IT TAKES A VILLAGE PEOPLE: GAYS AND CONSERVATIVISM IN THE MODERN AGE

The Village People

I’ve been struggling with something for a long time. I think it’s time for me to finally come out and tell everybody who I really am. I’m…..heterosexual. I guess now I’ll never get a job in movies or TV.

 

The Supreme Court will soon rule on the Defense of Marriage Act and many conservatives don’t seem too concerned. Maybe it’s because gay marriage (GM) is so inevitable. There is an extreme opinion gap between the generations. It’s going to happen.

 

Rick Hell-in-a-Handbasket Santorum said, “[Gay marriage] threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages.” Conservatives have always argued this but they’ve never been all that convincing to many, especially the younger crowd. Traditional marriage is the best way to raise children? So what. Many people don’t want children. No culture has accepted gay marriage before? So? Liberals know all who came before them were stupid. Gays are degenerates? Oof. This one now seems cruel and bigoted. Americans like to be fair-minded and that kind of language feels too close to the racism of the past.

 

In college I studied homosexuality intently. I wrote two papers and read countless pages of books and scientific studies. I never felt any animus towards gays (also referring to lesbians and bisexuals) and I always thought the usual slurs were hateful and un-Christian. But there was plenty of research that illuminated some problems among gays. I thought this was reason enough to deem them unhealthy and to justify some sort of stigma. That argument isn’t as convincing to me anymore, mainly because those in glass houses (heterosexuals) shouldn’t throw stones. Sexuality is a complicated matter; it’s all about relationships. Yes, there is a whole book of studies on my shelf showing gays have higher rates of drug use, STD’s, and mental illness, low rates of monogamy, sometimes shocking rates of promiscuity, and so on and so on. A lot of this is true but I now say, so what?

 

Should gay marriage be given parity? Maybe. Maybe not. Omnipotentblog doesn’t think so. There are valid arguments for it but here are some reasons not to.

 

1. Attitudes about sexuality tend to be generalist. If GM is embraced, it is a sign that deeper feelings about chastity, monogamy, and fidelity have also changed. Most people are worried about paying bills and just getting through life. They are not philosophical by nature, which explains the popularity of “JerseyShore.” It would be nice if society could say to gays (or single mothers or divorcees or any other group no longer stigmatized) that they are valuable and deserve happiness while holding to the belief that the other way is better, to not celebrate their relationships but accept them as equals in friendship and life, you know, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Sadly, people are not that complicated. The Swinging-From-Chandeliers Club and the church ladies agree on very little.

To focus on GM is to attack a symptom and not the cause. Like a hidden but festering wound, the true injury to our society is the destruction of broader sexual mores accelerated by the 60’s. It’s unfair to blame gays for destroying marriage because straights have reduced it to rubble. While only about 1/4 of people who marry get divorced, half of all marriages end in divorce (multiple divorces throw off the numbers). 25% of men and 12% of women cheat. Fewer people marry at all; they just cohabitate. Cohabitating couples are much more likely to break up even when they do eventually marry. 41% of all children and 71% of blacks are born out of wedlock. In fact, the difference in incomes between black families and others almost disappears if the parents are married. Volumes of research show the detriment to children raised without fathers including higher rates of substance abuse, mental health issues, incarceration, etc. Married couples earn more than single parent households even when only one parent works. Married people have more and better sex than singles. Data on the benefits of marriage is voluminous, clear, and convincing.

 

2. Attitudes about gender may be equally important. As I showed here, the left hates masculinity. Who hasn’t noticed the epidemic of confused, emasculated men among us? Also, many women are realizing their climb up the corporate ladder wasn’t as satisfying as they had hoped. Feeling betrayed by feminism, they are going home to their families. Since the 60’s, the left has argued that gender differences are merely a cultural construct. Yet, innumerable liberal parents are shocked at their babies’ attraction to gender specific toys. ­­­ David Reimer is a victim of this nonsensical goodthink. In 1965, he had most of his penis cut off during a circumcision. The parents went to Dr. John Money, the world’s foremost “expert” on gender who said, ‘No worries, just surgically give him a vagina and raise him as a girl’. It was a disaster. David committed suicide in 2004. Also, see this outrage.

3. Kids are confused enough already. While gays are only 2-4% of the population, one study showed a full 25% of 12 year olds were unsure of their sexuality. The lesson of the landmark Sex in America survey is that culture has an enormous impact on sexuality. A struggling 14 y.o. “bicurious” client of mine recently had consensual sex with a 16 y.o. girl. It left her feeling dirty, shameful, and suicidal. Of course, not all such dabbling has this effect. That is the point. It is easy to see the consequences of a culture of experimentation. But omnipotentblog, aren’t people born gay? No. See here.

 

 

Many gays are just as boring and staid as omnipotentblog but one thing they have to own up to is the “Party and Play” contingent. It is not small. Most would agree that crystal meth-fueled anonymous sex is dangerous. Also, the community might get a little more respect if Pride Parades weren’t largely vehicles for men in leather thongs to showcase their baton twirling skills. Liberty and libertinism are not the same.

(I had an actual picture of a leather thonged baton twirler but it didn’t pass the censor.)

 

Ultimately, why does any of this matter? MLK argued that people should be judged by the content of their character. Maybe the only questions we should ask about our gay neighbors are: Do they work hard, are they nice, do they pick up their dog’s poop when they take it for a walk? Would gay acceptance really destroy the world? Adam Carolla (I’ve quoted this man twice now??) once remarked how nice gay neighborhoods are. Yes, there was the time I was in San Francisco for all of five minutes and a very drunk gay man licked the hood of my car. But once you look past the leather shops and other assorted weirdness, the communities are actually pretty dang lovely.

 

Tolerance is a two way street. There is a fascist element to gay activism. Google “Dan Savage hate speech” or go here. Or read about this terrifying gay mob attack on a Baptist church. Of course, gay kids are bullied all the time and it would be nice if conservatives would do more than insist, “It’s not hate” when discussing GM. The Family Research Council wanted Bush 43 to fire a man in his administration mainly because he was openly gay. Shameful. Tolerance is not approval but it is the essence of liberty.

 

To live wisely is to ponder, observe, admit that answers are sometimes gray and murky and make adjustments. The point here is to argue for tolerance. And also for intolerance. Both have consequences. As one radio host likes to say, the battle is not between love and hate but compassion and standards. It would be nice to have simple rules to live by and execute them rigidly. Alas, life is complicated.