Gays get it wrong: queerness as triumph, not disability

Interestingly, the children of hoppin'-mad homophobes often turn out to be homosexuals themselves. Perhaps this is just based on anecdotal evidence, and maybe I'm unconsciously leaving out the loads of kids who are raised by 'phobes and never develop same-sex attraction on a noticeable level, but it's a fascinating possibility to turn over in your head, no?

On that note, it appears that more anecdotal evidence of the above has emerged: Isaac Katz, son of Wash-U physics prof and self-professed "proud homophobe" Jonathan Katz, has just come out of the closet. His father denounced gays in the wake of an on-campus student protest against the prohibition on gay blood donors, saying:

In order to satisfy their demand for full acceptance by society, the homosexual movement demands to kill some transfusion recipients by infecting them with AIDS, or to kill patients who need transfusions by making it impossible for blood banks to collect blood.

Being nothing but a pseudo-logical argument which one would expect more from Ann Coulter than from an certified (and apparently certifiable) physics professor, it's pretty clear how much of this is bunk (i.e. all of it). I need not mention at great length the fact that blood can and should be tested for diseases prior to being given to patients, regardless of whom it comes from. The main point of this post is not to debunk each conspiracy theory on the 'homosexual agenda', but to critique the majority of gay defenses against these 'phobic attacks.

Isaac Katz has denounced his father in the typical neo-liberal fashion: saying nothing of substance but with much emotional panache.

I can't change my dad's thoughts about homosexuality overnight. Underlying his opinions and those of other homophobes is the belief that homosexuality is not ingrained within gay men and women, that someone attracted to people of the same sex should simply choose not to be a "practicing homosexual." That this idea is absurd should be obvious to all straight people, unless they can identify a time in their lives when they chose to be straight and not gay, and would gladly become intimate with a same-sex partner if only they chose to.

But this is directly contrary to what many homophobes, including Jonathan Katz, have said:

What of those cursed with unnatural sexual desires? Must they forever suppress these desires? Yes, but this is hardly a unique fate. Almost everyone has desires which must be suppressed. Most men and women think adulterous thoughts fairly often, and find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. Morality requires them to suppress these desires, and most do not commit adultery, though they feel lust in their hearts. Almost everyone, at one time or another, covets another's property. They do not steal. many people feel great anger or intense hatred at some time in their lives. They do not kill.

So, it has nothing to do with choice of desire, but choice of action. According to Katz, the sin is not in the feeling, but in acting based upon it. And he has a point: this idea promoted by gays and their straight allies that the very experience of same-sex attraction necessitates 'homosexual behavior' (to speak in Katz's parlance) is unfounded in logic. The fact of a desire does not indicate an automatic and unquestionable duty. One may have a desire to smoke a cigarette, but there is a time and a place for smoking, and it's definitely not in the Operating Room during an open-heart surgery. On the other hand, ignoring one's desires simply because they are contrary to 'society's interests' is harmful to both the individual and society. The only way to understand if a desire is proper is to examine its roots - why do you want this thing, and is it bad (e.g. harmful) to have it?

The problem with Jonathan Katz's arguments is easy enough to identify and debunk: he conflates homosexuality with the spread of AIDS, as if it is impossible to have man-on-man sex without transmitting or contracting HIV/AIDS. Also, his arguments tend to be religious in nature; he denounces those who demand secular reasoning to justify his homophobia. (Is anyone still comfortable with him being a professor of physics at Washington University?)

If you are a rationalist, you ask for logical explanation [of homophobia], beyond the word of the Bible, and beyond the revulsion which most people feel. Why have most cultures adopted this attitude? The rationalist does not accept any book as the word of God, but regards it as the embodiment of traditional wisdom. He cannot reject it out of hand; he must ask why traditional wisdom came to this conclusion.

So Dr. Katz believes that, rather than defending their positions like logical, adult human beings, it is those who question the homophobes' emotionalism ("the revulsion which most people feel"), evangelism ("the word of God"), and traditionalism ("traditional wisdom"), who must strive to work through the pseudo-logical mush for some semblance of reason. But, of course, reason is not a big priority for Dr. Katz: he has made up his mind based on religious dogma, not logic. But he knows that "Simon says" won't convince the non-religious, so he tries to rationalize his fundamentally irrational beliefs - and then accuses the 'rationalists' of being unreasonable for not trying to 'understand' him. The truth is, there's nothing to understand. He's just crazy.

The larger issue here is with Isaac Katz, and people who think like him. What is wrong with homophobia? According to them, it is that being 'gay' isn't a choice. But plenty of homophobes, including Dr. Katz, agree with that position! All that Isaac Katz is doing is feeding into the homophobic paradigm by pleading "It's not my fault!" The gay community has heard the criticism of the uber-religious, the conservative, the 'family values' folks, who say, "Being gay is a disease! It destroys society!" - and responded with the clarion declaration: "We know! But it's not our faults!" How many times have you heard, "Of course being gay isn't a choice - who would choose to be gay?" Though this is often intended to imply that being a homosexual brings discrimination and hate and shame, because of society's twisted standards, it is indicative of the general position of the pro-homosexual movement: finding pride in shame.

Perhaps being homosexual is not a choice; perhaps there is an element of choice to it; perhaps it is entirely biological; or perhaps psychology plays a part. Nobody truly knows, and to make an argument one way or the other right now is just indefensibly irresponsible. But let's assume that there is no choice involved in being a homosexual. Does this mean that we must automatically accept homosexuality as normal, moral, and socially acceptable? I doubt that pedophiles 'choose' to be attracted to children; nor, to my knowledge, has there been much success in 'reforming' them, in 'normalizing' their sexuality. Yet we still lock them up when they act on their desires; we still express disgust towards the phenomena of pedophilia and pederasty. Pedophiles, considered rather commonplace and regarded as entirely tolerable in ancient Greece, are one of the last minority groups which are still legally discriminated against. Is this wrong? Well, if pedophilia is not a chosen sexual orientation, then we cannot rightly deride pedophiles as being 'wicked' or 'evil'. After all, that which is not within one's control is not within the realm of morality. But a lack of choice of desire is not the same as a lack of choice of behavior - a pedophile can choose not to engage in pedophilic acts, and we prefer it when he does so. We don't encourage him to 'express himself'; we even set up laws against such expression, saying, "It's totally fine if you feel that way, but don't ever go near a child with sexual intentions."

Compare this to homosexuality: saying that it's not a choice to feel same-sex desire is not a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card; it vindicates the feeling, not the expression of it. Yet this argument remains the mainstream defense of homosexuality; it is, in fact, the coward's way out. Whenever a conservative manages an act of logic and makes a connection between homosexuals' "We didn't choose this!" screed and pedophiles' pleads, the gay community and its proponents shut him down, denouncing him for drawing links between homosexuality and pedophilia. But that's not the point; it never was.

Here's the long and short of it: I don't give a fuck how queerness (i.e. LGBTQ+whatever tendencies/proclivities/inclinations/identifications) comes about; it really doesn't matter, and looking for the root cause as a means of defending it is a sign of immaturity and shame. Queers' vindication comes from being peaceful yet rebellious, not from being afflicted with some pitiful ailment. We embody that old American ideal of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and we violate no one else's rights while doing it. We refuse to be shoved into boxes, but we're not about to shove 'regular Americans' into one, either. In fact, we advocate the abolition of boxes altogether - consider everything, every possibility, whether sexual, gender-related, spiritual, philosophical, whatever. Don't be constrained by culture, region, religion, ethnicity, race, sex, etc. Freedom is our creed, and free minds and self-owned bodies are our tools - and free thought and open expression are our religion. Reason is the only authority, and the homophobes have provided none - so we don't really give a shit about them.

Isacc Katz is dead wrong - being queer (or 'gay') is not something to defend as some kind of pathetic compulsion. It is a triumph of the spirit, a mindset which seeks to liberate people from suffocating social constraints, while cultivating a culture of openness. The difference between pedophilia and queerness is that queers don't harm their lovers - they violate no rights, they are consenting adults, they are thinking people. A predator seeks to stifle, a queer seeks to grow and help others to grow. I don't really care why, psychologically or physiologically, I prefer men - all I care is that masculinity and masculine values bring me happiness, for philosophical reasons; that there is nothing about my desires which hurts me or others; and that I am open to the possibility of 'branching out', of exploring, and of discovering new and exciting passions. And that is something neither the homophobes, nor men like Isaac Katz, can destroy. I'm here, I'm queer, and I'm gonna screw dudes, if you're okay with that - and even if you're not.