Continued from Part 5.
People Were Always
People were always "gay." People were always LGBT. Since the beginning of time, and everyone knows it. You know how the American Republican Party base never seems shocked when one of its white Christian scion-patriarchs is caught having an affair and/or fondling male escorts? Seems inexplicable, right? Those hypocrites! Right?
Not really. It's not really news. What was motivating those people all along was not actual prudishness, but the appearance thereof. The sin of modern homosexuals, to these people, is not in being homosexual; it's in being flamboyant about it.
Forget about pop culture for a little bit. Forget about Senators, Representatives, and media talking heads. Think about the actual masses--the actual people, out there--who tacitly consent to anti-homosexual agendas. Think about people who are in many other aspects decent: they work hard, they love their families, they suffer, they feel, and all that stuff. And yet, they get angry at gay stuff. Those people.
Now, read Tim's story in Part 4. Were Tim's grandparents mad because they disapproved of heterosexuality? Because they didn't understand, or believe in, sexual desires? No; they were mad because Tim was being rude at the dinner table.
Maybe, though, you don't mind discussing lust and/or sex at the dinner table. Fine, then Tim's grandparents were being too prudish and strict. What they weren't being, though, was anti-heterosexual. They weren't being bigoted. That's a wonderful thing to know, because if you're gay, and Tim's grandparents are the typical conservative older couple who disapproves of "gay political agenda _________," it means that Tim's grandparents aren't actually against you (or "gay marriage") because of the "gay" in it all. They are not afraid of the ickiness, anymore than they're afraid of the ickiness of Tim being attracted to a cheerleader. They just feel that you shouldn't talk about sex that way.
Pretending that Tim's grandparents are some kind of religious cultists who have adopted an irrational hatred of gays because of repressed sexuality is an error, and a condescending one. Tim's grandparents grew up knowing that gay people were out there, working and living with them, and being aware of them in popular culture. All the "revisionist" gay history of now was known to Tim's grandparents (or their real-world counterparts) in real-time. It just wasn't something for them to make a big deal about. They had gay bosses, friends, neighbors, etc., and it wasn't a problem. Putting it another way, they didn't give a shit.
When it became a problem to these people is when, in order to spur social drama, faux-grassroot gay "movements" began trying to popularize public displays of affection. "But," you say, "that is an anti-gay agenda, because hetero PDAs are everywhere and no one cares."
Actually, the same types of yahoos do care. By and large, the 21st century whiners about the human sex drive overlap with the 21st century whiners about--surprise, surprise--the homosexual aspects of said drive. The dummies who sit around fretting that Junior might see a pair of hetero teenagers pretending to grope thighs in a high-school TV drama are the same ones who contemplate the absolute immorality of homosexual longing. Similar to the case of anti-immigration sentiment discussed in Part 1, the conclusion that there is a specifically anti-homosexual ick factor is erroneous. It is an elite-manufactured illusion that segregates the outlooks of commoners. Ergo commoners dissatisfied with elite planetary administration are advised to overcome the illusion and come together.
Finding Real-People Problems With Homosexuals
As with "racism," we overcome false bias by understanding real bias. We understand real bias by understanding two things: firstly, the failure of conventional explanations (the stock media "isms") to explain the behavior that upsets us, and secondly, the genuine world-situational problems that cause some real people to actually host a bias--understandable reasons why a group might be discriminated against. As in race, we use "understandable" not because a bias resulting from situational anger is a proper action, but because a bias resulting from situational anger is tangible. It can be understood, forgiven, and fixed.
That, again, is a great thing. A realistic, legitimate, fixable bias is a monster that can be slain, as opposed to the phantasmagorical, "weirdos who are afraid of gays because they think it is so totally gross," or, "dumbasses who are afraid of gays because the invisible cloud man told them so." There are some elements of truth in the latter rationalizations, but only about a couple percentiles' worth. Moreover, the latter explanations for anti-homosexual bigotry derive from the comprehensive reasons we'll review later. The prudish stupidity of anti-homosexual bigots is, like the monk's wet dream, their unintelligent way of expressing symptoms of the real, internal reasons that they have for their outlook.
Social condemnation of "the rogue" helps us understand social condemnation of gays. Who is the Rogue? The Rogue is the bane of family groups: he is a traveling, unsettled, dangerous male; a pre-modern rover and pre-industrial playboy; a seducer and villain; an inseminator and runner-away-er. More specifically, the Rogue is a man who, instead of settling into a community, roves between communities living life for himself, and occasionally getting someone's daughter pregnant, or convincing her to run away with him, without getting married. Later in history, the Rogue is the Playboy who, while he may be settled in the same community as his victims, charms girls with money and dazzles them with promises, in order to swive them without marrying them.
It seems silly, now, to look upon dashing, sexy, laughable highwaymen and Astor-era socialites--"Rogues"--as being subjects of actual anger or hatred. Summon to mind, though, all of the nasty things you feel about "deadbeat dads" and "date rapists." Conjure up the image of a pregnant 15-year-old crying and drowning themselves in the village well because that man with a carriage, who claimed to be a traveling merchant, told her that he loved her, and would take her away to his estate in Spain and marry her (before he left). It's not really that funny if you live through it. As we covered in Safety Zones, a substantial portion of the "oppressive patriarchy" that American feminists rail against is the only way that mothers (and fathers) had available to protect their children from ending up as Rogues or discarded single mothers who are shunned into prostitution and early death. Decent people told their sons not to be rogues--not to bed girls without intending to marry them--and they told their daughters not to be seduced by rogues, but to hold out for marriage. This was, ironically, primarily a female role. While fathers may have headed a household, they tended to be away laboring. Mothers were the ones who slapped and screamed at daughters about being "modest" and not running away to "elope" with liars who would fuck and then discard them.
In Jane Austen's writings, we see a milder, more genteel version of this; indeed, the ferreting process of ensuring that a nice-seeming man is not a Rogue is what adds the periodic, pedantic spice to the stilted romance--and the happy marriage at the end is not about God, but about the blissful relief of the larger community taking note of a man's promise to support the person he wants to fuck.
On The Enlightenment of Punishing Rogues
(Again ironically,) The attempt to control (1) where children lived, (2) what friends they had, (3) what they wore, and (4) who they fucked is an understandable holdover from times when States did not always force fiscal responsibility on Rogues. Modern States now require Rogues to kick in a few bucks to their offspring, which the States herald as enlightened. However, how enlightened are those policies, truly? Under "the old system," there were no child support payments, but a Rogue who got caught would be either killed, or forced into marriage--i.e., a powerful deterrent and lifelong economic support, instead of a few years of giving up some of the paycheck.
To be certain, a mutant form of familial control has been thoroughly abused in post-industrial times, where older forms of these behaviors were no longer an appropriate response to a bad system. Parents who retained a cultural memory of "controlling children" failed to adapt to the disempowering of families and communities, and the resulting empowering of States. Protective fathers then became overprotective fathers--comical or tyrannical idiots impotently trying to impose outdated Victorian mores of control on the children they coveted, but without any tangible power over an eighteen-year-old.
The 18-year-old Rogue, provided he can keep his contact information secret and vanish quickly enough, is well-served by this State regime. Under the Prison/Discipline State, he can escape among the faceless masses after he's gotten his sex. Like all prison states, petty crime thrives: lacking the protective community that knows her and her social circle, the woman is left cast off, forced to rush home to her family with neither marriage nor child support payments. Feeling stupid for her lack of ability to independently internalize what took the Victorians centuries of practice to foist upon children, the single mother may blame herself--like the modern laborer laid off by bankers--and send the rest of her life into a spiral of waste and anger. At current levels of technology, the Discipline State can protect women from stupid Rogues, who give their real contact information and wait around for DNA tests, but not clever ones, who use the heat of the moment to get what they want and flee.
Similarly, the Discipline State provides a great service to clever women: it allows them to independently (without family or community) prosecute Rogues. For less intelligent, less educated women, though, the Discipline State leaves them with nothing. In this, the modern state continued the early state's practice of taking power away from individuals, families, and communities, and vesting it in impersonal authorities who could be horrifyingly efficient on behalf of the powerful, and demonically faceless on behalf of the weak. No real surprises there, if you're following the rest of the world.
But, we were talking about anti-homosexual bigotry in the 20th and 21st centuries, right? So we're off topic talking about all this Jane Austen/single mother stuff, right? Not so: the disapproval of the Rogue is about 50% of the source of justified (but still unfair! but unfair! justified but unfair! don't get mad yet!) disapproval of homosexuality.
Hating the Rogue: Drain On Society
Why was the Rogue hated? Because he was a drain on society: the Rogue took advantage of the community. He pretended to be an eligible bachelor courting women, while actually only intending to swive them and move onto a new population. The Rogue was a parasite; a leech; a drainer of resources who was (rather justifiably in some cases) murdered by the communities he preyed upon once he had "ruined" a few of the local girls by leaving them and their families/communities to spend the next twenty years caring for his offspring.
(While we're on the subject, modern "marriage" is an indescribably stupid holdover, tantamount to the protective father beating his daughter for showing too much liberation of mind; yet, in other times, marriage was one of the best standard contractual arrangements for guarding against the ruination of lives by unsecured pregnancy.)
The Rogue, or the playboy, pillaged the community not only by leaving his seed in a lot of girls, but by lying to them about marriage to do so. Even if they were worldly, liberated, and aroused, most of the Rogues' targets would not want to end up pregnant without any help supporting the child. Despite Victorian lies, Rogues were not hated only for "having sex," but specifically for inseminating, by ejaculating fully into the vagina. A worldly, liberated, aroused woman who had by-choice sexual relationships with men, sponges and caution included, would not rise the community's ire at her lovers. It was not the province of Jane Austen, or other popular writers, to admit that sex without pregnancy was okay. It remains a popular western myth that the right kind of white Anglo women were virgins until about the time the Beatles landed at JFK, but social anger at Rogues and "eternal bachelors" was largely pregnancy-based. Upper-class women were indeed having sex; they were just, as in modern times, better informed about, and able to employ, birth control, while poorer women were criticized as sluts because they couldn't carefully time their rendezvouses and arrange their sponges just right.
What was the Rogue's real sin? The women he swived certainly were aware they were having sex (remember--we're talking about the Rogue, not the Rapist). When he seduced women, he might have promised marriage, but then, he might have legitimately changed his mind, and he was a free human being, possessed of agency and self-determination, right? Why should he be forced to marry anyone?
The real problem with the Rogue was his use of community resources without a contribution thereto. Communities held dances, fairs, holiday celebrations; they wove shirts, trousers, and dresses; they hosted dinners and got to know everyone and everyone's family; they maintained a church and a green; they did a lot of expensive things designed to protect and perpetuate the community. By protecting, feeding, educating, and socializing their young, then enforcing contractual families and sheltering the next generation, communities ensured their own survival. All of the things the Rogue took advantage of--social affairs as well as the wombs of those who either (1) didn't want to get pregnant, or (2) thought they were going to get married--were community resources meant to keep people alive. If a man came to town, danced with all the girls, then impregnated one, and married her, he would settle down. He would become part of the community, take a job, get known well, contribute to the greater good, and provide for the raising of the children that would give the community a future.
The Rogue came to town, danced with all the girls, impregnated one (or more), and then left. Not only had he left the community with a burden, he'd also taken advantage of its hospitality in order to commit his slight.
Not all men who came to town and danced with all the girls married one of them. A man might tour lots of communities before settling down, or tour lots of them and then decide to just be a bachelor (leaving him to be hounded, throughout his life, by female elders who didn't want him to go to waste). Coming to town as a Rogue, though, and leaving someone pregnant, is different than not finding "the right one."
"Why do you hate me," asks the Rogue, "for I am a free being, doing what I choose, and the women who come to me do so because they are attracted to me--why do you hate me so? They promise me things that they can never give, and I promise them things that I can never give. I even mean it, in the heat of the moment--I really do. But you can't hold a man to account for something he says while having a comely lass."
Are we seeing the picture? The Rogue uses community resources without returning anything.
Now (as with ethnic-based prejudice) this wouldn't be a problem if the community had plenty of resources to spare. Under the rule of the vile Windsors and Hanoverians, though, Britain raped/shaped the modern world, impoverishing its own "free" workers and shattering still-more vestiges of community resource control under the dominion of the London tyrants. The Rogue's depredations, then, were felt much more strongly. While a wealthy community may view its educated daughter's sudden pregnancy as an annoyance or an interesting delight, a poor community being suddenly provided with a new mouth to feed--and no father to assist in feeding the bedridden, nursing mother, or helpless infant--may justifiably view the Rogue as having committed a crime tantamount to violent assault and theft.
Yes, in large part, kids. People were never surprised by homosexuality. The modern problems with homosexuality are economic in nature. In a climate where rapacious elites impoverish almost all people across the globe, the desperate may come to hate people of other "nationalities" for "stealing jobs" (see Joe's Day in Part 2). Hand in hand with this impoverishment comes a real problem for human survival: raising children.
Worldwide, kids die and starve all the time. In the western world, many of the older imperial footholds have developed welfare networks to provide levels of basic support for untended children. The current hegemon America, is still a free-for-all of potential kid-starvation, while at the same time, the elites of western Europe constantly contemplate ways to make their own peons' children less healthy.
Let's focus on the American region, though, including America itself, along with its Arab and African colonies, and its Indian partner: the places where anti-homosexual bigotry still exists most heavily. The association is no coincidence, because these are the places where rich murder clowns have extorted incredible amounts of wealth and labor from populaces that continue to endure. Occupied America and Muslim-dictatorship Arabia still host populations of (relatively) educated laborers performing the administrative work of the energy/culture complex that keeps the world running.
There, elites face the quandary they always face with peons: How do we keep these worthless drones working without giving them enough power to overthrow us? Elites play a dicey game, doing all of the fun stuff like stoking different political parties, religious factions, cultural crusades, and faux-reform movements, while parceling out enough resources to make certain sets of laborers--some American workers, and a smaller portion of Arab and Indian ones--very, very glad that they are not part of the other set of laborers--sub-Saharan Africans or rural Indians. The luckiest of the lucky laborers, primarily Americans, are provided just enough resources to (1) buy some crap so they feel superior to the third world, (2) raise another crop of workers to support another crop of elites, and (3) possibly spend a few years not working while suffering exotic health problems near the ends of their lives.
(2), above, is the true source of hostility to homosexuals. Whenever times are tough, and a community is struggling to survive, those who don't contribute to community's children are viewed with spite, because their share of rations can be hoarded for personal enjoyment, rather than being eaten up by children. "Deadbeat Dad" became an American trope around the same time that "Don't Ask Don't Tell," and not by coincidence. Increasing reductions in the resources allowed workers (in the form of the gradual reduction of labor's share of GDP since the 1970s), caused industrial anti-homosexuality to return in force after a brief lull in anti-sex leagues during the higher-waged 1960s.
Let's look at the justified aspects of that, while (again and always) remembering that we're not excusing them, or saying they're "justified" in a positive sense. We want to understand the logical process behind it, so we can eliminate it. Doing that necessitates getting close to believing in it, which might make you squeamish. Hold on, though.
We're all trapped in this clownish prison of rape and murder. Obama is starving kids in Iran, giving rifles and bombs to al Qaeda rebels in Syria, and happily overseeing the genocide of six million Congolese. Bill Gates is giggling over $120K games of bridge while one in five kids ("even" in "America") lives with food insecurity. Millions of people gleefully take in postgame American "football" analysis, able to identify the substitute quarterback's shoe size but unable to explain who's killing who in Somalia. Environmental catastrophe, all that stuff, yada yada. For the species to survive, the desperate need to keep sacrificing themselves to produce and nurture children. This results in a conflict with, not homosexuals, but "public homosexuals," or homosexuals who try to obtain the same social standing as straights.
Not fair, not fair, not right, again. But understandable. Like Joe's crappy job breaking his back working in a factory for minimum wage, any loose scraps of increased social standing represent the only thing that struggling people can aspire to. Trapped in the cage with an artificially low quantity of food, giving up privileges to publicly-avowed gays only further reduces the share that already isn't quite enough to sustain them.
Moira and Frank
Consider two example people, Moira and Frank. Moira is our example traditional straight woman, Frank our example traditional gay guy. They grow up next door to each other, go to the same high school, and get the exact same GPA. When they get out of the same state-college business program, they get the exact same type of job at two branches of a local company. They each meet a cute guy and establish a long-term relationship.
Here our paths diverge. Moira wants to have children, so she is forced to cut her hours at work. Frank and his boyfriend get promotions; Moira and her husband struggle to retain their employment while juggling school, soccer practice, PTA night, and the time little Harold broke his wrist at the playground and had to have all those extra doctor's visits.
Over the next eighteen years, Moira sacrifices her career and personal aspirations, and spends $300K raising a couple kids. For the decade after that, she houses them when they have trouble with college and employment, helps fly them around the country to get interviews at schools and businesses, and finally, has the satisfaction of seeing them settle into careers. Then she and Harold, Sr. have the pleasure of only working another couple decades before settling into a shaky retirement. At least--and thank God for it!--Susie became a night nurse at a hospital in Chicago, and little Harold got a job at a shipping company.
Over those same decades, Frank and his boyfriend, flush with disposable income, advance their careers, gallivant about Europe, amass an impressive antique collection in that perfect cute house they found, and take up hobbies. They invest in a franchise so that they feel more comfortable about partial retirement, which is okay because the extra cash helps them visit their friends in Spain more often than they would be able to otherwise.
Moira, though, has an unfair advantage over Frank. Believe it or not, some people actually give her more intangible social respect than they give Frank.
We see how this works now, right? Now, (1) not all Moiras get married, and (2) not all marriages produce children, and (3) lots of married and/or unmarried straight people with kids do a terrible job and are a drain, and (4) what if Frank and his partner adopt or, in the case of lesbians, give birth to a kid, and then follow the same essential path as Moira and her husband? Numbers-wise, though, we can understand why Moira, or her male or female counterparts, have a different perspective on their type of life than they do on Frank's.
Throw another wrench into the example: what if Moira was bisexual? What if Moira, her entire life, had two sets of desires, but she felt a responsibility to her people to do her part for the world and give the same gift of life to children that was given to her? So, she swallowed one set of urges and took the necessary path. The tiniest "reward" she gets from society for her part in contributing to civilization is the sparse remnants of an intangible "social respect" for being a parent and/or married person. No amount of plastic toys and $5.99 cards for baby showers or Mother's Days can "make up" for what Moira did. Her reward, if you care to think of it that way, is priceless, but the price exacted from her body, mind, and life, is similarly incalculable.
We can understand how upset Moira might be if, decades after she began sacrificing herself for the next generation, Frank got indignant that he didn't get the same exact "marriage" that Moira did. Why is everyone so unfair, asks Frank? It's because they think I'm icky because the Invisible Cloud Man said so, right? You respect Britney Spears' marriage, but not mine!
No, not really. Moira was probably more upset by Britney Spears' brief marriage than Frank was. Frank's life of parties, blowjobs, artisanal cooking, and world travel came at the expense of parents whom he can never reimburse, and in a cutthroat market economy of detached individuals, it's yet another unfair slap in the face to Moira that Frank might take away the one fake "gold star" she gets from a society that is otherwise quite fine with her dying on the street. There are benefits to "marriage," which do not always, but more-often-than-not, correspond to "producing children that society may survive," ergo Moira is at the edge of a cliff, clinging to strands of grass, and she may get furious when Frank tries to share the grass.
Refer again to Joe, supra, using racist terminology when he thinks about the Hispanic immigrants taking "his" job. In his anger, Joe has become wrong--he has adopted an unacceptable bigotry. The same with Moira, if she decides she hates gay people (or "out" gay people) for trying to take the few scraps of social acknowledgement for what she put in to society. Moira, like Joe, should recognize that it is not the fault of the gays/Mexicans that she feels desperate. Her interests in being a valued member of society, who doesn't have to fear being discarded and starved in a bad economy, are the same as those of the gays who share her economic situation. Her situation--her desperation--is caused by the same elites that have pitted Joe against Mexicans.
If we want to help Moira out, then we need to acknowledge her motivations. Calling her a bigot, a repressed zealot, or any of that is not only insulting, it's erroneous: Moira is upset at gays because she's lashing out in desperation, and not because she would actually have a problem with gays if she weren't fighting to keep herself and her children alive.
There are people affected by the ick-factor out there. There are religious zealots and blind bigots. However, they are very small in number, and any influence they have upon society diminishes the more pleasant and sheltering a society becomes. Elite corporate media favors portraying wacky extremists, to turn the economic situation invisible. As long as people focus on stereotypical icked-out religious wackos, they're less likely to notice that prejudice against gays survives only because a worldwide network of murderous elites has pitted different artificially-divided groups against each other to distract from what's really going on.
1) There have always been plenty of stupid breeders willing to churn out, and spend decades nurturing, the optometrists, audiologists, auto mechanics, sound technicians, vascular surgeons and produce-stockers you're going to want to be around when you get old. Should there be a social obligation, however mild, to contribute to the perpetuation of life in a way that goes beyond merely earning some money, enjoying yourself, and then dying?
2) Is every non-heterosexual person public about their feelings? If they aren't publicly acknowledging their sexual desires, is it fair to accuse them of being bigoted against desires that may be their own desires? LGBT-community calls to respect privacy do not comport with the practice of shaming opponents of mainstream LGBT agendas for being "repressed" or "out of touch" or, in any other way, linking a person's stance to her or his sexuality or lack thereof.
3) If a bi/gay person (like Moira) makes a decision to structure her life bearing and caring for children, then resents someone who chose the adult playtime life (like Frank) trying to get the same slivers of social respect that once paid a tiny homage to Moira's (comparative) sacrifice, is Moira wrong for being upset about it? Why? And, does it matter whether or not Moira knows she is bi/gay, or whether she actually is? Why?
4) That's why the "Republican base" isn't upset when they find out that one of their staunch conservative Senators has been fondling male interns (or female ones). Most of them are not actually against gay-ness, but against the idea that there shouldn't be some kind of preferential treatment meted out to those who pull off the standard nuclear family. If you're a suitable patriarch/matriarch, part of the community and responsible for a family, they don't care about your affairs or indiscretions (unless you're a Democrat, in which case you're fair game).
5) Wouldn't it be wonderful if you realized that all the boogeymen you've been taught to believe in are only puppets and shadows? Wouldn't it be worth it to be a little slighted, and to realize that you've slighted others a little bit, if it meant that you could awaken to a world surrounded by real people with understandable motivations, who would almost all be your bosom buddies if they weren't fighting to stay alive inside an open-air prison that doesn't need to exist?
Update First per e-mailed challenge: yes, as gay people begin to be permitted adoption and formal state relationships in greater numbers, background bigotry levels will lower, and be replaced by different bigotries elites have prepared. Partnering, triumvirating, opening, or being alone can all be part of viably contributing to life, society, and the future.
We aim to understand the justifiable sources of prejudice in order to eliminate them. If "the (openly-acknowledged) LGBT community" realizes that it's not being disliked by some for ickiness, but--in part--because of its refusal to acknowledge the diversity and hardships endured by some non-LGBT communities, it can be part of a solution. It beats spending another several decades throwing icky back and forth.
Moira's "jealousy," above, is the jealousy of all of the privileges that Frank enjoyed by virtue of his not having to deal with any of the tasks necessary for producing a next generation of adults. Moira gave up a lot of things--including the youth, cash, and decades necessary to explore her own sexuality and have fun--in order that her daughter could be an ER nurse when Frank had his first stroke at 63.
(Assuming that we all liked the idea of focusing on "ourselves," getting together with people who share our outlook, and having lots of sex and fun, humanity could be extinct in the near future.)
Update Second: Judaism formed the basis of modern anti-homosexual prejudice, but it is to be acknowledged that much of that had receded in western society, even during the lace-and-tights-and-dandies Victorian era. Do not forget that it was the elite scientific infrastructure that classified homosexuality as a mental disease; that it was the elite media that whipped up scares about homosexuals; and, that it is now the same elite scientific infrastructure and media that is celebrating how enlightened Americans are for coming to terms with homosexuality. This historically recent false struggle was created, and is now being ended, by the same mad psychiatrists and talking heads.