Because You Never Asked

     (Author's note - This essay was written somewhere around 1994. As I put it on the web in 2004, it has become very timely as a result of the growing controversy engendered by the clamor for same sex marriage. In reading it again, I'm happy to say that its relevance seems intact.)

     News about homosexuals is definitely out of the closet. Hardly a day goes by without some gay group demanding their rights, massively demonstrating in one city or another, or clamoring for the chance to be John Wayne on Iwo Jima. The quest for overt military participation has taken a lion's share of the publicity lately. I have no quarrel with gays or women having an equal opportunity to destroy or be destroyed. What bothers me is that so many homosexuals (and women) are so eager for such a lifestyle. Unfortunately, for many people, war is still just a heroic movie or commercial to be "all that you can be". I have a solution for such fantasies: the next time this nation has a real opportunity for combat (that shouldn't take too long) we send Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, and all the rest of the celluloid heroes off to the joust. No make up men, catering trucks, dressing rooms or gigantic paychecks. Real war!

     Now that the gay thing has become an issue, we are beginning to study it more closely. Who is gay? Why does it happen? Do you inherit it, inhale it, contract it, pass it on? Can you be induced to be gay? Can you eat raw steak and be cured of it? Can one and the same person be a linebacker and interior decorator? Should we exhume the remains of Liberace in the name of science? Can we find out anything about this thing?

     According to certain homosexual groups, one of every ten people is just like them. Having wandered my way through a half century of life's trials and tribulations, including the countless times I've found myself in a collective shower, I find such claim to be, if not preposterous, somewhat inflated. Gay activists, like presidential candidates, civil rights leaders, peace marchers, woman's groups, or anyone else responsible for massive displays of one sort or another, have a habit of exaggerating crowd figures (unless the opposition is marching, when they conveniently underestimate the figures). It's quite probable if homosexuals had the opportunity to run the world, they'd be just as selfish, egocentric, ruthless and self-serving as the cads who currently run things. Except for the porno they prefer, gays are no different from the rest of us and deserve the same treatment. I, for one, have been exemplary in my behavior towards gay people, treating them with the same derision I treat not so gay people.

     Homosexuality is not an aberration or abhorrent thing. If we objectively admit it has been with us since the dawn of time, in all places, amongst all peoples and cultures, races and social classes, in all kinds of climates and topographies, in the city, the country, in any environment there is, it can hardly be deemed as abnormal. It is a part of the planet's ecosystem and should be given the same respect and opportunity for a dignified existence as any other life form. Gays should have access to the work they want, as long as they are an asset and not a liability. They should be able to vent their sexual passions without recrimination or guilt. They should be able to do as they please, free of any laws that specifically hinder their particular life style, and subject to all the other laws applied equally to all citizens.

     OK, now I've shown there is a reasonable amount of enlightenment in my attitudes, that I don't spit tobacco juice, go to the movies in a pick up truck, or consider Richard Petty the Man of the Century. But there still might be a touch of redneck in me.

     Although I don't consider homosexuality to be a calamitous tragedy, I cannot consider it the desired or intended result of the natural scheme of things. It might be described as a "glitch" of nature because there doesn't seem to be any real function for it and nature, it seems, doesn't produce without function. If there were no such thing as homosexuality, the world would be virtually the same place. I don't know what Jessie Helms would do with himself, but I'm sure he could find some other group to vent his frustrations on, like heterosexuals with healthy sex lives. We might have to come up with some hairdressers and waiters in French restaurants, but I think we could manage.

     Let's apply these thoughts to some real issues. Homosexuals frequently lobby for the right to legally marry. It's not so much that I am against this request, but I find it to be superfluous. If two people of the same sex want to live in lusty, monogamous bliss, that's fine with me, but the State has no interest in such an arrangement. The State is really concerned with reproductive units (or facsimiles of such, such as adoptive parents) and the effects these units have on society. Someone must be held responsible for the care of children and there must be an orderly transfer of property from one generation to the next. In addition, couples in reproductive units have obligations that frequently keep them out of income making roles. At times, in a civilized environment, the State needs to step in and help in such situations, situations that have no relevance to the homosexual couple. The proponents of same sex marriage are asking the State to legalize or formalize something that is nothing more than an emotional attachment. They are saying, "Hey, make it official, we love each other." Even in traditional marriages, such feelings are personal matters that the State cannot anoint or proclaim. Although it's not what we are used to hearing, marriage is much more a contractual obligation than a declaration of "love". Marriage does not define two people's love for each other, but it does define their responsibilities to each other and their offspring. (This does not preclude the gay couple from authoring their own personal contract setting forth their material obligations to each other.)

     Some gay groups have also campaigned for the right to adopt children. I cannot accept this. Children are the result of heterosexual activity and this is the kind of unit they should be raised in. It's comforting to know that one is the direct result of even the most fleeting moment of two people's passionate desire for one another, even in its most superficial form. This is the feeling a man and woman who adopt children are trying to convey. It is a sign of their love for each other and the adopted child. Undoubtedly, a child could be raised in a homosexual household and grow into a positive human being. But as a general State policy, except in very special circumstances --- like when one is the closest relative to a minor whose parents have died --- it should be avoided.

     Certainly, I am trying to be sincere with all my essays. Such being the case, I would have to admit my arguments pertaining to homosexual adoption are not airtight or immune to rational attack. This is something based more on gut feelings and emotions than Socratic or Platonic reason. If my "glitch of nature" theory is incorrect and homosexuality does serve some purpose, I don't see how the reproductive-child rearing function could be high on the list. If the State is called upon to seek parents for children unfortunate enough to find themselves in such need, let it be a mommy and daddy as it was meant to be.

     And furthermore! I'm not proud to be a heterosexual and would hope we could eventually reach the point where no one is proud to be gay. These are just the whims and capricious acts of nature that have nothing to do with our talents or shortcomings. Given the suffering homosexuals have had to endure, their militance is understandable as they struggle for the acceptance they deserve. As far as I'm concerned, you've got it, but don't ask me to praise it, glorify it, or treat it as something special. It is what it is and that's it.

     Let's get on with it.

Relevant Material - Near the beginning of this essay, I suggest that gay people running the world would be just as self-serving as those who currently run the world. For those who take such a remark lightly, I recommend the novel "The Wanting Seed", by the Englishman Anthony Burgess, who is both a homosexual and genius, two categories that certainly do not preclude each other.