If You Are Using the Word "Homosexual", You Are Already Losing the Battle
Long Alternative:
If You Are Using the Word "Homosexual" (as Well as Derivatives, Positive, Negative or Other, such as "Gay" and "Fag" etc…) — by that very act — You Are Already Losing the Battle.
What battle?
A battle in the alleged war against homosexuals, or perhaps that, more general (and more real), against liberals and the left?
No.
The battle to see the truth, pure and simple, and to (warning: gay double entendre ahead) get to the bottom of things.
And it applies to whether you are pro-gay, anti-gay, or neutral; and whether you are conservative, liberal, or independent.
It sounds extreme, doesn't it?
Surely in this day and age, just about everybody would agree, the terms gay and homosexual are part and parcel of modern-day discourse, and should thus be accepted. No?
One (straight) pickup artist's approach technique involves asking a girl whether she is: a folder, a roller, or a tosser. Wondering what identity of hers he is asking about gets the conversation going (it concerns how one… packs one's clothes in one's suitcase!) — which is the whole point, needless to say. A whole conversation begins and continues forever — just as it has, on a nation-wide scale, on a worldwide scale, regarding oppressed homosexuals, oppressed African-Americans, oppressed women, oppressed individuals who pour hot coffee on their laps at McDonald's, etc etc etc…
The other day, I was telling a liberal how I was sorry, but — compared with their lot in foreign countries — blacks and the poor have perhaps not suffered as much in America as they like to think…
He immediately interrupted me: "You've never been black!"
Of course, his being a (close) member of my family, he wasn't black either and had never been so.
But that is of no matter, needless to say, because he is of the tolerant-generous-humanistic-new-agey sort and so he empathizes with minorities and wants the government to interfere on their (alleged) behalf.
Another time, I was told — by leftist Jews — that I was not a Palestinian and could not comment on the conflict because I had no idea of their suffering at the hands of Israel. (Guess what: they — obviously — weren't Palestinians either.)
The answer to all those issues is, I am a human being, and therefore I can understand (or make a decision to refuse to understand) blacks (black human beings), Palestinians (Palestinian human beings), women (female human beings), etc, etc, etc, as well as homosexuals (gay human beings)…
Wouldn't this seem to go along with Martin Luther King's "Judge them not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"?
And so we get to "homosexuals" and to "their [gays'] dignity as human beings"; "recognizing the gay and lesbian population in the United States is a contemporary civil rights issue."
No, it's not.
To put it simply:
Homosexuals do not exist.
Really. It's true. Gays, or gay people if you prefer, do not exist.
Nor do lesbians.
Never have.
It sounds radical, doesn't it? Extremist, even.
Retarded. Obtuse. Dense.
To tell the truth, it sounded so to me too a few months or so ago when the thought first popped into my head.
Actually, it is neither extremist nor dense. Nor is it hate speech or anti-gay (nor is it in any way pro-gay, for that matter).
Believe it or not, this post is in no way a moral judgment of any kind on homosexuals, nor indeed on heterosexuals, or on sex (or the lack thereof) of any kind.
It is simply a fact — a neutral, objective fact: Homosexuals do not exist.
What passes for (a) homosexual is a particular person's search for a particular pleasure — whether it is temporary or life-long. (A pleasure which, most of the time, is different from the mainstream's.)
Most people, gay or other, pro-gay or anti-gay, would probably laugh or snort if I said that homosexuals do not exist, meaning homosexuality does not exist, and they could then, f'r'instance, link to a gay sex site and ask what kind of dork says that this (pointing) does not exist?!
Are you crazy?! they (you?) would ask disbelievingly (whether you are gay, straight, leftist, rightist, or anything else). Have you never seen a gay porn video? Two gays (male or female) ought to stand right in your face and soul kiss each other, with their hands down each other's pants. Asshole!
But this entire post could have been written without once addressing gay themes, and being entirely focused on conventional (mainstream?) heterosexual (man-woman) sex.
Because heterosexuals do not exist, either.
A man's pursuit, or a woman's pursuit, of (what we might call) hedonistic pleasure — or of any pleasure at all — should not be the way we identify him, or her. Nor should his or her particular pursuit of pleasure (hedonistic or other) — i.e., homosexuality — be used to classify that person's activity.
By speaking about homosexuality, we extend it to a given person's identity as a homosexual and classify him as such, whether in positive, negative, or simply neutral terms. He or she is different. And lately, he or she deserves special privileges.
All the debate about homos is one way of elevating (what ostensibly is) a private activity, a way of seeking pleasure (perverted or other, inside the mainstream or outside), into a personal identity. As it happens, this is no more wrong than identifying "normal" people as heterosexuals, i.e., elevating "banging chicks" (for a male) into a personal identity — or even refraining from sex (for reasons valid or other) into an identity (a non-sexual?).
For centuries, for millenia, people have been primarily identified by their occupation — what they did for the benefit of their neighbor(s) and their community (soldier, farmer, worker, businessman, plumber, etc) — and not what they did for leisure, "for fun", for themselves, whether inside the home or elsewhere (certainly not in the privacy of the bedroom) — unless, of course, they were a prostitute (but in that case we would indeed also be speaking of that woman's, or of that man's, occupation).
Just as we should not be identified, primarily, with our skin color, or with our nationality, so we should not — any of us — be identified with (the amorphous and ill-defined concepts of) sexual orientation and gender identity. Or indeed, with attraction or with pleasure-seeking of any sort of all. Whether homo or hetero. Leisure, within the bedsheets or outdoors (neither are we Disneyland-goers or Six Flag park-attenders), is not our primary identity. It is not his — or her — true self. (Unless it is a person's occupation, such as a prostitute or — I am not saying they are the same — a musician or a professional baseball player.)
You might ask (indeed, you might sneer), who are you, Erik, who are you conservatives, to tell me how I am to identify myself, who am I to describe myself.
And that, whether you are gay, straight, man, woman, "African-American", white, Palestinian, Scandinavian, or other.
You may identify as you wish. Absolutely.
Just as I may not choose to identify you as other than a human being.
Indeed, isn't having all members of a country identified equally the meaning of republic? Not as part of subsets, and subgroups?
What the problem here is, is asking, requesting, the government, and the authorities, and the culture, that it, and that we all, identify you as such.
So, to the question, Why should this be of any business of mine?
The answer is: The issue is not me, us, refusing something to some minority: it is gays and their sympathizers imposing their will on us, with the backing of the government — and on the laws of the land (see bakers and photographers, not to mention the Ku Klux Klan).
The people in society we admire are no longer business leaders and warriors and those who work hard and have made a sacrifice. They are movie stars and pop musicians and Olympic athletes and transvestites. In France, a girl demands, "Je veux m'exprimer sexuellement!" I want the freedom to express myself freely — that is, express my sexuality freely (i.e., sleep around). Fine. No problem with that. But notice that all our society's freedoms and liberties and admiration have dwindled to being reserved for the field of what can generally be described as entertainment and personal pleasure-seeking.
All the modern liberal state's "progress" has been towards the field of the citizen's entertainment (who cares about foreign affairs? just pretend the foreign governments are not as bad as the "paranoids" claim) — with the epitome being the state that takes care of all citizen "needs" (health care, etc) while spending money on several levels of entertainment (making cities pedestrian-friendly, e.g., tourist-friendly, by shutting down ever more car-friendly, i.e., worker-friendly, roads) — the citizen keeping only one "freedom", the freedom to retain some level of control over what types of personal pastimes (sexual and/or other) he or she engages in.
The progressive dream is to make the nation, and indeed the entire world, a playground.
(At the same time, the fun-seekers (gay or other) can assuage any guilt they might have by their (basically effortless) joining of righteous causes — such as the battle against homophobia or racism (one in which they basically make little effort except bring up, when needed, the correct opinion, the one supporting the censors (the guilt-mongerers, nannies, authoritarians and far-Left agitators as well as the crowing, cackling, censorious battle-axes, male and female, of the third-wave feminist and social justice causes). Conversely, a great deal of the opposition, indeed the bitterness, to Bush and his Iraq War was the reluctance to have to face up to moral considerations and take money, and time, away from the various countries' respective playgrounds. Indeed, one has to wonder if the entire concept of the United Nations does not lie on the presumption that with that international talking shop in place, all nations can engage in their respective playground antics — blast demonizing broadsides at the moralizers Bush and Blair while hoping for a president who would mirror the Europeans' taste for play…)
As you can see, we have not taking a step forward — for gay rights or for rights in general — nor have we come out of the dark ages.
No. On the contrary. We have gone back in time. Two thousand years back in time.
We have gone back to the time when the Republic of Rome was transformed into the Roman Empire.
To build on the words of Benjamin Franklin, the citizens of the Republic could not keep it (their Republic).
The Empire came during a time when government took over the citizens' private pleasures, such as with the public building of immense bath houses and huge coliseums, along with free circuses, and when citizens became contented as long as they had their "bread and circuses" (not to speak of the famed Roman orgies (straight or other)), i.e., as long as their private pleasures, as their sensual pleasures, were taken care of.
We have gone back in time. Two thousand years back in time.
