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.

God, homosexuality, and the problem of H. sapiens.

Homosexuality is one of those things like war and poverty that men have looked at uncomprehendingly since the beginning.

It is my feeling that my own language, based on sixteen characters I cannot share because I haven't the stamina to research how to get a computer to produce them, is responsible for certain positions I have taken on the frontiers of civilization, one of them my position that homosexuality is best eliminated, with as much care as possible not to cause the individual comfort of these people to be encroached on. That homosexuality is a sign of a dysfunctional civilization, even a dysfunctional species, is easy to see for those who also see that there is no God. Unfortunately there are billions of people who don't see that about God, and this makes it a demanding task to have a reasonable discussion about homosexuality, even speaking alone as a writer does.

So here is my position:

This species is subject to universal substitution of sufficiency, as a valid motive of comment, for progress in argument. If a comment has some way in which it can be taken immediately as sufficiently motivated, with a threshold of sufficiency on the order of what allows people to remain unmoved, to fit where it does into a discussion, then that comment is justifiable under the universal consensus of the species. Thus outfitted, the members of this species propagate their status gotten by the generosity of others far away and perhaps long ago, without having to do any Goddam thing of their own to progress beyond war, poverty, and homosexuality. As a state of species motivation, this amounts to an enormous bulk of material precious to each person that commands attention only because some or other rule of order allows it, and thus the beast is so arrayed for being out at pasture.

The species is proud of its self-image. It associates that image with God. In fact, there is no argument in it. Modern appliances in a civilization that has no argument preventing the occurrence of war and panic seems to me what we expect of children. "Don't worry about learning how to earn a living now. It's time to play and have fun. Worry about earning a living when you're older."

The argument is harder than this. So far I have dealt in plausibilities. These are closer to argument than sufficiency, but still not as argumentative as what the best science demands. I am not arguing with a prototypical individual, but with what I can make out to be a statistical description of the whole population, without depending on the existence of some who agree with me. Those who agree with me will have their battles but until progress is made in the discussion with the whole population there is no solace from being not alone.

Truth is fine. Navigating points of argument is considerably wider in scope. It cannot be done by professing commitment to truth. What is in common with all H. sapiens? What frequency are its other characteristics, not in common? Those who have seen the greatest variation in these characteristics are confined by the things in common. There knowledge is blocked.

Let me rest. Call it be-ers block.

Clarification of my position on homosexuality.

Let me clarify my position on homosexuality. Two points: 1) It is very poignant. These people are to be granted no less comfort through their own effort than anyone else. This is an individual right. 2) It is unfortunate, and needs to be ended. Beyond comfort, I don't see any rights stemming from a perversion of the cultural provisions for procreation. Gay couples are an abuse of those provisions. I don't care whether religions condemn them or not. It's impossible for gays to contribute to the sexual equation. I don't know why it happens. I wish I did. It would help form understandable policy. As it is my policy will be considered contrary to many people's conception of rights. There is too much about homosexuality we don't see that would probably raise objections if we did. It seems they are using the closet to produce a secret institution. Obviously we have to find a different solution than the closet. They should be assured of due comfort as individuals and not forced into hiding by discrimination as individuals. But the cultural provisions for couples are more important than the Constitution provides. Either legal opinions must confront this fact or the Constitution must be amended to state it explicitly, and if that doesn't work, then it's time for another revolution. I will not sit idly by and watch this species go to the dogs.

on homosexual policy

The purpose of my policy regarding homosexuals is not to punish them. I am not a believer in retribution. The policy of a death penalty for the first offense of a homosexual having contact with children is a measure of discouragement from that conduct, not punishment. Under this policy it is necessary to strengthen the provisions for individual rights of homosexuals--the prohibition of discrimination primarily. Gay bashing is contrary to a solution to the problem posed by homosexuality. I suspect it is done only because no prior policy based on understanding of both the crisis and the poignancy of homosexuality has existed.

The distinction between individual rights and mating rights is critical. Under my policy, which may or may not be endorsed by the ruling elite of the United States, homosexuals will get no mating rights, none whatsoever. This means not only that they cannot marry, but that public displays of affection, which is a de facto mating right rather than an individual right, is prohibited to them. It is my interpretation that the rights of consenting adults in private, which allow homosexuals to conduct their sexual affairs, are an extension of individual rights and are not actually mating rights. The right to take a coupling anywhere in society, as certified and regulated by marriage, is a mating right, and it is not to be extended to homosexuals. This is a deviation from present laws and will not be easy to achieve in actual manifestation.

Homo sapiens is a compassionate species. This is why leniency with homosexuals is currently a winning proposition. Compassion will yield to understanding when understanding reaches a state of greater persuasiveness than compassion. Understanding and compassion are both eonic processes and both their effects, including leniency for homosexuals, are to be respected. I believe the transition from leniency for to elimination of homosexuality will be similar to the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism. Great weight is enjoyed by the forces lenient to homosexuality, just as it was enjoyed by the church on the matter of the earth being universally accepted as the center of the universe. Only time will tell whether the crisis of homosexuality is to get equal attention as does its poignancy.

Homosexuals impeding me in my position on homosexuality are enemy combatants.

It is my position that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals in their entitlement to propagate their sexual orientation. Among the consequences of this position, if it is subscribed to by a ruling elite, is my policy that homosexuals get no contact with minors under penalty, for the first offense, of death. Another consequence of this position is that any homosexual who is found inpeding me in my position is an enemy combatant, and any heterosexual who aids such impediment is also an enemy combatant.

villification of homosexuality

Homosexuality is vicious, heinous, and deceptive. Anyone I know is gay or bi of either sex i will refuse to talk to them. It must be stamped out.