Sunday, August 8, 2010
There's Nothing Gay about Being Gay
By Alan Caruba
There are two topics I generally try to avoid discussing. Number one on the list is homosexuality. Number two is most things having to do with religion, although it is impossible to ignore it in a world where a militant Islam is causing so much conflict.
I would avoid examining gay “marriage” if I could, but the gay and lesbian community will not let me.
With seven decades of life under my belt, I have had plenty of time to learn about homosexuality, know homosexuals, and to have arrived at some conclusions about it. My basic conclusion is that homosexuality is hard-wired into an individual at birth. It is not, in my opinion, a lifestyle option one learns about and decides to choose.
Those who discover their homosexuality, early or late, know well that it positions them outside the acceptance of our society and those worldwide. As such, it is a cause of much abuse and, to varying degrees, self-hatred.
The three monotheistic religions made it clear in their sacred texts that homosexuality is a sin, but that is a matter of belief. On a strictly physiological basis, nature ordains that there are two sexes, male and female, and they exist for the propagation of the species. That’s why marriage is regarded as essential to any society.
Since homosexuals must function within our society, one might reasonably assume they would accept society’s need to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman, but among militant homosexuals, there has been a growing movement to require a redefinition of this ancient model.
This brings us to the decision by a federal judge to overturn California’s Proposition 8, calling for a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. Proposition 8 was approved by voters by a margin of 52 percent in favor versus 48 percent who opposed it. The majority of U.S. States have laws recognizing marriage as between members of the opposite sex.
What makes Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision questionable, beyond issues of the law, is a factor noted in a Washington Times article that reported “The Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle have both reported that Judge Walker’s sexuality, though he is not ‘out’, is an open secret in California gay and legal circles.” As such, he should have recused himself from the case.
Our judicial system has been poisoned by activist judges.
The campaign for Proposition 8 raised $39.9 million for it and against it $43.3 million. It became the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot, surpassing every campaign in the nation in spending except for the presidential contest.
I have not known that many happy homosexuals. I have known those who have made their personal peace with the fact that they exist in an area outside general public approval.
Putting aside the link between homosexuality and AIDS, such studies as have been undertaken have generally concluded that being homosexual increases one’s potential for a variety of bad lifestyle choices.
The debate about gay marriage is not about civil rights and certainly not about the equal rights amendment which was passed following the Civil War to ensure that newly enfranchised black citizens received formerly denied protections. The 13th Amendment, ratified on December 6, 1865 bans slavery. The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. Neither applies to homosexuality.
I began by saying that the gay and lesbian community will not let me ignore the issue of gay marriage. This holds true as well for the majority of the population which is overwhelmingly heterosexual and must contend with the issue.
It seems to me that the issue does little other than to inflame the fears and prejudices of the majority for no good purpose.
How and why the term “gay” came to be applied to homosexuals I do not know. I do know that its former meaning, one of happiness, does not apply to the way many homosexuals feel about themselves, nor the way the more militant among them continue to test and abuse the tolerance of the greater heterosexual society in which they live.
© Alan Caruba, 2010
Posted by Alan Caruba at 6:33 AM
Labels: homosexuality, marriage, US Constitution
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I wouldn't mind all that much discussing religion, on an intellectual plane, but I have found that almost every person of a religious persuasion takes any comment regarding any religion personally, and those (supposedly) not of a religious persuasion either don't care except to complain about religions, or have managed to turn their own thoughts into their own personal belief systems, essentially religions of their own, and are as sensitive to comments which might encroach on their own self-made belief systems as the most fervent religious believers are.
With that having been stated, the bias against homosexuality comes almost entirely from, as I have best been able to determine, the religious beliefs of the ancient Hebrews. Since both the Christian religion and Islam have, at their base, the religion of the Hebrews, bias against homosexuals became widespread as those religions became widespread.
While homosexuality is without question a serious genetic failure, regarding survival of a species, at least a fair sized number of homosexuals, male and female, have had among the brightest minds in human history.
It is indeed a pity that it came about the way it has, in my opinion, and has held humankind seriously back in the rational development of human technological knowledge, and in peaceful relationships among all people in our own society and others.
We in western culture, that is, non-Islamic culture, ignore the genuine and serious threats to our well being which the religion of Islam presents at our peril.
..Like yourself Mr. Alan, I have as yet to see how they can refer to their selves as gay?? Like many things they just want to sugar coat it, to suit their needs.
I am still puzzled as to how a sexual preference can be associated with race and religion. I am of the Faith that this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when drawing up The Constitution.
@Larry: Homosexuals are not denied the right to contribute their talents and skills to society. What is being denied here is the right to undo a function of society to maintain the family, based on a man and a woman being able to have children, at its center.
Prop 8 is no different from the law against polygamy.
Alan, you say you think homosexuals are hard-wired at birth. Would a just God create them with overpowering, unnatural desires, so that they would be trapped and not responsible for sin? Not according to James in the New Testament:
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
Also, marriage is regarded as essential for the preservation of the family unit which is the basic unit of society.
Hate the sin, love the sinner.
And I will stick with the biological explanation.
The issue of gay marriage is, to my mind, socialogical, not spiritual, even though major faiths condemn it. That said, I am sure many gays find solace in the house of prayer of their choice.
They were, Alan, in many ways in the not so distant past, as were Jewish people, for that matter. I have a really good memory. I have had close Jewish friends in the past, (which were not a "good thing" to have at all, where and in the times I was younger), so I have seen it first hand.
Consider Alan Touring as an excellent example. He did manage to make great contributations, but nontheless, he committed suicide at an early age, and certainly could have contributed far more, had it not been for the denial of approbation by society, only because of his homosexuality.
I loath it that words such as "gay" have been "hijacked" by thr practicers of that which society in general does not acccept (and I do not mean "tolerate" by any means).
"Gay" was a rather wonderful thing to be, when I was a lad. Not at all so now, in my opinion.
Otherwise, Alan, I agree with you rather commpletly, as I so often do.
This is an exercize in faith as well as logic.
I think that it is impossible to extricate the religious component from this issue. All in all, the only reason to be against homosexuality is because God said so. All the other issues brought up merely support that position.
As for being "hardwired", I think that is over stating it. I do believe that there is a genetic component to this, however, I think the genetic component isn't that someone has a homosexual gene any more than someone has a “pedophile” gene or a gene for “bestiality”. I think it is merely a genetic predisposition to unusual sexual appetites.
People have genetic propensities for violence, bad tempers, and even bad manners, but they have an intellect and that allows them to make judgments that say, “today…I will not be violent!”; or “today I will not lose my temper!”; or “today I will not treat my fellow man badly!” These people also have the capacity to choose to not indulge in unusual sexual practices.
They may find it difficult, but they are not “hardwired”, because if that is so then we must logically conclude that God made them that way. The reason that I believe they have the capacity to decide is because otherwise there is no justice in God’s judgments, pronouncements, or admonitions against it.
If that is not so….then we are left with the next logical step….we must question if there is a God.
If you do not know a lot of happy gay people, perhaps this is because you do not know many young gay people. In my generation (I am in my early thirties), gays and lesbians are not social outcasts. People who strongly disapprove of homosexuality are social outcasts. Socially, gay couples are treated just the same as straight couples. Most people of my generation think it's a terrible injustice that the law treats gay couples and straight couples differently.
You recognize in your essay that homosexuality is not something that people choose; it is hard-wired. You deserve credit for recognizing that. Since marriage to someone of the opposite sex is not a realistic option for gay men and lesbians, why shouldn't we marry someone of the same sex, rather than being legally single?
I've never felt that sex was a spectator sport, regardless of the ideas of the players. I'm at least mildly offended by displays of sexuality among heterosexuals, beyond that of friendly affection. Sort of a privacy thing, I guess.
The actual needs of "gay" couples could easily be met by some sort of laws concerning civil union as to money, inheritance, retirement income, etc. IMO, no big deal.
So my main objection is to the abuse of the word "marriage". Whether or not it's religious is immaterial and irrelevant. It denotes a union between a man and a woman with the primary purpose of creating a home and family.
I and my wife are in a second "marriage"--but pragmatically it's a civil union. At our ages, we're not even thinking about adopting children, and any other method of creating a family is not an option.
By and large, it's the behavior of and noise level from the activists of the gay community which are making me hostile to their ideas about much of anything. I'm fed up with perceived victimhood.
I had no bias against homosexuals until their activist groups turned their full fury onto the Boy Scouts, even tho they were free to start their own "Gay Scouts" if they so desired.
But then, that would deviate from the script of shoving "forced tolerance" down our throats.
Desertrat - you summed up my feelings exactly. It's the "in your face" attitude that's so prevalent in the gay community that I have a problem with.
If all they were pushing for was equal treatment under the law, I wouldn't object. I feel a civil union arrangement, which should include not only the rights, but all the RESPONSIBILITIES that go along with any legal union between two human beings, is fair and I think most people would agree.
However, when the gay community is openly pushing for acceptance of their lifestyle as "normal", and want to teach it as "normal" in our schools, and call civil unions between same-sex couples a "normal" Marriage, I have a problem with that. Teaching our children to be understanding is fine. Teaching them not to discriminate is fine. But teaching them that it's "cool" or "normal" to be gay, well that's another story.
Homosexuality is only "normal" in the sense that it occurs in a certain percentage of every society. It may be an inconvenient fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. If homosexuality ever became the norm in a society, the society would simply die out....
Like it or not, the sky is blue. Someone else can call it green if they want to, but I don't have to, nor should anyone else, in the interest of maintaining some semblance of reality, accept that the sky is anything but blue.
Civil unions have been proposed, and yet rejected by the gay community, which indicates that this battle is all about the self-esteem of homosexuals, not about their rights. I see no reason why the entire society should be forced to live in some sort of alternate reality just to protect the self-esteem of those who cannot face their sexuality and accept themselves for who they are.
Post a Comment