In the dream, the windows are black, the walls, ceiling and floor are mirrors, and in the intolerably bright light I must close my eyes. I am being addressed by the gay community that speaks in a confident, single voice: "We know you think you mean well, but you are living in self deception, you are living in self deception . . . ." When I awake, I must begin the article you are now reading.
l. The Anatomy of Intolerance
The orgasm. Those seconds of pleasure around which so much of human activity revolves -- and so much is written; that make worlds spin on axes bold as love.
No matter how different we may profess to be from one another, in matters of class, creed, intelligence, and sexual practice, we all love orgasm: it's the great leveller.
In orgasm there is no identity, no sexual orientation, no other above or below us, no methods or means. There is only stupendous arrival in the infinitely enduring present indicative, where time is obliterated, and the self is a self contained universe of one person.
During orgasm, the heterosexual, homosexual, onanist, bestialist all meet on the same plane of pure pleasure. According to medical science, in love, hate or indifference, all orgasms are physiologically identical: just as we all expire in the same manner when our hearts stop beating.
So what is meant by sexual orientation if the orgasmic state doesn't recognize it? It must refer to the means (the how, with whom, with what) one employs to achieve orgasm. Which means the homophobe condones it when it's done with the opposite sex, or, notwithstanding religious proscription, by his own device; but between members of the same sex: strictly 'verboten'. So while he may denounce the means for reasons consistent with prejudice, the homophobe cannot object to the homosexual's orgasm because it's identical to his own.
We also know that the homophobe cannot object to loving and caring relationship between members of the same sex because he, himself, is always in such a relationship, be it with a father, a son, or brother, or best friend. If loving/caring relationships constitute some of the necessary conditions conducive to societies functioning in orderly fashion, homophobes must approve of the ethos that encourage such relationships. Studies have shown that people who are in loving/caring relationships are likely to be more productive, healthier, and happier than people who are not. The more loving/caring relationships that exist in a society, the better off (economically, and psychologically) that society will be. So the homophobe, whether he knows it or not, approves of homosexual relationships because he approves of loving/caring relationships that have a net positive effect on society.
But we know that in practice he objects because members of the same sex who are in loving/caring relationships are also sexually attracted to each other. He doesn't experience the attraction, and doesn't witness it (unless he's a peeping Tom). He simply knows about it, the idea of it -- and is turned off. So prior to anything the homophobe may come to learn about how he truly feels about homosexuality, an externally imposed category of understanding has already determined his response -- his homophobia.
When asked what exactly turns him off about sexual attraction between members of the same sex, the homophobe, now waxing philosophical, argues that it violates the laws of nature. He will then quote Preston Manning, or his favorite TV evangelist, or make his point with calculated reference to the strictly heterosexual mating habits of the mallard duck. But he can't explain why nature allows that perhaps 5 out of every 100 Homo Sapiens are homosexual, or why 250 million earthlings (hardly an insignificant population group) of the same sex are attracted to each other.
It has been said that .00025% of sexual encounters result in pregnancy. Of these, the ubiquitous practice of abortion ensures than even fewer result in procreation. So if sex only very very occasionally serves procreation, what is its purpose if not for 'pleasure and bonding?' That humans are doubtlessly as psychological as they are physical, it follows that sexual activity and pair-bonding are significantly, if not seamlessly intertwined. Therefor, if the homophobe approves of loving/caring relationships between members of the same sex, and cannot deny them their orgasms which are identical to his own, he must approve of the conduct (the sexual activity) that encourages this pair-bonding, in order to best ensure the orderly society he desires.
2. For Whom Do the Bells of Irony Toll?
What is at once remarkable and paradoxical about the homophobe is that he really isn't homophobic -- an understanding he continuously belies by his behavior and/or utterances. In order to make manifest his homophobia, he must fight against what logic and reason have declared to be self-evident. To achieve the necessary intolerance quotient (IQ) that allows him to feel well situated and accomplished vis à vis popular opinion or a peer group, the homophobe must suborn, undermine, diminish, demean, and insult his own intelligence. Catastrophically in thrall to the contortions of his own logic, he will argue that he would rather have as a neighbor a thieving, dishonest, violent heterosexual than a virtuous homosexual. All of which begs the question(s): how did the homophobe become so radically detached from his critical faculties? How is it that the categories of intolerance, out of which all his narrow judgments issue (in direct affront to reason and decency) have so easily been able to claim him -- and his ilk?
3. The Tyranny of Numbers
If, up until now, I have been advertising myself as a thoughtful, politically correct liberal, manifestly tolerant and sympathetic toward homosexuality by systematically exposing the discombobulating illogic of homophobia, it follows that I should be equally disposed to both practices. But I am not. Upon examining my most private feelings, I must confess that I would rather be heterosexual than homosexual, and would want the same for my children, even though I have just proved (if only to myself) that the preference is irrational, that both Nature and God demonstrably allow for homosexuality, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Therefor, if homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally fulfilling physically and psychologically as life experiences, why the preference? And is the preference a prejudice?
The reason I would rather be straight than gay is because heterosexuality is normal, if what we mean by normal is that most people practice it. Which means that even in a perfect world, where homophobia has been vanquished, I would still rather be straight than gay.
Yes, I know what you are all thinking. By any measure, a disappointing, if not pathetic conclusion to an argument that betrays a perhaps well-intentioned thinker, but one who hasn't thought sufficiently, or, when the going gets rough, (predictably) allows gut feeling to over-rule principle.
Assuming the worst as fact, I can only suggest that there is a biological imperative at work that, regardless of sexual orientation, compels us (often against our better judgment) to be, or feel comfortable doing what is considered 'normal', which is always numerically quantified by the ways and means of the majority. That there is no necessary correlation between what is normal and what is reasonable or logical is what makes the argument pathetic. In the 1840's, in the USA, it was customary (normal), but not reasonable to lynch Afro-Americans who were caught stealing.
Notwithstanding normality's relative numerical authority, whatever it is that exerts pressure on 'all of us' to conform -- be it in the way we dress, the expressions we use in our speech, the courtesies we perform, the traditions we follow or the rituals we observe -- more often than not flies in the face of reason. I will go so far to argue that every single Homo Sapiens is to a greater or lesser extent vulnerable to those exertions that insidiously coerce us to conform to standards of behavior that are uncritically accepted as 'normal'. To wit: no matter how convinced I become that being born with a sixth finger will benefit me immensely as a baseball pitcher, or as a performer of contrapuntal music, I would not want to be born with a sixth finger because it's not normal. Which is to say, if most people were homosexual, I would probably wish to be gay.
To admit that the tyranny of numbers can hold such sway over an arguably reasonable person like myself is discouraging. If, over the years, I have come to regard myself as an ambassador of my ideas and values, I certainly don't like the 'me', or the back of my head I see reflected in the mirror.
When Gore Vidal coined the term the "heterosexual dictatorship," he was referring to a membership that derives its essence from categories of intolerance that numbers, and not reason, justify. Taking the numbers argument to its logical terminus, I would have to concede that if I were a young, impressionable youth in Nazi Germany, depending on what 'the majority' of my school chums were doing, I might have signed up for holocaust duty; and while I would like to think myself categorically incapable of it, the inner workings of my conflicted mind suggest otherwise.
All this being said, is it enough to know that, in the absence of correct thinking, when push comes to shove, I will be capable of 'doing the right thing?' With the hope that one day I'll discover a more enlightened self when I look into the mirror? I leave that judgment call to my betters.
But until that day arrives, (if ever), I must stand by my illogical, stated preference: if I had a son, I would rather he be heterosexual than homosexual.
This is my confession.
THE END