Thursday, March 28, 2013

Gay is the New Black?

Activists for homosexual rights would have us believe that sexual orientation is a human trait just like skin color, and just as it is irrational, vile discrimination to deny one equal treatment under the law on the basis of skin color, it is wrong to deny such treatment to someone because of sexual orientation.  Or, gay is the new black, in other words.  Just as blacks were unfairly discriminated against by laws designed to maintain white supremacy, so gays are now, mainly by marriage laws presumably designed to maintain heterosexist supremacy, and in both instances the discrimination was not unfair and unjust but irrational as well.  Therefore, the fight for gay rights is in principle the same as the fight for racial equality.  

Let's look at the implications of this analogy.  The premise of racial equality is that the main difference between whites and blacks, skin color, is nugatory and, therefore, cannot justify any discrimination between the two. For the parallel with the fight for racial equality to hold, the gay rights activists are forced to argue that the main difference between straights and gays is as insignificant as skin color. The main difference is that the former desires sexual intercourse and the latter desires mutual masturbation, and to say that this difference is trivial is to ignore the unavoidable fact that the endurance of any human society has depended and still depends quite literally upon the desire for sexual intercourse whereas the appetite for mutual masturbation has never and will never be necessary for anything but the ephemeral gratification of sexual hedonists. The actions of straights have obvious societal value, those of gays do not, and to say that the desire for the procreative act does not matter is to say that the endurance of humanity does not matter.  If the endurance of humanity does not matter, then why do human rights?

And, no, I am not saying that what is called "marriage equality" will make people stop reproducing.  The desire to do the procreative act will surely continue with or without gay "marriage", but a society that says that this desire can be no more significant than the desire for an intrinsically sterile act of fleeting sexual pleasure can only be described as very stupid indeed.  That may sound harsh, but when confronted with such blatant imbecility, charity usually goes out the window.  

A particular version of this analogy with racial equality is what I have dubbed the anti-miscegenation parallel.  This  analogy is used all the time by proponents of  "marriage equality" and it has the imprimatur of at least two judicial decisions in favor of same-sex "marriage".  Just as it was wrong for the law to limit marriage to couples of the same race, so too is it wrong to limit marriage to heterosexuals.  So, if you oppose same-sex "marriage", you are as much a bigot as one who opposed interracial marriage.  The analogy is obviously intended to get people to say, "Well, gee, I don't want to be like those  hateful racist bigots who wear those pointy white hoods.  So, okay, I am for gay 'marriage' then."  

The anti-miscegenation parallel is a masterpiece of rhetorical bullying, but as an analogy it is completely bogus.  The question about interracial marriage is entirely different from the debate over gay "marriage".   No one, not even the proponents of the anti-miscegenation laws, doubted that interracial marriage was possible.  In fact, its very possibility is what motivated White Supremacists to outlaw it, lest interracial coupling ruin their fantasy of racial purity.  Interracial marriages were criminalized for the explicit purpose of keeping the races apart.  Criminalization of something necessarily entails the recognition of that something.  For instance, the law in most states still criminalizes the possession of marijuana, but these laws would be wholly absurd (even more than they already are, but that's another story) if the law did not recognize the existence of marijuana.  The law does not prohibit, say, the killing of unicorns because it does not recognize unicorns as animals that can be killed. 

The debate over same-sex "marriage" is over whether such a thing should be recognized as marriage at all.  When the popular media speak of "bans" on gay "marriage", they simply lie.  No gay couple will be thrown in jail or suffer any other legal penalty for saying they are "married".  The states that are said to "ban" gay "marriage" simply do not give their marital claims legal recognition.  To say that the non-recognition of same-sex "marriage" is like the criminalization of interracial marriage is to say that there is such a thing as same-sex "marriage" but that the law (in most states) does indeed recognize it insofar as it forbids it.  This not only begs the question of the whole debate but displays an ignorance of what legal non-recognition means.  

Furthermore, the intent behind the non-recognition of same-sex "marriage", were the anti-miscegenation parallel to hold, would have to be to keep people who are of the same sex in wholly separate categories, and that is so nonsensical that it ranks with Chomsky's “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”  The anti-miscegenation parallel is false tout court. 

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

So, let me see if I get this.  Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic.  It's innate, genetic.  You are born this way or that.  But whether you are a man or a woman depends not upon biology but on socially constructed gender rĂ´les.  So, what sex attracts you is biologically determined, but what sex you are is simply an invention.  How the deuce does that work?

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Old Joke, New Name

The Conclave, which will convene this Tuesday, does not have to elect a Cardinal as Pope.  It can choose any man over the age of majority.  He does not even have to be a priest.  Now, of course, if a man who is not a Cardinal or a priest were elected to the Papacy, he would then be ordained a priest, then a Bishop, and made a Cardinal.  The point is that the man does not have to be any of these things already to be elected Pope.  So, that means any layman can be chosen as Pope, including, say, Andrew Sullivan.

But Sullivan would, I think, decline the Papacy if offered to him.  He prefers to remain infallible.

Friday, March 8, 2013


I am still dumfounded that people actually think me as vile as a racist or an anti-Semite because I refuse to acknowledge that homosexual relationships are as important to the commonweal as are relationships between men and women.  The proposition that homosexuality is as valuable as heterosexuality is insanity, and if you don't accept this insanity, you are an irrational bigot who should be excommunicated from civilized society.  Well, fine, civilized society can bugger off.  Literally.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Confessions at the Catholic Student Center at Washington University

Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned.  It's been five weeks since my last confession.  Since that time I committed the sin of heterosexism.  I was in a bar and saw a pretty young woman.  I asked her if I could buy her a drink.  She glowered at me and said that she was a Lesbian.  I am so sorry for my heterosexist assumptions.