financial risk of sexual activity on the male. It does not matter whether the male employed measures intended to prevent pregnancy; if the condom breaks, he is the “father” and he owes child support payments. He might consider this unjust, but society has decided—through legislation—that men must pay to help raise their children, whether they wanted them or not. This indirectly benefits women, since a wealthier father must pay more money to support the child. But in the abstract, child support laws are not intended to provide a windfall to women. Nor are they intended to express moral contempt for irresponsible men, no matter what the talk shows say. Rather, child support laws are intended to promote procreation and to protect children. The fact that they breed mutual suspicion and enmity between men and women does not alter their social purpose.
We have seen that men and women think about procreation in very different ways. But child support laws reveal that society and government see procreation in yet another way—a demographic way. For law and government, procreation is not about emotion, love or even suspicion; it is about numbers. Specifically, the law vigorously promotes procreation. After all, the law would not force unwilling fathers to pay money to support unwanted children if it did not have a policy preference for births. The law could care less about a woman’s comfort; the law merely wants women to give birth. More births mean more citizens. And more citizens mean more workers. More workers mean a bigger economy in the future, and a bigger economy means more taxes and more national power. National strength has everything to do with population. Nations with large populations can produce more than nations with smaller populations. More production means more power and influence. Just look at China. The fact that China has the most people means it has more labor capacity and the best economic potential. These are fundamental government interests—and they depend on procreation. No matter how mechanized a Nation’s economy may be, there is always strength in raw numbers. Nations with flat birthrates will not stay strong forever.
In America, both State and Federal governments employ many subtle methods to further their policy preference for greater procreation. Mandatory child support payments are only one example. More significantly, American governments frown upon abortion and contraception, even though the Federal Constitution technically provides a right to both. Many States, for instance, carefully regulate the circumstances under which citizens may obtain consultation about abortion or birth control. They purposely bias the informational debate to favor procreation over contraception and abortion. They tell women who want abortions that the State will pay for hospital stays and adoption services. They exclude contraception from health plan coverage. And from a historical perspective, American governments criminalized “frauds on procreation,” including homosexual sex and nonprocreative heterosexual practices. From the government’s perspective, every ejaculation should be well spent because it needs more citizens to compete in the global economy. Wasted sexual energy, in other words, represents wasted national potential. This is not a moral question. It is an economic one.
In short, governments in America take a positive stand for “potential life” and “procreation,” even if the woman—or the man—does not want to procreate. After all, America needs more Americans. If America promoted contraception and abortion too much, it would flatten the birthrate and allow China and India to overtake us.
I am not writing satirical scrawl. I am reflecting on genuine geopolitical strategy. Governmental support for procreation has nothing to do with mistrust between men and women, nor does it reflect real compassion for children. Government does not care about children’s emotional lives or spiritual well-being; it simply wants them to be alive and healthy so they can mature into productive citizens. Of course, government takes a risk that every live birth may degenerate into a crack addict, welfare recipient or murderer. But every live birth also represents a chance that the child will become Albert Einstein, Bill Gates or at least a bourgeois with taxable income. Abortion may snuff out future criminals, but it also may snuff out future industrial barons. Government would rather save everyone in order to protect the potential industrial baron. Again, this has nothing to do with caring or compassion. It has merely to do with national strength. Government’s support for procreation over contraception, then, reflects government’s national self-interest, nothing more.
There are two realities at work here. On the micro level, men and women bicker with one another over money and child support. Men want orgasms without financial consequence; women want orgasms, child support payments and the emotional fulfillment of motherhood. On the macro level, government just wants men and women to keep having sex. It does not foist financial obligations on men to morally denounce their ill-advised (or even unlucky) sexual practices. Rather, it foists financial obligations on them so that their offspring can develop into productive citizens. Indeed, government may say it prefers that men and women procreate only when married. But from a geopolitical standpoint, this is an inane requirement. Children are children. They all have the potential to later pay taxes, serve in the army and perhaps invent things. Marriage may provide a stable platform for procreation and a child’s emotional well-being, but government just wants births. A child’s emotional well-being is a peripheral concern.
Governments do not exist without people. Procreation is the only way to generate more people. Bearing that in mind, it should not surprise us that government prefers procreation in every circumstance. As obvious as this sounds, however, it is somehow unnerving to think we are just grist for the governmental mill. After all, we were all children once. Although our family lives may all differ in some respects, we all experienced family dynamics. We experienced love in some form. Some of us were more fortunate than others on that score. When we were children, we did not think about our country’s geopolitical fortunes or the State’s goals. Rather, we just wanted to live and experience life because it was new. We knew our families and little else. Yet little did we know that government had very different ideas about our existence. Our concerns and our emotional connections to our families meant nothing. Rather, we were simply “new citizens” with “future potential.” We not only would pay taxes and contribute to the economy, but our future sexual activity might one day result in more taxpayers and workers. Emotion and compassion have nothing to do with these expectations. No: For the government, procreation is about national survival, not the individual mystery of existence. And no matter what private squabbles men and women wage with regard to procreation, they are mere pawns in a much larger chess game.
Procreation is valuable because more people mean more power. Our sex is instrumental in creating power because it creates more people. Government does not want us to waste it. If we did, government would eventually have nothing left to rule.
Women want children for their reasons. Men want children for their reasons. Sometimes neither men nor women want children; they fight about it. But government always wants children. And it wants them for very different reasons than any individual man or woman.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
GAY REPUBLICANS' MORAL ALLIANCE TO STOP SODOMY AND NON-PROCREATIVE SEXUAL CONTACT FOR ALL TIME
POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD
By : Mr. A. Long Wiener, Ph.D. (Harvard Divinity School), M.P.H., Party Spokesman and Director of Moral Arguments; Charter Member, Gay Men’s Association for the Restoration of Sodomy Laws and the Common Law Prosecution of Lewdness Offenses; Atheist.
Morality does not distinguish between Democrats and Republicans. It does not distinguish between gay and straight. Bad behavior is bad no matter whether a gay Republican or a patriotic Democrat engages in it. Stealing, rape and theft are bad whether the perpetrator is Protestant, Catholic, Mongolian or Native American. Morality does not judge the man; it judges the conduct. There is some conduct in this world that is fundamentally wrong because it is disgusting. It also violates God’s law and the natural order. I am talking about sodomy. In America today, State governments no longer prosecute sodomy as they did in the past. In our view, this is a colossal mistake. By permitting sodomy, America is descending into godless infamy. As gay Republicans, we are committed to the greater good. We are determined to restore harsh common law criminal penalties for sodomy. Although these penalties will disproportionately fall upon us, we are willing to suffer to advance America down the path to righteousness.
Sodomy is evil because it is unnatural and transgresses God’s law. The Apostle Paul said: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1 : 26-27. God is not the only one who condemns sodomy as an “error” deserving “due penalty.” Our wise common law ancestors in Great Britain also forbade sodomy in the harshest terms. Courts in 18th Century England sentenced “sodomites” to death by hanging. See, e.g., Rex v. Griffin (C.C.C. 1726). They also publicly castigated sodomites for engaging in “beastly” conduct “to the disgrace of Human Nature,” “to the Displeasure of Almighty God,” and “not fit to be named.” These wise English jurists labeled convicted sodomites “degenerated Miscreants from the Race of Men…moved by the instigation of the Devil” who “did not have the fear of God before their eyes.”
Our Nation proudly follows the common law in virtually every legal field, from contract to tort to property and criminal law. Our common law ancestors knew what they were talking about. We should listen to them about sodomy, too.
But who listens? Last year, America forsook righteousness and elected a Mohammedan President to the White House: Barack Hussein Obama. This man professes love and tolerance for all Americans, whether black, white, Asian, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Pagan. He promised to “expand liberty” for traditionally unpopular groups, such as homosexuals and paupers. He publicly praised an abhorrent Supreme Court decision that abolished sodomy laws in the United States: Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). In short, Obama has endorsed sodomy. He considers it “normal,” despite a compelling common law tradition to the contrary. He feels no moral qualms about allowing two men to commit abominable acts “not fit to be named” in the United States. He professes to follow God’s Commandments, but any ruler who permits sodomy in his realm is no true believer. He says that “liberty” guaranteed under the United States Constitution means the “freedom to make intimate life decisions and to determine one’s own bodily integrity without undue governmental restraint on moral grounds.” According to this perverse argument, Obama certifies genital sin of the worst sort.
This is a dangerous commitment. Obama says he supports liberty. Liberty to do what? To engage in conduct “instigated by the devil” and deserving “due penalty” under God’s law? No matter what Obama thinks “liberty” means in the United States Constitution, we know beyond doubt that God does not allow men to commit sodomy. Both Scripture and common law tradition forbid “unnatural intercourse” between members of the same sex. Just because the Constitution permits something does not mean it is consistent with God’s law. In a sense, Obama is encouraging Americans to violate God’s law by misleading them with false hopes about “constitutional liberty.” In so doing, Obama wages war against God and leads Americans to damnation. As gay Republicans, we are aghast. We demand that President Obama renounce his support for “the liberty to commit sodomy.” We demand common law penalties for sodomy. If the Supreme Court strikes down these penalties, we insist that Congress pass a constitutional amendment providing special protection for sodomy laws. We can no longer tolerate a Constitution that permits Americans to willfully violate God’s law. Our government is assisting the Devil. It is encouraging Americans to make choices that will send them to Hell. Government has a duty not only to protect America from Muslim terrorism and crime, but also to ensure that they find their way to salvation in Christ. Yet Obama is not doing this. His support for sodomy will condemn countless Americans to the everlasting Pit. This is not “Change We Can Believe In.” Put bluntly, Obama’s “liberty” will deliver countless Americans into Satan’s hands. As gay Republicans, we cannot allow this to happen.
“Liberty” does not mean the freedom to engage in non-procreative sexual activity. God says that human beings may only engage in sex in order to beget children. This is the healthy approach to sex. Carnal pleasure cannot provide a motivation for natural sexual intercourse between men and women. Every sexual encounter must be calculated to yield a child in Jesus’ name. God wants new followers. And he is watching you to make sure you are having sex for the right reasons. He knows why you have sex. Whenever you have sex for some reason other than producing a child, you sin. Whenever you place your genitals in a place other than a place reasonably calculated to fertilize a woman’s egg, you commit sodomy. There are two inquiries relevant to God’s law in sexual matters: (1) Why are you having sex?; and (2) Where are you putting your genitals? If you are having sex to please yourself, with no intention to fertilize an egg and expand God’s kingdom, you betray the Lord our God. If you place your genitals in your hand, in a mouth, in an ear, in an anus, on a thigh, on a windowsill, on a car seat or in a dog, you commit sodomy, be the dog male or female. God knows what you do and why you do it. No one escape’s God’s glance. No one deceives God. Americans are God’s people. They must follow God’s word. They cannot follow God’s word when their President encourages and allows them to have sex for the wrong reasons. Proper sex is about the intent to create children. Without the right intent, sex is sin. As gay Republicans, we are shocked that President Obama actually encourages Americans to engage in sin that will land them in Hell.
We refuse to fall into Obama’s trap. We refuse to allow America to slide into moral degradation and squalor. To win the war on sodomy and immorality, we must withdraw all legal protection for sodomy and unnatural sex. Although man’s law does not necessarily serve God’s law, we must provide an earthly incentive to comply with God’s law. If men and women fear to engage in sodomy because they know man’s law will punish their bodies for it, they will likely refrain from conduct that angers God. Sodomites and sinful flesh worshippers know only bodily sensation. The law can affect their bodies by torturing and killing them. These sinners will respect laws that threaten to harm their bodies. In so doing, man’s law will serve God by making it less likely that men and women will have sex for improper reasons.
Tradition supports this position. Until 2003, many American States maintained criminal penalties for sodomy. Prior to that, every Western Nation condemned sodomy in the harshest terms. Even Germany forbade it until 1994. See Criminal Code § 175. In that light, we reject the argument that “evolving standards of acceptable behavior” render sodomy an antiquated crime. States only abolished criminal penalties for sodomy because Godless lobbyists and homosexual infiltrators secretly bribed legislators to repeal the statutes. For centuries before that, sodomy was both a crime and a sin. There is no good reason not to make it a crime again. In fact, by punishing sodomy, we protect our citizens from eternal damnation and wretched carnal delights. In America, we have no time for delight. As God’s people, we must keep our minds focused upon God, not ourselves. No matter how nice it would be to have an orgasm without a resulting child, we must suppress that urge for God and country. Tradition works. America evolved from a colonial backwater into the world’s preeminent military and economic power while criminalizing sodomy. Let us return to our roots. Let us keep God before our eyes as we make our way into a new century.
As gay Republicans, we are aware that criminalizing sodomy will bar our only sexual outlet. We are also aware that the Apostle says we are: “[F]illed with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness [and] malice.” Romans 1 : 29. He also says that we: “[K]now God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die.” Id. at 1 : 32. Nonetheless, we are prepared to sacrifice our own pleasure for the common good. After all, we make up only a “relatively small fraction of the population.” See Judge Richard A. Posner, Becker-Posner Blog, Internet Matching – Posner’s Comment, March 22, 2009, at http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/03/. True, we are largely deviants with hypersexual impulses, “idiosyncratic tastes” and a penchant to rape children. But we are also principled Republican thinkers. We realize that our own forbearance will save this Nation from damnation, immorality and vice. Our own spiritual misery is insignificant compared to the benefits we will bestow upon the country by restoring traditional common law death penalties for sodomy. We have the capacity to use our reason, despite the maddening passions that draw us to commit genital abominations with other men and mammals. We will persevere because we are bold gay Republicans. We will not fall into Obama’s trap. We reject constitutional liberty because constitutional liberty gives refuge to the Devil. We prefer to placate God than to defend man’s perverted law. Although our service will transform us into bitter, sex-starved maniacs, we will show the world the measure of our resolve. We care about America. We are willing to punish ourselves for America. We are willing to make ourselves into pariahs to save souls. We are even willing to suffer the ultimate legal punishment if we transgress.
We are honorable gay Republicans. We will stop all sodomy and non-procreative sexual contact for all time. Through our sacrifice—and even through our executions—we will guarantee that every orgasm in this country results in a new citizen. And in so doing, we will restore morality to these troubled United States, no matter what damage Hussein Obama inflicts upon them.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
PROFLIGATE DEMOCRATIC WASTRELS IN DEFENSE OF INCREASED SPENDING, DEVIANCE AND DECADENCE
POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD
By : Mrs. Nancy P. Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; Unabashed Spendthrift
On November 4, 2008, America chose a Democratic President to lead this country. In so doing, the American people told the world that they are ready to spend money. In the months following the election, I have the led the House of Representatives on a bold path to economic recovery through spending, not saving. The American people are sick and tired of penny-pinching Republicans. They want to print cash, go shopping and spend. As Democrats, we are committed to throwing all your money out the window. George W. Bush and his Republican minions reviled spending. We Democrats are different: We are wastrels. We do not mind spending money. In fact, we really enjoy it. Republicans only had negative messages during their time in power. They always said: “We will NOT spend any money this year.” But we Democrats have a positive message: “We WILL spend money this year—lots of it.” Americans chose us because they want positive messages, not negative ones. The era of fear-mongering and anally-retentive treasury management is over. Let us move proudly into a new era of runaway spending, moral license, decadence, deviance and perversion. This is change we can believe in.
Our economy lies in ruins. Thanks to parsimonious Republican skinflints, countless Americans lost their jobs. Millions more find themselves without health insurance or food money. As Democratic wastrels, we intend to end the hard times. We are prepared to spend trillions of dollars on American working men and women. We are ready to blow $100 bills onto the streets with industrial fans and let unemployed workers take as many as they want. We will stimulate job growth by inviting private employers to come down to the Treasury and take out as much money as they need to keep the payroll rolling. And we are not afraid of terrorists. We will keep the money presses humming for as long as it takes to defeat bin Laden and every Wall Street crook. We do not care about responsibility. We just want to make sure everyone gets all the money they need. Our opponents say that Americans need to “know the value of a dollar.” We say: “What good is it to know the value of a dollar when everyone is unemployed and starving?”
When Americans have money, they are happy. They do not complain. That is why the Democratic Party is America’s party. We spend money on everyone, from Donald Trump all the way down to the homeless beggar who sleeps in a garbage pile outside the Trump Tower. Everyone is equal in our United States. And everyone can visit the Treasury to get as much money as they need. We will beat this recession with a simple phrase: “Come on Down!”
Republicans say that we cannot afford to increase spending on health care, welfare and employment insurance. The Republicans miss the point. We are not going to increase spending. We are going to give away money; there is a difference. We are the party of deviance, insolence, license and irresponsibility. We spend money when we feel like it; we do not wring our hands and talk about “ownership society” or “saving.” We believe that the American people want us to spend money. Through responsibility, Republicans ruined our economy. Through frugality, the Republicans allowed our children to starve. Enough is enough. We will reverse the Republican tide. Responsibility and frugality did not work. It is time for solutions that work. It is time for irresponsibility and extravagance. What good is responsibility when it creates monsters like Bernie Madoff? In our view, we would much rather have irresponsible sods running government than responsible Republicans who steal everything in sight. And what good is frugality when frugal Republicans bankrupted America invading Iraq? The time for responsibility and frugality is over. Join us if you are ready to get some free money and start living again.
We are committed to immoral government. By electing a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, America told the world that we are tired of Republican morality. Republicans and their morality led to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, John Roberts, Enron, international condemnation and the Katrina debacle. Republicans took a stand against gay marriage and bad language in schools. What good did that do? Our economy is in the gutter and our currency is nearly worthless. America is sick and tired of Republican morality. Americans want change. They want immorality, vice, sodomy, decadence and deviance. We Democrats promise to deliver all that and more. We are not afraid to let men marry men or women marry women. We are not afraid to allow our children to smoke opium or praise homosexual relationships. We also firmly support unethical behavior. After all, Republican ethics gave us Enron and Alberto Gonzales. Ethics gave us scandal and embarrassment. We want change. That is why the Democratic Party promises to set new standards for unethical behavior in the new Century. Through immorality and wastefulness, we promise to save this country from ruin.
We live in desperate times. Unemployment has reached its highest level since the 1930s. People lose their homes every day. For many, the American dream has turned into a nightmare. But we can bring light back to America with wasteful spending. There is a reason why America’s economy failed last year. If it were not for eight years of Republican responsibility, frugality, decency, honor, ethics, morality and compassion, we would not be in the position we occupy today. Together, we can reverse these trends. Together, we can waste our money, act dishonorably, encourage premarital sex and condone recreational drug use. We will stem the tide. We will set a new standard for license, vice and irresponsibility. Responsibility and morality did not get the job done. It is time to give irresponsibility and immorality a chance. True, our country faces many challenges. Yet we believe that by allowing gay marriage, drug use and free access to government money, we can return America to its rightful place on the world stage.
After the Election last year, we all felt that we had turned a new page in American history. For the first time in decades, the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. But now we must start to work on the dream we savored on Election Night. Join us as we strive to bring irresponsibility to America. Do your part. Spend money recklessly and borrow beyond your means. We do not have time for frugality, morality or decency. Do not act like a Republican. If you feel like going out and getting drunk, by all means go. If you feel like buying a Cadillac, by all means buy it. We will help you. Government is no longer here to condemn you as an immoral deviant; we are on your side now. We are immoral deviants, too. We are ready to give you the money you need. We are ready to waste money on your health care, your job and your unemployment insurance. We are ready to buy you free housing. Republicans made you take out crippling loans to get a college degree. But we are ready to give you a college education—for free. Put simply, if you need it, we will buy it for you, no questions asked. And do not be afraid to be who you are. Republicans made you feel ashamed for having sex and for smoking marijuana. Now, we encourage you to have fun in your life. We do not have time for responsibility anymore. Abstinence and sobriety do not work. As profligate Democratic wastrels, we enjoy life; and so should you. Let us all work together for a better America—a more irresponsible America.
Responsibility and decency created this mess. We Democrats intend to fight the recession with irresponsibility and shameful monetary waste from beginning to end. If you want free government handouts and you are a moral deviant, join us. If you want a free college education and you are a petulant freeloading drug user, join us. If morality offends you and you do not like torture, international law violations or the death penalty, we are the party for you. In the Democratic Party, we do not claim to be moral. We are immoral, we condemn torture, we respect international law and we oppose the death penalty. Still, we recognize that we live in a democracy. If you care about ethics, morality, decency and normalcy, vote Republican. But before you do, take a good hard look at what happened under George W. Bush’s ethical, moral and decent administration. Do you want more of the same? Of course not. Be a faithless profligate immoral deviant Democratic wastrel. Do not be afraid to accept free money. Do not be afraid to go to the doctor, even if you can’t afford it. Do not be afraid to get a college degree without debt. And do not be afraid to engage in debauched omnisexual adventures before, during and after marriage. The Democratic Party is on your side. We waste money. We condone immorality. We are irresponsible. We are deviant. And we will save this country.
By : Mrs. Nancy P. Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; Unabashed Spendthrift
On November 4, 2008, America chose a Democratic President to lead this country. In so doing, the American people told the world that they are ready to spend money. In the months following the election, I have the led the House of Representatives on a bold path to economic recovery through spending, not saving. The American people are sick and tired of penny-pinching Republicans. They want to print cash, go shopping and spend. As Democrats, we are committed to throwing all your money out the window. George W. Bush and his Republican minions reviled spending. We Democrats are different: We are wastrels. We do not mind spending money. In fact, we really enjoy it. Republicans only had negative messages during their time in power. They always said: “We will NOT spend any money this year.” But we Democrats have a positive message: “We WILL spend money this year—lots of it.” Americans chose us because they want positive messages, not negative ones. The era of fear-mongering and anally-retentive treasury management is over. Let us move proudly into a new era of runaway spending, moral license, decadence, deviance and perversion. This is change we can believe in.
Our economy lies in ruins. Thanks to parsimonious Republican skinflints, countless Americans lost their jobs. Millions more find themselves without health insurance or food money. As Democratic wastrels, we intend to end the hard times. We are prepared to spend trillions of dollars on American working men and women. We are ready to blow $100 bills onto the streets with industrial fans and let unemployed workers take as many as they want. We will stimulate job growth by inviting private employers to come down to the Treasury and take out as much money as they need to keep the payroll rolling. And we are not afraid of terrorists. We will keep the money presses humming for as long as it takes to defeat bin Laden and every Wall Street crook. We do not care about responsibility. We just want to make sure everyone gets all the money they need. Our opponents say that Americans need to “know the value of a dollar.” We say: “What good is it to know the value of a dollar when everyone is unemployed and starving?”
When Americans have money, they are happy. They do not complain. That is why the Democratic Party is America’s party. We spend money on everyone, from Donald Trump all the way down to the homeless beggar who sleeps in a garbage pile outside the Trump Tower. Everyone is equal in our United States. And everyone can visit the Treasury to get as much money as they need. We will beat this recession with a simple phrase: “Come on Down!”
Republicans say that we cannot afford to increase spending on health care, welfare and employment insurance. The Republicans miss the point. We are not going to increase spending. We are going to give away money; there is a difference. We are the party of deviance, insolence, license and irresponsibility. We spend money when we feel like it; we do not wring our hands and talk about “ownership society” or “saving.” We believe that the American people want us to spend money. Through responsibility, Republicans ruined our economy. Through frugality, the Republicans allowed our children to starve. Enough is enough. We will reverse the Republican tide. Responsibility and frugality did not work. It is time for solutions that work. It is time for irresponsibility and extravagance. What good is responsibility when it creates monsters like Bernie Madoff? In our view, we would much rather have irresponsible sods running government than responsible Republicans who steal everything in sight. And what good is frugality when frugal Republicans bankrupted America invading Iraq? The time for responsibility and frugality is over. Join us if you are ready to get some free money and start living again.
We are committed to immoral government. By electing a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, America told the world that we are tired of Republican morality. Republicans and their morality led to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, John Roberts, Enron, international condemnation and the Katrina debacle. Republicans took a stand against gay marriage and bad language in schools. What good did that do? Our economy is in the gutter and our currency is nearly worthless. America is sick and tired of Republican morality. Americans want change. They want immorality, vice, sodomy, decadence and deviance. We Democrats promise to deliver all that and more. We are not afraid to let men marry men or women marry women. We are not afraid to allow our children to smoke opium or praise homosexual relationships. We also firmly support unethical behavior. After all, Republican ethics gave us Enron and Alberto Gonzales. Ethics gave us scandal and embarrassment. We want change. That is why the Democratic Party promises to set new standards for unethical behavior in the new Century. Through immorality and wastefulness, we promise to save this country from ruin.
We live in desperate times. Unemployment has reached its highest level since the 1930s. People lose their homes every day. For many, the American dream has turned into a nightmare. But we can bring light back to America with wasteful spending. There is a reason why America’s economy failed last year. If it were not for eight years of Republican responsibility, frugality, decency, honor, ethics, morality and compassion, we would not be in the position we occupy today. Together, we can reverse these trends. Together, we can waste our money, act dishonorably, encourage premarital sex and condone recreational drug use. We will stem the tide. We will set a new standard for license, vice and irresponsibility. Responsibility and morality did not get the job done. It is time to give irresponsibility and immorality a chance. True, our country faces many challenges. Yet we believe that by allowing gay marriage, drug use and free access to government money, we can return America to its rightful place on the world stage.
After the Election last year, we all felt that we had turned a new page in American history. For the first time in decades, the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. But now we must start to work on the dream we savored on Election Night. Join us as we strive to bring irresponsibility to America. Do your part. Spend money recklessly and borrow beyond your means. We do not have time for frugality, morality or decency. Do not act like a Republican. If you feel like going out and getting drunk, by all means go. If you feel like buying a Cadillac, by all means buy it. We will help you. Government is no longer here to condemn you as an immoral deviant; we are on your side now. We are immoral deviants, too. We are ready to give you the money you need. We are ready to waste money on your health care, your job and your unemployment insurance. We are ready to buy you free housing. Republicans made you take out crippling loans to get a college degree. But we are ready to give you a college education—for free. Put simply, if you need it, we will buy it for you, no questions asked. And do not be afraid to be who you are. Republicans made you feel ashamed for having sex and for smoking marijuana. Now, we encourage you to have fun in your life. We do not have time for responsibility anymore. Abstinence and sobriety do not work. As profligate Democratic wastrels, we enjoy life; and so should you. Let us all work together for a better America—a more irresponsible America.
Responsibility and decency created this mess. We Democrats intend to fight the recession with irresponsibility and shameful monetary waste from beginning to end. If you want free government handouts and you are a moral deviant, join us. If you want a free college education and you are a petulant freeloading drug user, join us. If morality offends you and you do not like torture, international law violations or the death penalty, we are the party for you. In the Democratic Party, we do not claim to be moral. We are immoral, we condemn torture, we respect international law and we oppose the death penalty. Still, we recognize that we live in a democracy. If you care about ethics, morality, decency and normalcy, vote Republican. But before you do, take a good hard look at what happened under George W. Bush’s ethical, moral and decent administration. Do you want more of the same? Of course not. Be a faithless profligate immoral deviant Democratic wastrel. Do not be afraid to accept free money. Do not be afraid to go to the doctor, even if you can’t afford it. Do not be afraid to get a college degree without debt. And do not be afraid to engage in debauched omnisexual adventures before, during and after marriage. The Democratic Party is on your side. We waste money. We condone immorality. We are irresponsible. We are deviant. And we will save this country.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
CHRISTIANS' CLUB AGAINST ALL MUSLIM COMMUNIST HOMOSEXUAL IMMIGRANTS
POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD
By : Bishop Msgr. Theodore A. Gates, Spiritual Leader & Honorary Prince of Tolerance at the Church of Christ’s Hope, Newark, N.J.
Jesus told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Matthew 22:36-40. All good Christians observe this fundamental teaching. We love our fellow man. We respect him for who he is. We do not judge, lest we be judged. Matthew 7:1-5. Yet we do not inhabit a perfect world. As American Christians, we must remember Christ. But we must also remember that we are Americans.
In times past, strong Christian Americans transformed this country from a backwater outpost into the world’s most powerful industrial power. They did this because they believed in Christ and worked hard in His holy Name. Christian Americans asked for nothing and gave everything. Today, however, America faces dangers on all sides. Racial equality, social welfare programs, Muslim terrorism, sexual abomination and now a black President threaten to destroy the very foundations upon which good Christians built this land. Every day, more and more immigrants overrun our borders, flooding our schools and institutions with millions of ill-educated, popish Hispanic criminals. Every day, fewer and fewer Americans speak English. Even in government buildings, there are more signs in Spanish than in the language in which the Constitution was written.
Paul the Apostle told us: “Vengeance is mine, and I shall repay.” Romans 12:19-21. That means there is no need for earthly justice, because the Lord will avenge all injustice in the hereafter. While we respect the Apostle’s teaching, we cannot sit idly by while Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants defile the United States of America. We must take action now—and that means standing boldly against these devilspawn.
Many infiltrators threaten our country. But no group is more devious than Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants. Muslims are evil because they renounce Christ and because they commit terrorist acts intended to disrupt the American order. Communists are evil because they renounce the Christian spirit of free enterprise and private property that provides an incentive for thrifty Christians to work and save. Homosexuals are evil because they commit horrific sodomies and blasphemies through shameful lust. Additionally, homosexuals anally rape and murder children, violating the Commandments. Finally, immigrants are evil because they were not born in the United States and they come to this country to steal jobs and to seduce young American maidens with Latin charms.
Each group is evil for its own reasons. In combination, however, they pose a truly dangerous threat. A communist may pose a threat alone, but a Homosexual Communist poses a worse one. Similarly, a Muslim Immigrant may seriously threaten Homeland Security, but a Muslim Communist Immigrant poses a worse threat. After all, a Muslim only threatens America with terrorism. But a Muslim Homosexual threatens America with terrorism and filthy anal sex. In a similar way, a Communist Immigrant undermines American economic values with talk about “the equality of man” while filching State benefits and speaking Spanish. Yet nothing could be worse than a Communist Muslim Immigrant, who not only undermines the economy and steals State benefits, but also practices terrorism.
We, the Christians’ Club Against All Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants, refuse to surrender to evil. It is our public mission to inform everyone that the Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant threat is real; and we all have an interest in stopping it. If you care about your job, your children, your religion and your language, you will join hands with us to stop them—no matter the cost.
Some say that we stereotype. Critics label our party’s efforts “bigoted,” “shortsighted,” “racist,” “homophobic” and “simplistic.” They say that there are homosexuals who do not anally rape 9-year-olds, and that there are immigrants who learn English. They even tell us that not all Muslims are terrorists, and that not all communists conspire to overthrow the free market order.
We beg to differ. We believe that Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants all threaten America. We have never met a Muslim who does not secretly admire bin Laden or does not smile when he watches 9/11 footage. Additionally, if a critic tries to convince us that every homosexual has not anally raped a 9-year-old, we will show you a liar. Nor have we ever met an English-speaking immigrant, or a communist who did not wish to redistribute wealth to beggars. Put simply, if we trusted our critics, we would allow deviants to overrun the country. This is no time for tolerance; this is a time for national defense. This is the Christian way: Tolerance is wonderful; but when it threatens the church and its values, we the faithful must rise to defend it. Our Nation has taken one too many steps backward. Our party refuses to yield even a single inch to Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants.
Other critics say that there is no such thing as a Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant. Although we cannot precisely verify how many such “multi-layered evildoers” currently live in the United States, we know they are out there. And because they pose such a serious threat, we believe it is our duty to inform the public how to spot them. Our party believes in information. To that extent, we advise all Christian Americans to watch for: (1) Beards: Many Muslims wear beards. Consult a picture of Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheik Mohammed for more information; (2) Prayer Rugs: Muslims carry Oriental rugs with them so they can kneel and worship their pagan Lord. If you see a bearded man carrying a rug, maintain your vigilance and call authorities immediately; (3) The Arabic Language: Muslims speak Arabic; if you think you hear this language, investigate to determine whether the subject is a Muslim; (4) Trendy Clothing: Communists wear funky, trendy clothes. If you spot a young person with hip jeans, a cool hoodie and/or an Obama button, chances are he is a communist; (5) Banners: Communists call for revolution with banners, placards and other visible media. If you see a person carrying such media, they are likely hostile to the free market; (6) Tight-fitting T-Shirts: Homosexuals are hopelessly vain. Tight-fitting T-shirts display their muscles; if you see such T-shirts, you might be dealing with a homosexual, especially if the T-Shirt is “Abercrombie & Fitch,” “Hollister” or otherwise contains an ironic saying, such as: “Middlebury High School Tight End Party ’97;” (7) Small Dogs: Many homosexuals have pets because they have companions, not wives. If you see a man with a Chihuahua or other small, dainty dog, be advised: It might be a homosexual; (8) Impossibly well-groomed skin, nails and eyebrows: Homosexuals meticulously maintain their physical appearance in their continuous effort to sodomize other men and boys. In that light, if you encounter a very good-looking man with fastidious appearance, you could be face-to-face with a homosexual; (9) The Spanish Language: Immigrants come from third-world countries, chiefly in Central and South America or the Caribbean. People from those backward lands speak Spanish, not English. Thus, when you hear Spanish, you should immediately consider whether the person is an immigrant bent upon claiming free State benefits; and (10) Bad shoes or socks: Immigrants come from outside the United States. Different countries produce strange-looking shoes and socks. You can spot an immigrant by looking for unfamiliar shoe brands (ie, “Que Bueno Zapatas”) or spotted, speckled or striped socks.
Based upon these characteristics, it is eminently possible to uncover Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants among us. If you see a bearded, well-dressed, perfumed, trendy-looking man with unfamiliar shoes carrying a rug and a bin Laden placard while wearing a tight-fitting Abercrombie & Fitch T-Shirt and conducting a cell phone conversation in Spanish but holding an Arabic newspaper and walking a small dog, you should alert the police at once.
If you are sick and tired of Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant tyranny, join a party that promises purity, not squalor. Put an end to damaging tolerance. Do the Christian thing. Join us today—because America is for Christian Americans, not Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants.
By : Bishop Msgr. Theodore A. Gates, Spiritual Leader & Honorary Prince of Tolerance at the Church of Christ’s Hope, Newark, N.J.
Jesus told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Matthew 22:36-40. All good Christians observe this fundamental teaching. We love our fellow man. We respect him for who he is. We do not judge, lest we be judged. Matthew 7:1-5. Yet we do not inhabit a perfect world. As American Christians, we must remember Christ. But we must also remember that we are Americans.
In times past, strong Christian Americans transformed this country from a backwater outpost into the world’s most powerful industrial power. They did this because they believed in Christ and worked hard in His holy Name. Christian Americans asked for nothing and gave everything. Today, however, America faces dangers on all sides. Racial equality, social welfare programs, Muslim terrorism, sexual abomination and now a black President threaten to destroy the very foundations upon which good Christians built this land. Every day, more and more immigrants overrun our borders, flooding our schools and institutions with millions of ill-educated, popish Hispanic criminals. Every day, fewer and fewer Americans speak English. Even in government buildings, there are more signs in Spanish than in the language in which the Constitution was written.
Paul the Apostle told us: “Vengeance is mine, and I shall repay.” Romans 12:19-21. That means there is no need for earthly justice, because the Lord will avenge all injustice in the hereafter. While we respect the Apostle’s teaching, we cannot sit idly by while Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants defile the United States of America. We must take action now—and that means standing boldly against these devilspawn.
Many infiltrators threaten our country. But no group is more devious than Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants. Muslims are evil because they renounce Christ and because they commit terrorist acts intended to disrupt the American order. Communists are evil because they renounce the Christian spirit of free enterprise and private property that provides an incentive for thrifty Christians to work and save. Homosexuals are evil because they commit horrific sodomies and blasphemies through shameful lust. Additionally, homosexuals anally rape and murder children, violating the Commandments. Finally, immigrants are evil because they were not born in the United States and they come to this country to steal jobs and to seduce young American maidens with Latin charms.
Each group is evil for its own reasons. In combination, however, they pose a truly dangerous threat. A communist may pose a threat alone, but a Homosexual Communist poses a worse one. Similarly, a Muslim Immigrant may seriously threaten Homeland Security, but a Muslim Communist Immigrant poses a worse threat. After all, a Muslim only threatens America with terrorism. But a Muslim Homosexual threatens America with terrorism and filthy anal sex. In a similar way, a Communist Immigrant undermines American economic values with talk about “the equality of man” while filching State benefits and speaking Spanish. Yet nothing could be worse than a Communist Muslim Immigrant, who not only undermines the economy and steals State benefits, but also practices terrorism.
We, the Christians’ Club Against All Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants, refuse to surrender to evil. It is our public mission to inform everyone that the Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant threat is real; and we all have an interest in stopping it. If you care about your job, your children, your religion and your language, you will join hands with us to stop them—no matter the cost.
Some say that we stereotype. Critics label our party’s efforts “bigoted,” “shortsighted,” “racist,” “homophobic” and “simplistic.” They say that there are homosexuals who do not anally rape 9-year-olds, and that there are immigrants who learn English. They even tell us that not all Muslims are terrorists, and that not all communists conspire to overthrow the free market order.
We beg to differ. We believe that Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants all threaten America. We have never met a Muslim who does not secretly admire bin Laden or does not smile when he watches 9/11 footage. Additionally, if a critic tries to convince us that every homosexual has not anally raped a 9-year-old, we will show you a liar. Nor have we ever met an English-speaking immigrant, or a communist who did not wish to redistribute wealth to beggars. Put simply, if we trusted our critics, we would allow deviants to overrun the country. This is no time for tolerance; this is a time for national defense. This is the Christian way: Tolerance is wonderful; but when it threatens the church and its values, we the faithful must rise to defend it. Our Nation has taken one too many steps backward. Our party refuses to yield even a single inch to Muslims, Communists, Homosexuals and Immigrants.
Other critics say that there is no such thing as a Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant. Although we cannot precisely verify how many such “multi-layered evildoers” currently live in the United States, we know they are out there. And because they pose such a serious threat, we believe it is our duty to inform the public how to spot them. Our party believes in information. To that extent, we advise all Christian Americans to watch for: (1) Beards: Many Muslims wear beards. Consult a picture of Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheik Mohammed for more information; (2) Prayer Rugs: Muslims carry Oriental rugs with them so they can kneel and worship their pagan Lord. If you see a bearded man carrying a rug, maintain your vigilance and call authorities immediately; (3) The Arabic Language: Muslims speak Arabic; if you think you hear this language, investigate to determine whether the subject is a Muslim; (4) Trendy Clothing: Communists wear funky, trendy clothes. If you spot a young person with hip jeans, a cool hoodie and/or an Obama button, chances are he is a communist; (5) Banners: Communists call for revolution with banners, placards and other visible media. If you see a person carrying such media, they are likely hostile to the free market; (6) Tight-fitting T-Shirts: Homosexuals are hopelessly vain. Tight-fitting T-shirts display their muscles; if you see such T-shirts, you might be dealing with a homosexual, especially if the T-Shirt is “Abercrombie & Fitch,” “Hollister” or otherwise contains an ironic saying, such as: “Middlebury High School Tight End Party ’97;” (7) Small Dogs: Many homosexuals have pets because they have companions, not wives. If you see a man with a Chihuahua or other small, dainty dog, be advised: It might be a homosexual; (8) Impossibly well-groomed skin, nails and eyebrows: Homosexuals meticulously maintain their physical appearance in their continuous effort to sodomize other men and boys. In that light, if you encounter a very good-looking man with fastidious appearance, you could be face-to-face with a homosexual; (9) The Spanish Language: Immigrants come from third-world countries, chiefly in Central and South America or the Caribbean. People from those backward lands speak Spanish, not English. Thus, when you hear Spanish, you should immediately consider whether the person is an immigrant bent upon claiming free State benefits; and (10) Bad shoes or socks: Immigrants come from outside the United States. Different countries produce strange-looking shoes and socks. You can spot an immigrant by looking for unfamiliar shoe brands (ie, “Que Bueno Zapatas”) or spotted, speckled or striped socks.
Based upon these characteristics, it is eminently possible to uncover Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants among us. If you see a bearded, well-dressed, perfumed, trendy-looking man with unfamiliar shoes carrying a rug and a bin Laden placard while wearing a tight-fitting Abercrombie & Fitch T-Shirt and conducting a cell phone conversation in Spanish but holding an Arabic newspaper and walking a small dog, you should alert the police at once.
If you are sick and tired of Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrant tyranny, join a party that promises purity, not squalor. Put an end to damaging tolerance. Do the Christian thing. Join us today—because America is for Christian Americans, not Muslim Communist Homosexual Immigrants.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
FACE IT : HOMOSEXUALITY EXISTS IN NATURE AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT
OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
Civilization spawns and perpetuates absurd untruths. It even manufactures evidence and anecdotal “stories” to sustain them. Sadly, it takes centuries to eradicate these misleading shams and even longer to reverse the misunderstandings they leave in men’s minds. Sexual untruths are especially wrongheaded. Some simply sound ridiculous to a rational mind, like the old yarn that “masturbation will cause hair to grow on the palms of your hands.” Others are not just ridiculous, but also unfounded in reason, like the claim that homosexuality is “against nature.” See Romans Ch. 1:16-18; Genesis Ch. 18-19 (“The outcry against Sodom and Gamorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious.”) Id. at Ch. 18:20. “Morality” perpetuates these pernicious falsehoods, ignoring verifiable scientific evidence that contradicts them.
I am not a scientist. Nor do I believe that science can answer every question on earth. But I do trust science where it is valid: In the realm of human sense and observation. If phenomena can be observed through the senses, then science can provide convincing explanations for them. If we use our eyes to see snow on the ground in the morning, we can infer the fact that the snow fell from the sky during the night, even if we did not see it falling. That is reasonable deduction. That is what scientists do: They observe, catalogue and make reasonable conclusions warranted by objective sensory observation. Human reason depends on human sense. Humans can find “truth” for themselves if they base it on sense. They can even make theories consistent with their senses. If sensory observation lends objective credibility to a theory, reasonable people will accept it. After all, good scientific theories make sense because they appeal to our senses. The scientist shows us what he saw; then he makes a reasonable conclusion on that basis. In this light, science represents the pinnacle of rational, reasonable human thought. Where human reason is valid, so is science.
I recently found scientific studies that unequivocally demonstrate that animals engage in same-sex sexual activity. One researcher (Bruce Bagemihl) observed and photographically catalogued “homosexual” contact in 1500 species, including lions, dolphins, common domestic dogs, giraffes, orangutans, penguins, sheep and even beetles. I put the adjective “homosexual” in quotation marks, because the subject animals also engaged in “heterosexual” contact with opposite-sex partners. In a true sense, then, all these creatures are “bisexual.” They do not limit their sexual affections to members of the opposite sex, nor is the purpose of their sexual activity “purely procreative.” Indeed, there is photographic evidence to show that male dolphins use their penises to penetrate the blowholes of other male dolphins, and there is photographic evidence to show that male giraffes engage in anal intercourse. One researcher even observed female orangutans sexually stimulating one another with wooden tools from the forest floor.
This will likely arouse some uneasiness in a “moralistic” reader. But that is precisely why this subject has not received the attention it deserves. These are observations. Human sense perceived these things. They are not speculative. They tend to demonstrate that animals do not have sex merely to reproduce, nor do they shy away from sexual encounters with members of their own gender. More importantly, they squarely contradict the assertion that “homosexuality is unnatural.” If homosexuality is “unnatural,” why does it routinely manifest itself in nature? If anything, homosexuality appears perfectly natural among the species in which it has been observed. And these species do not ridicule, ostracize, castigate or kill individual animals that engage in same-sex activity. The “moral teaching” that “homosexuality is unnatural” thus shows itself to be patent untruth.
Sigmund Freud knew almost a century ago that man exhibited the same bisexual characteristics as animals. In Civilization and its Discontents, he wrote: “Man is an animal organism with (like others) an unmistakably bisexual disposition…We are accustomed to say that every human being displays both male and female instinctual impulses, needs and attributes; but though anatomy, it is true, can point out the characteristic of maleness and femaleness, psychology cannot. For psychology, the contrast between the sexes fades away into one between activity and passivity, in which we far too readily identify activity with maleness and passivity with femaleness, a fact which is by no means universally confirmed in the animal kingdom.” Civilization and its Discontents, pp. 61-62, fn7. Freud knew that man was an “animal organism.” As such, the “animal kingdom” provided convincing objective evidence to support his assertion that humans, like animals, display bisexual inclinations.
It amazes me that scientists have not intensely studied these phenomena until recently. The fact that they have not investigated them until recently testifies to the weighty, stultifying force of “traditional morality” on human beings, even those dedicated to discovering natural truths. Writing in the 19th Century, Charles Darwin posited that sexual behavior was “purely procreative.” He never mentioned that it could have played other roles in animal life. But it is significant that Darwin was writing from Victorian England, a society that imposed an excruciatingly narrow view of human sexuality on everyone, from the youngest child to the oldest man. Although a scientist, Darwin could not escape his own cultural heritage. He simply could not countenance the possibility that homosexual contact did indeed exist in nature. After all, his society criminalized and socially condemned it. I would venture that Darwin must have observed homosexual contact among the animals he catalogued; he simply wrote it off as “an abomination.” This is disturbing because scientists cannot reveal the truth about nature if they do not honestly record the things they see. Who knows how many other scientists throughout history did not fully reveal their observations under the weight of “social propriety” at the time they wrote?
Yet this again testifies to the resilient strength of persistent social untruths. In my eyes, it is untenable to argue that “homosexuality is unnatural,” or that “homosexuality does not exist in nature.” Even if there were no scientific studies, our own perceptions would give us pause when we confront this argument. Have you ever seen two male dogs “humping?” It happens all the time. In fact, such things revolt “moral people” when they see them. I even saw a woman break up two “naughty” male dogs because she thought such contact was “inappropriate.” What the hell do dogs know about “inappropriateness?” All they want to do is have an orgasm; it is a matter of complete biological indifference with whom they have it. Nonetheless, entrenched moral systems insist that “these things do not happen in nature.” How can you believe that assertion when you see the opposite with your own eyes? It is almost as absurd as saying that “fresh snow is not white.”
Morality wields a suffocating influence on the intellect and human reason. Simply put, “morality” refers to a society’s intuitive, collective sense about what is “right” or “wrong,” without strict regard to reasonable principles. Morality may formulate rules, doctrines and principles, but they are not based in reason. Rather, morality draws its strength from visceral, emotional reactions passed down over generations. Morality is backward-looking. It looks to see what behaviors and phenomena historically generated “disgust” in an average person, then uses that historical “disgust” to make judgments about behavior and phenomena today. Like a gnarled, ancient oak, morality has grown far beyond its original bounds. It has amassed tremendous historical inertia, influencing everyone in the society where it prevails. Why is homosexuality wrong? Well, says the moralist, it involves the anus, and the anus is “disgusting” to an average person because it excretes. Because average people originally deemed it “disgusting,” it became “immoral” and “deviant.” Civilization perpetuated these judgments, resorting to facetious arguments to justify them, such as: “Homosexuality is not just disgusting; it is also against nature. Animals do not do it. Therefore, we shouldn’t.”
But science contradicts these flawed, syllogistic moral pronouncements. Moralists may think that “tradition” provides support for their ghost story that homosexuality is unnatural. Indeed, barely 20 years ago, even the United States Supreme Court invoked “millennia of moral teaching” to voice its view that American States had the right to criminalize human homosexual contact. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 197 (1986)(Burger, C.J., concurring). Human moral teaching has nothing to do with nature. Still, human moral teaching attempts to label homosexuality “unnatural,” even though observation convincingly shows the opposite. Nature does not care about what human beings think. It follows its own trajectory; we can merely watch. Nature does not judge, either. Morality, on the other hand, judges all the time. And it invents the most implausible arguments to sustain the unsustainable.
Consider this moral argument: “The fact that scientists have observed homosexual contact in the animal kingdom does not validate homosexuality among humans because it is illogical to use animal behavior to determine whether something is moral.” What the hell? Does “human morality” have some special, exalted place in the universe, divorced from all other considerations? Do we make moral determinations in an ethereal vacuum, without regard to our natural environment or our heritage? It borders on the ridiculous to say that we cannot learn about ourselves by studying animals. Although “morality” may have evolved into an abstract lexicon over the centuries, that does not change the basic fact that human beings are mammals. Just because we can invent facetious moral codes does not change the fact that we have warm blood, body hair, a circulatory system, bad breath and eyes that look quite like any other mammal’s eyes.
Human beings share far more similarities with animals than a moralist would like to admit. We have hands and feet, just like a monkey. We have hearts and lungs, just like an eagle. We have red blood, just like a horse. We have nostrils and teeth, just like a tiger. We have mouths and jaws, just like a turtle. We give birth to live young after sexual intercourse, just like an elephant. And we even have vocal chords, just like a dog. Moreover, we all die and our bodies decay into dust. We share all these characteristics with animals. We come from the same biological tree. How can we not learn about ourselves by studying our animal ancestors?
I have a message for the moralists: Homosexuality exists in nature; it is not “wrong” and there’s nothing you can do about it. You’d better get used to the idea. You might think human beings are in their own elite “category,” but you are gravely mistaken. We are in the same category as orangutans, horses, giraffes and bulls. Those creatures display bisexual tendencies. So do humans. To suggest, therefore, that the same “natural” activity is “unnatural” for humans disregards sensory evidence. The fact that humans have larger brains and invented a “moral code” during their comparatively brief stay on this planet does not vault them onto a higher plateau than their forebears. So would you do me a favor? Stop passing judgment on people for being gay. They are simply acting naturally, no matter what your book says. You say that animals provide no guidance for making “moral determinations.” That may be so, but I say that you are just a mammal with a book in your hand. You can invent any idea you want. But you can’t escape biology.
Face it: You are an animal. Don’t be ashamed: Learn from your brothers. You may not be gay, but it should not surprise you that some members of your species are. Just look to nature and you will see that it is perfectly natural. Would you judge nature?
Civilization spawns and perpetuates absurd untruths. It even manufactures evidence and anecdotal “stories” to sustain them. Sadly, it takes centuries to eradicate these misleading shams and even longer to reverse the misunderstandings they leave in men’s minds. Sexual untruths are especially wrongheaded. Some simply sound ridiculous to a rational mind, like the old yarn that “masturbation will cause hair to grow on the palms of your hands.” Others are not just ridiculous, but also unfounded in reason, like the claim that homosexuality is “against nature.” See Romans Ch. 1:16-18; Genesis Ch. 18-19 (“The outcry against Sodom and Gamorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious.”) Id. at Ch. 18:20. “Morality” perpetuates these pernicious falsehoods, ignoring verifiable scientific evidence that contradicts them.
I am not a scientist. Nor do I believe that science can answer every question on earth. But I do trust science where it is valid: In the realm of human sense and observation. If phenomena can be observed through the senses, then science can provide convincing explanations for them. If we use our eyes to see snow on the ground in the morning, we can infer the fact that the snow fell from the sky during the night, even if we did not see it falling. That is reasonable deduction. That is what scientists do: They observe, catalogue and make reasonable conclusions warranted by objective sensory observation. Human reason depends on human sense. Humans can find “truth” for themselves if they base it on sense. They can even make theories consistent with their senses. If sensory observation lends objective credibility to a theory, reasonable people will accept it. After all, good scientific theories make sense because they appeal to our senses. The scientist shows us what he saw; then he makes a reasonable conclusion on that basis. In this light, science represents the pinnacle of rational, reasonable human thought. Where human reason is valid, so is science.
I recently found scientific studies that unequivocally demonstrate that animals engage in same-sex sexual activity. One researcher (Bruce Bagemihl) observed and photographically catalogued “homosexual” contact in 1500 species, including lions, dolphins, common domestic dogs, giraffes, orangutans, penguins, sheep and even beetles. I put the adjective “homosexual” in quotation marks, because the subject animals also engaged in “heterosexual” contact with opposite-sex partners. In a true sense, then, all these creatures are “bisexual.” They do not limit their sexual affections to members of the opposite sex, nor is the purpose of their sexual activity “purely procreative.” Indeed, there is photographic evidence to show that male dolphins use their penises to penetrate the blowholes of other male dolphins, and there is photographic evidence to show that male giraffes engage in anal intercourse. One researcher even observed female orangutans sexually stimulating one another with wooden tools from the forest floor.
This will likely arouse some uneasiness in a “moralistic” reader. But that is precisely why this subject has not received the attention it deserves. These are observations. Human sense perceived these things. They are not speculative. They tend to demonstrate that animals do not have sex merely to reproduce, nor do they shy away from sexual encounters with members of their own gender. More importantly, they squarely contradict the assertion that “homosexuality is unnatural.” If homosexuality is “unnatural,” why does it routinely manifest itself in nature? If anything, homosexuality appears perfectly natural among the species in which it has been observed. And these species do not ridicule, ostracize, castigate or kill individual animals that engage in same-sex activity. The “moral teaching” that “homosexuality is unnatural” thus shows itself to be patent untruth.
Sigmund Freud knew almost a century ago that man exhibited the same bisexual characteristics as animals. In Civilization and its Discontents, he wrote: “Man is an animal organism with (like others) an unmistakably bisexual disposition…We are accustomed to say that every human being displays both male and female instinctual impulses, needs and attributes; but though anatomy, it is true, can point out the characteristic of maleness and femaleness, psychology cannot. For psychology, the contrast between the sexes fades away into one between activity and passivity, in which we far too readily identify activity with maleness and passivity with femaleness, a fact which is by no means universally confirmed in the animal kingdom.” Civilization and its Discontents, pp. 61-62, fn7. Freud knew that man was an “animal organism.” As such, the “animal kingdom” provided convincing objective evidence to support his assertion that humans, like animals, display bisexual inclinations.
It amazes me that scientists have not intensely studied these phenomena until recently. The fact that they have not investigated them until recently testifies to the weighty, stultifying force of “traditional morality” on human beings, even those dedicated to discovering natural truths. Writing in the 19th Century, Charles Darwin posited that sexual behavior was “purely procreative.” He never mentioned that it could have played other roles in animal life. But it is significant that Darwin was writing from Victorian England, a society that imposed an excruciatingly narrow view of human sexuality on everyone, from the youngest child to the oldest man. Although a scientist, Darwin could not escape his own cultural heritage. He simply could not countenance the possibility that homosexual contact did indeed exist in nature. After all, his society criminalized and socially condemned it. I would venture that Darwin must have observed homosexual contact among the animals he catalogued; he simply wrote it off as “an abomination.” This is disturbing because scientists cannot reveal the truth about nature if they do not honestly record the things they see. Who knows how many other scientists throughout history did not fully reveal their observations under the weight of “social propriety” at the time they wrote?
Yet this again testifies to the resilient strength of persistent social untruths. In my eyes, it is untenable to argue that “homosexuality is unnatural,” or that “homosexuality does not exist in nature.” Even if there were no scientific studies, our own perceptions would give us pause when we confront this argument. Have you ever seen two male dogs “humping?” It happens all the time. In fact, such things revolt “moral people” when they see them. I even saw a woman break up two “naughty” male dogs because she thought such contact was “inappropriate.” What the hell do dogs know about “inappropriateness?” All they want to do is have an orgasm; it is a matter of complete biological indifference with whom they have it. Nonetheless, entrenched moral systems insist that “these things do not happen in nature.” How can you believe that assertion when you see the opposite with your own eyes? It is almost as absurd as saying that “fresh snow is not white.”
Morality wields a suffocating influence on the intellect and human reason. Simply put, “morality” refers to a society’s intuitive, collective sense about what is “right” or “wrong,” without strict regard to reasonable principles. Morality may formulate rules, doctrines and principles, but they are not based in reason. Rather, morality draws its strength from visceral, emotional reactions passed down over generations. Morality is backward-looking. It looks to see what behaviors and phenomena historically generated “disgust” in an average person, then uses that historical “disgust” to make judgments about behavior and phenomena today. Like a gnarled, ancient oak, morality has grown far beyond its original bounds. It has amassed tremendous historical inertia, influencing everyone in the society where it prevails. Why is homosexuality wrong? Well, says the moralist, it involves the anus, and the anus is “disgusting” to an average person because it excretes. Because average people originally deemed it “disgusting,” it became “immoral” and “deviant.” Civilization perpetuated these judgments, resorting to facetious arguments to justify them, such as: “Homosexuality is not just disgusting; it is also against nature. Animals do not do it. Therefore, we shouldn’t.”
But science contradicts these flawed, syllogistic moral pronouncements. Moralists may think that “tradition” provides support for their ghost story that homosexuality is unnatural. Indeed, barely 20 years ago, even the United States Supreme Court invoked “millennia of moral teaching” to voice its view that American States had the right to criminalize human homosexual contact. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 197 (1986)(Burger, C.J., concurring). Human moral teaching has nothing to do with nature. Still, human moral teaching attempts to label homosexuality “unnatural,” even though observation convincingly shows the opposite. Nature does not care about what human beings think. It follows its own trajectory; we can merely watch. Nature does not judge, either. Morality, on the other hand, judges all the time. And it invents the most implausible arguments to sustain the unsustainable.
Consider this moral argument: “The fact that scientists have observed homosexual contact in the animal kingdom does not validate homosexuality among humans because it is illogical to use animal behavior to determine whether something is moral.” What the hell? Does “human morality” have some special, exalted place in the universe, divorced from all other considerations? Do we make moral determinations in an ethereal vacuum, without regard to our natural environment or our heritage? It borders on the ridiculous to say that we cannot learn about ourselves by studying animals. Although “morality” may have evolved into an abstract lexicon over the centuries, that does not change the basic fact that human beings are mammals. Just because we can invent facetious moral codes does not change the fact that we have warm blood, body hair, a circulatory system, bad breath and eyes that look quite like any other mammal’s eyes.
Human beings share far more similarities with animals than a moralist would like to admit. We have hands and feet, just like a monkey. We have hearts and lungs, just like an eagle. We have red blood, just like a horse. We have nostrils and teeth, just like a tiger. We have mouths and jaws, just like a turtle. We give birth to live young after sexual intercourse, just like an elephant. And we even have vocal chords, just like a dog. Moreover, we all die and our bodies decay into dust. We share all these characteristics with animals. We come from the same biological tree. How can we not learn about ourselves by studying our animal ancestors?
I have a message for the moralists: Homosexuality exists in nature; it is not “wrong” and there’s nothing you can do about it. You’d better get used to the idea. You might think human beings are in their own elite “category,” but you are gravely mistaken. We are in the same category as orangutans, horses, giraffes and bulls. Those creatures display bisexual tendencies. So do humans. To suggest, therefore, that the same “natural” activity is “unnatural” for humans disregards sensory evidence. The fact that humans have larger brains and invented a “moral code” during their comparatively brief stay on this planet does not vault them onto a higher plateau than their forebears. So would you do me a favor? Stop passing judgment on people for being gay. They are simply acting naturally, no matter what your book says. You say that animals provide no guidance for making “moral determinations.” That may be so, but I say that you are just a mammal with a book in your hand. You can invent any idea you want. But you can’t escape biology.
Face it: You are an animal. Don’t be ashamed: Learn from your brothers. You may not be gay, but it should not surprise you that some members of your species are. Just look to nature and you will see that it is perfectly natural. Would you judge nature?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)