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.

Take it for what it's worth

I'm quitting my job and moving on to newer pastures.

What does that phrase even mean? "Newer pastures"...it sounds too much like "greener pastures," that much-too-pleasant euphemism for death. (I'm not even going to consider the utter creepiness of "bought the farm.")

Maybe I'm being lazy. It's not that much work; the money is helpful; my co-workers are great. The managers are demeaning and incompetent and altogether mean-spirited, to customers and employees. But that's not enough to get me to leave, is it? I've worried on more than one occasion that I'm compromising my principles by remaining at a job where I'm disrespected by my bosses on a regular basis, often even when I'm doing my job properly. I've experienced a lot of inner turmoil about this whole deal; a lot more than is due, I'm sure, considering how insignificant my "occupation" really is, in the long run.

But I've felt it: that sense of "What the fuck am I doing here?" that goes beyond the money and the camaraderie. I think maybe everyone feels it, wherever they are, from the poorest rural village to the high-rise executive suites in Manhattan. It's a disturbing question: Why do I do what I do? Why bother?

And I guess I've learned it - which is why I'm leaving now, so suddenly, after 1.5 years working for the same wretched company. What's the point of it? is what I've always had to ask. And I know: None of the little trimmings that they attach like so much tinsel, none of the luncheons or group pow-wows (oh, Christ, definitely not those), not any of that sense of duty to your "district" or the higher-ups, or to the "labor movement," whose protection I never saw but who I'm sure saw my regular dues. It was the work. When I cut out the rest of it, scraped away all the mud and crap they'd heaped onto the whole experience to hide its core, I found that what was underneath was just work: doing something. Or, as John Locke put it, mixing your labor with the land, in whatever way. It was the knowledge that I was changing something, making it briefly mine, and then trading that for money. The money isn't what is important, though it's a crucial part of the process; it's the end-result of the entire deal, at the root of which is work. And we always work, don't we? For all of our lives. People gripe about it and hate it and try to make it bearable. But I love it, and I don't think that's abnormal. I love work. I love the doing of it, the basic necessity of it. It's cold and hard, and also warm and organic, because every living thing does it, from an amoeba to a human. It's universal, wherever you find life. Work connects us, as long as we're connected to our work - as long as we don't distract ourselves with the tinsel and the trimmings, hiding that which makes it all worth it. Honest work: I never knew what they meant by that until today.

So, I'm leaving. This is my goodbye to all of the friends I made, and probably won't see again. I've learned all I could learn, and it's time for me to go. I can't stand the trimmings, though I know I'll see them again in other forms wherever I go. That's alright - I can handle it. But it's time to grow. Newer pastures aren't necessarily always greener; but the seasons change, and so do I.

But work, and the love of it, never do.

Republicans: Still confused by Separation of Church and State

'Cause it's apparently that unbelievable.

Christine O'Donnell, Republican candidate for the office of senator in Delaware, asked in a debate with her opponent Chris Coons yesterday: "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"

Audience-members justly responded with a collective "WTF?" and even some laughter; her opponent, Coons, was also right in pointing to the 1st Amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This would pretty clearly answer the question, but it seems that O'Donnell was still having trouble: "That's in the First Amendment?" She had to actually interrupt Coons several times, during a moderated debate, in order to have him repeat his answer to her.

Coons himself is not a saint, as he later forgot that free speech is also protected by the First Amendment, something O'Donnell gleefully caught him on. In fact, the Republicans seem to be running with Coons' slip-up, trying to reverse this whole thing in O'Donnell's favor.

Michelle Malkin, for instance: "It's obvious that Coons is not only unfamiliar with the rest of the First Amendment, but also that he is wholly unfamiliar with where the phrase 'separation of church and state' originated." Notice the sleight of hand here? Malkin has moved from talking of principles to talking of semantics. "Separation of Church and State" was certainly never there, word-for-word, in the Constitution; rather, it is a rational interpretation of the 1st Amendment. What else could "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" mean? Conservatives like Michelle Malkin and Christine O'Donnell will readily defend an interpretation of the 1st Amendment which protects bloggers from government censorship, even though blogging, the Internet, or even writing (note: freedom of speech) are never mentioned explicitly in the text of that amendment; yet they can't understand the extension of the Establishment Clause which secularizes the American government. Anyone noticing a double standard here? Whatever benefits conservatives politically is apparently the "truth" now.

Similarly, conservatives are raising hell about the fact that Obama has repeatedly left out the phrase "endowed by their Creator" when quoting from the Declaration of Independence. (Ironically, they didn't seem to care so much when Rush Limbaugh mixed up the Constitution and the Declaration entirely at last year's CPAC, but we'll just let that slide, shall we?) A Mr. Doug Powers on Michelle Malkin's blog sneered: "Can Obama's handlers at least put 'enabled by our teleprompter' where 'endowed by our creator' should be? It would be a small step in the right direction and sound a lot better than the 'endowed by government' conclusion that casual observers [read: ignorant rubes like Doug Powers] might draw from the continual 'creator' omissions."

It's true that Obama's made a huge gaffe here by forgetting a crucial part of the Declaration - but conservatives are screwing up even worse by showing an incredible lack of understanding of the very idea of rights which the Founding Fathers had in mind (Thomas Jefferson specifically) when they were designing the system of the American government. Is there really a dichotomy between God-given rights and government-given rights? Is humanity given rights by a divine act or a state act - nothing in between? That's what conservatives are suggesting: either we include "Creator" or we leave the door open for abject communism. But where did Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration, think rights came from? Certainly not from God, but from nature. John Locke, whose ideas were heavily influential on Jefferson (he's where the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes from, though he originally used "property" instead of "happiness"), believed in God, but also said that it is man's nature qua man which determines his rights.

He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. (Second Treatise on Civil Government)

This has nothing to do with God, though Locke was a fervent advocate of Christianity. Rather, this is a description of the natural process of the acquisition of property. One doesn't need to think that a divine power granted us rights in order to defend human rights; in fact, Occam's Razor demands that we toss out the very idea of God-given rights, because God is entirely superfluous to the process which Locke describes above. Man obtains that which nature has provided, mixes his labor with it, and thereby makes it his - all of this occurs without the intervention of the supernatural.

When will Republicans learn that the only way to defend individual rights is by following Locke's and Jefferson's examples? It seems that the one Founding Father conservatives idolize the most is the one they simultaneously ignore the most. After all, it was Jefferson who asserted: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God: because, if there be one, he must approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Diversity is dead, says Nazi

Just kidding, guys.

But, seriously now: Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany (totally not a Nazi, but who knows, right?) has announced that the state policy of multikulti, which is apparently a real word in German, has failed. She said Tuesday that "We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don't accept them don't have a place here." Now, maybe what she actually meant to say was something like, "I think it's important we tolerate dissident opinions in order to foster an atmosphere of acceptance and peaceful progress," but I sort of doubt it.

That said, Merkel actually has a point, despite her uber-Christian proselytizing.

"Subsidizing immigrants" isn't sufficient, Germany has the right to "make demands" on them, she added, such as mastering the language of Goethe and abandoning practices such as forced marriages.

Diversity is fundamentally different from multiculturalism, a fact most of my liberal brothas and sistahs can't figure out. "Diversity" is merely the existence of differing phenomena, qualities, etc. It can be good or bad. Multiculturalism is always evil, as it implies some kind of equality between all cultures - as if the African tribal custom of mutilating little girls is even comparable to the opportunities young women have in the West. It seems as if Merkel is advocating a sort of switch from unmoderated multikulti to qualified diversity, i.e. diversity not for its own sake, but diversity wherein different opinions and cultures are valued, so long as they are capable of contributing positively to the growth of society as a whole. And a culture which represses individuals or prevents communication between groups benefits no one - not even those who supposedly "control" that culture.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air put it best:

The issue isn't the practice of religion but the rule of law. Germans do not allow forced marriages or other aspects of religious life more common in Islamic countries. The multikulti policy turned a blind eye to those practices when contained within those communities, but Merkel is through with that kind of official tolerance. The practice of free worship shouldn't mean replacing civil law with religious law, a policy that Europe finally adopted about three centuries ago in a different context.

So, maybe Merkel just sucks with words; or maybe she's actually ignorant enough to think that Christianity and objective, secular, civil law are equivalent. Whatever the case, she seems to be right when you get to the heart of the matter. Maybe just a crappy wordsmith.