Thursday, December 2, 2010

On the eve of the coming in of law granting civil unions to gays.

There is a difficult to conceive part of my proposed policy on homosexuals in human society. It is that displays of public affection of all kinds by gays must be prohibited.

It is my feeling that such displays hinge around the assumption that gay interactions are not an offense to overall species sexual affairs. The fact that a gay person has the potential to interact sexually with his own sex is a matter of the extents to which human imagination can be pursued in behavior. I can have an orgasm masturbating in which I visualize absolutely nothing. This is not a positive behavior for the species, and I don't ask for rights to express such a potential in public. I am granted individual rights to pursue it. I am not granted the right to make a spectacle in public out of my imagination turned to this purpose. If I were I'm sure there would be numerous ways I could take advantage of it. It may be possible to present homosexuality as exactly this kind of behavior and argue that it should not be allowed to be seen in public to any extent. Imagination has gained for itself some extensive protections, notably the right to publish literature of all kinds so long as certain limits are imposed, such as the prohibition of libel. It would make sense to me for gay sex in literature to require a warning label, just as cigarettes must do. Gay literature is more offensive, I would suggest, than general heterosexual pornography, and merits this provision of a means to spare the public the trouble of exposure without a warning.

Opposition to homosexuality that I have seen has leaned on statements of feelings about it, and this has been unsuccessful in managing the problem. Enlisting religion to support these statements is of no help whatsoever. Humans have and will encounter from time to time such difficulties. Rights are a matter of government dealing with government, how much is enough and how much is too much. Homosexuality goes far deeper than these concerns and was unanticipated in the agendas of the most forward-thinking men and women. Government needed to be made safe first. Too much satisfaction with this provision is not a good thing. Public conversation needs to be made safe now, and homosexual motives need to be removed from them. Without this achievement there will be dissipation of heterosexual motives. It already exists, and I have taken the extraordinary step of refusing to speak to homosexuals. This has been a successful policy. I feel well positioned to remain firm in my policy of individual right affirmation and mating right denial for homosexuals.

Let us advance along this path of mine. I believe it is good to guarantee individual rights to gays. Let them discuss the policy. Let them keep their gay behavior unseen by the public. It is a better discomfort than being the subject of baiting and other abuse, and I feel it is something they ought to be able to see as such. I do not feel like extending forever a tolerant attitude to the existence of homosexuality and putting it out of existence is a tax I believe should be borne by gays, not straight people.