Homosexuality:

I've written a lot of posts that, in passing, criticize homosexuality and have made clear that my future-utopia has no place for gays in it. Nevertheless, I've been averse from going deeply into the 'gay' issue because it's such a morally ambiguous gray area. There are so many points for and against the various issues concerning homosexuality, and so many disputed facts about the nature of homosexuality, that it's difficult to come to any firm conclusion about the issue. Sometimes I fear that if I lash out against everyone at once, people won't treat each group separately and concern themselves with the moral case to be made against each group, but instead concentrate on whatever psychological motivations make me a misanthrope who seems to find fault with everyone and everything. If I don't tackle the controversial issue of gays, but stick with obvious targets like black criminals and muslim terrorists, I can make people see clearly that there are evil forces in the world that must be opposed, even if that requires discrimination to do so. Once people have learned that lesson -- and apparently no one has learned that lesson yet, since we continue to merrily import more and more Africans and Muslims into all white western countries -- maybe then the core knowledge that discrimination is good could be applied to less vile and less threatening groups like homosexuals. This is the 'triage' model of argumentation.

However, triage has its weak points. For one, it makes someone look deceitful. If people can guess that you think something but won't say it because you are trying to look more 'reasonable' or less 'hateful' than you really are, they will treat all your other words with more contempt. Only by being an open book and answering any question proffered, confident that your views can withstand the light of day and are in fact noble and right, can any of your moral views be defended. Hiding your moral views in a closet like you are ashamed of them, while trotting out 'safe' arguments against black criminals and muslim terrorists, smacks of hypocrisy and cowardice. Liberals, and even fence-sitters, can smell the blood in the water no matter how much you attempt to hide it, and will pounce on this weakness in your armor -- any view you wish to hide from the public -- and accuse you of exactly that view over and over. If you don't defend it, you lose the debate. If you do defend it, they can claim with proper outrage 'see, he was a sexist, a homophobe, a whatever, all along! Scratch a 'reasonable proponent of reform' and you always get, 100%, another Hitler. There's no such thing as a moderate bigot, their hatred extends to all minorities and won't stop until they're all in gas chambers.'

This argument is less telling when people have gone on record with their views ahead of time, and don't pretend like they're 'reasonable moderate reformers' in the first place. This gives people moral credibility when they Do draw various lines in the sand, people are more trustworthy if they say "sure I hate gays, but I'm against gassing them," than people who secretly hate gays, are exposed as gay haters, but still claim they don't want to gas them. In one case you have already been detected as being more radical than you previously said, and thus could easily be imagined to be more radical still than your new 'moderate' stance. In the other case you are exactly as radical as you've always said you were, and thus it's hard to slander someone as being secretly more radical still.

So in the spirit of the New Year, let's see if I can make all of my thinking about gays clear in as in-depth a manner as possible. Just like 'my take on Israel,' this is more an intellectual exercise so people can see where I am coming from, than an attempt to change the world. This is 'my take on homosexuality.'

Here are the 'hate facts' I'm operating on, that liberals will dispute, but all the scientific evidence, as scanty as it is, supports:

Gay men are around 2% of the population. Lesbians are an even smaller percentage than gay men.

An amorphous group of bisexuals, transgendered, cross-dressers, sadists, masochists, and other perverts could well add up to 10% of the population. These people tend to share the same interests, cause the same trouble, and have sex with the firmly gay and lesbian crowd.

This 10% of the population has terrible statistics by all social quality of life standards.

By this I mean they have less permanent relationships, more promiscuity, more drug use, more criminal tendencies, more domestic abuse, more suicide, more depression, more alcohol, more cheating, more STD's, more everything nasty and harmful that the non-perverted lifestyle eschews.

This crowd also has ten times the likelihood of being child abusers than heterosexual men (and infinite less likelihood of being child abusers than heterosexual women.)

Children raised by two gay parents are five times as likely to be homosexual, or bisexual, or some other variant of perverted, than children raised in ordinary, even broken homes.

Homosexuality, depending on how accepting a culture is of it, can move up from the base of 2-10%, all the way up to 100%, like is found in Afghanistan or ancient Greece, where man-boy relationships (organized child rape) are just taken as a given. Countries that endorse a 100% homosexual/perverted population do not have good track records. They tend to be conquered from without and fall apart from within. Sexual perversions and abuses subtly corrode the life-force of a people to, eventually, no longer be able to maintain their civilizations.

From this we learn three things. A) Homosexuality is not an isolated choice but an entire lifestyle. An entire mentality. An entire morality that is completely perpendicular to the morality of the rest of mankind. B) This lifestyle is significantly worse than the normal lifestyle/mentality/morality. C) This lifestyle choice is not constrained to the 'inborn' 2% type, or even the 'wacky' 10%, but can eventually spread like a malignant cancer to engulf your entire society and then destroy it.

I have two data points for point C. Children raised in gay homes are far more gay than they ought to be if homosexuality were inborn or up to pure chance. And homosexuality as expressed in certain cultures is so prevalent that it is impossible to believe everyone was just 'born that way,' while everyone in the neighboring country was just 'born the other way.' These two data points, children raised in gay homes, and countries that turn all their men gay, show that gayness is, for the most part, a choice and not a genetic given.

So let's arrange the various pieces. Gays/perverts are some unalterable percent of the population, but their percentage can rise from 2% all the way to 100% if nothing is done culturally to oppose it. Gays are a bane to themselves, because their behavior is self destructive. Gays are a bane to others, because they recruit other people into the gay deathstyle.

Gays do not have to actively seduce a straight person in order to be 'recruiting.' That's a simplistic picture. Just by lobbying to make gayness an acceptable, tolerated way of life in your community, so that gays can live worry-free and go about their activities without a hindrance, is recruiting more people to be gay/perverted.

In the same way, lobbying to legalize drugs is recruiting more people to use drugs.

If you lower the penalties, whether legal or social, on any activity, you are changing the cost-benefit analysis for fence sitters and tipping the scales slightly further in your direction. For the same reason, if you increase the rewards, by giving gays the right to inherit from each other without paying estate taxes, for instance, or by praising gays as 'heroes' who 'so bravely' confront a bigoted, evil world whenever they talk about their gayness, you also change the cost-benefit scales to tip further in your favor. Any gay who does anything to make gayness an acceptable lifestyle or tries to lower penalties against gays in any way is a recruiter who is tipping more and more people who would have stayed straight into the gay/perverted lifestyle. All of these people are lured into an abyss of pain and death they could have otherwise avoided. All of these people also become, in turn, evil-doers who go on to recruit still more gays/perverts to their side. This could exponentially result in the downfall of your entire country. It's happened before. It could happen again.

Therefore gays who may honestly think they just want equality, or tolerance, or acceptance, or whatever, are innocently striving for one thing, but are in fact accomplishing something much more terrible. The seduction of happy, well-adjusted people into a hell of unhappiness and evil that will forever dominate their destiny, and perhaps the destiny of our entire civilization.

The fact that gays tend to make lots of money and have high media/artistic presence makes them even more powerful recruiters to the gay deathstyle than one might otherwise imagine. They do far more harm than say, a Muslim advocate, because gay advocates are far more powerful and influential than Muslim advocates are. For the same reason, jews like Tim Wise, using their media platforms, do far more damage to our countries than hapless muslim terrorists who get caught ahead of time or imams who issue death sentence fatwas over teddy bears. People who aren't rich, intelligent, and part of a media empire, no matter how vile their intentions, in the end do less harm than people with even very small negative intentions, who actually have the power to implement them.

Everything I've been saying flows forth from the simple logic of utilitarianism. I am just multiplying people's power by the wrongfulness of their thinking and ending up with a quantifiable 'evil power level' I can attach to each individual or group. Communists create far worse societies than gays, but that doesn't matter because communists no longer have power and gays do.

If gays had their way, everyone would become perverted. In their own magazines and talk shows, they talk about how great it would be if everyone became as open and loving as they were. It's healthy, to them, to have thousands of sex partners, or ten at a time, or to experiment with any possible pleasure. They are 'liberated' from our mores and they feel it is their duty to liberate us too. But a completely perverted society would be a completely unhappy society, just like theirs is. If you point out their drug abuse and suicide rates, gays will say this is all due to bigotry. If only we would stop calling gays names, they would have no issues at all. The same excuse is used for all misbehavior. If muslims riot and burn cars in France, it is because non-muslims have made them unhappy. If only non-muslims behaved, Muslims wouldn't be so sad or mad that they had to riot and burn cars. Every single sin of every minority or underperforming group is in fact the sin of the bigoted majority who is forcing them into these roles.

The assertion that all minority misbehavior is the fault of the majority can never be disproven until the minority has become the majority. Even then, the majority can suffer from the 'after-effects' of oppression, or perhaps from a powerful minority that maintains a 'power structure' that still oppresses the majority, and so on. I do not think it will ever be acceptable to blame any group for their own misdeeds, or demand any group take responsibility for their actions, until every last rich person, every last straight person, every last white person, and every last man is wiped off the face of the earth. Until then, our magical all-powerful bigotry will be the cause of all ills on Earth. It's hopeless arguing why homosexuals have such terrible statistics, such low lifespans, such high suicide rates, because it is an article of faith that, basically, we 'witches' are to blame, because we keep casting 'hexes' of bigotry on them that they just can't escape or avoid.

However, I eagerly offer anyone who wishes the option to separate from us bigots. If all the oppressed minorities wish to be free of our witchcraft hexes, then we will set aside any amount of land and any amount of money it takes, if only they would leave and never come back. We promise to never oppress them again, and they can forge their own destiny with any amount of resources they demand. We all know how this thought experiment ends -- We have endless real-life worked examples to call upon already.

Haiti killed all of its whites, even all of its mulattos, hundreds of years ago and have been free to pursue their own destiny, unoppressed by anyone, ever since. Nevertheless they are a human shithole. No blacks would wish to leave America, home of the bigoted oppressors, and move to the free and unoppressed Haiti.

The same is true for gays. They never propose that they should just all go live in a gay nation and leave the rest of us alone. They want to live in our midst, gaining all the parasitic advantages of healthy societies that their own deathstyles cannot create. But no one has the right to a society that their own actions do not help create. We should not have to put up with gays, who can't even reproduce, living in a society they have had no part in sustaining.

Liberals like to point to other people's misbehavior to justify their own misbehavior. They say that if one group can misbehave, then why can't gays? You're just picking on gays, bullying gays, in an unfair, discriminatory fashion. This makes no sense though. If you have some bacteria in your system, at a level your immune system can cope with, it doesn't make sense to say we should implant trillions more of the bacterium, which is a level our immune system can't cope with, just to be fair to the bacterium. If we tolerate some damage, that doesn't mean we have to tolerate our utter ruination.

Gays will say they should marry and be able to adopt kids, even though there are bad societal effects, because other people are also bad for society. They point at infertile couples, or single mothers, and say gays aren't any worse than those groups, so why pick on gays? But these are false comparisons.

Infertile couples still look, outwardly, like normal couples. Therefore, they do not create a role model for other children to become abnormal, destructive couples themselves. Second, infertile couples do not lobby for everyone to become infertile or single mothers. They tend to depreciate themselves and avoid the spotlight, none too happy with their life outcomes. Gays on the other hand stage gay pride parades and explain to everyone why everyone should be like them, and that their lifestyle is exactly as good, or even better, than straight people's. So what we are seeing here is that both passively and actively, gays do more to destroy the family unit, children, and society than their 'supposed' equivalents, infertile couples and single mothers.

There's another issue at stake though. Many infertile couples and single mothers had no choice in the matter, it was the fate they were dealt by another person, who is the genuine culprit, or their plain bad luck. But every gay couple has a choice. Gays could choose to remain celibate and avoid the entire gay deathstyle. They could also choose to keep it absolutely secret and thus not impose their passive (as role models) or active (as activists) recruiting of gayness on the outside world.

Even if we wanted to deter infertile couples and single mothers, we would want to deter gays before then and even more. By trying to hide their misconduct behind the lesser misconduct of a far more numerous group, they draw false moral equivalences and pretend we would have to remodel our entire society from the ground up before we could make any good changes at all. Since the herculean effort to remodel the lives of all couples of all types is harder than focusing on deterring the 2% of gays is politically infeasible, apparently we have to give up reforming gays as well, in order to be 'fair.' We don't have to be fair. We have to be good. Good is doing whatever we can, at the moment, to fight evil. Good is stamping out any evil we have the power to stamp out, not sitting on our hands helplessly and silently as we watch the evils we can't oppose wreak their havoc.

As an example, just because I can't stop ten rapists from gang raping a girl in front of me, I do have the power to stop ten kids bullying another kid in front of me. I do not have to abstain from interfering with the kids to be fair to the bullies, because I did nothing about the rapists.

Since gays are a manageable evil, whereas the current mess of heterosexual, non-perverted relationships are an overpowering evil, I am perfectly within my rights to unfairly target only the gays and ignore the straights. Do I wish I could do something about other people? Sure. But I'd be even more amiss if I didn't do what I could.

What I can do is join with the majority of Americans who condemn the gay deathstyle, and do whatever I can to punish and harass gays such that more people decide they're better off straight. Don't ask don't tell was a way to punish and harass gays, so that fewer people would end up gay. So are all the gay marriage bans. So are all the other anti-gay laws. They are like anti-smoking laws. We as a community are doing everything in our power, aside from outright banning, to limit smoking through various taxes, regulations, and penalties. We shower contempt on smokers and constantly point out how deadly they are not only to the individual, but the people around the smoker. The same is true of gays. Why we don't go back to banning sodomy, and why we don't go ahead and ban smoking, is beyond me. But as a society, we are still willing to harass and punish smokers and gays to at least this extent. Insofar as we harass and punish societally destructive elements, we create a healthier and happier society for all. Don't Ask Don't Tell was an important tool we had to hurt gays with, now it is gone. They will use the removal of Don't Ask Don't Tell as a precedent for removing other, unrelated tools we hurt gays with. Unless we are willing to admit that our purpose for these laws is to deter gayness, we have no principled position to have any anti-gay law in the books. If we have no reason to be against gays and think gayness is just swell, why can't they marry, adopt children, become boy scout leaders, or anything else?

When Nazis put jews, gays, gypsies, and communists all into the same concentration camps, they were trying to purge their society of destructive elements. They wanted a clean, pure society to emerge from the other side, full of only healthy and productive elements. People who represented the ideals and values of the Nazi state, and would help further them into the future. The communists did the same thing by throwing everyone they disliked into the gulags, or starved them to death with artificial famines. The French Terror decided to purge its society of the nobility. The cultural revolution decided to purge China of professors and/or dissidents. The Khmer Rouge decided to purge their country of city-dwellers and glasses-wearers. Anti-gay laws are just another form of this societal behavior, we are trying to purge gays, but we're too limp-wristed and cowardly to go ahead and do it, so we end up with weird compromises like Don't Ask Don't Tell, and no gay marriages but yes to civil unions, that everyone can see are irrational and unprincipled. Does that mean I support Don't Ask Don't Tell? Theoretically, no. I think it's stupid. If we're going to have gays in our society, we should treat them as complete equals and integrate them fully into society. Because there is no reason to have a group in our society we don't approve of. By their mere existence, we are implicitly approving of them, so it is unfair and ridiculous to turn around and pass discriminatory laws against them.

For the same reason, I think these anti-minaret laws, these anti-burqa laws, that Europe is vainly passing in order to harass and punish muslims, is ludicrous. If Islam itself is legal, why aren't things Islam calls for and needs, like minarets and burqas? If we approve of Islam and think it's fine for Muslims to live in our countries, why are we harassing them and punishing them for being Muslim?

To be consistent, the only solution to undesirable groups is to ignore them, kill them, or separate from them. All other policies can easily be attacked from a moralistic viewpoint as hypocrisy and contradictory irrationality. Liberals have chosen complete tolerance of all groups. They have a consistent morality, and thus an admirable one. Christians have chosen random prejudices they cannot back up with any argument, and thus everyone derides their derision of gays. Conservatives who are fine with sodomy but against gays in the military should be laughed out of the room as the absurd idiots they are. The only possible opposition to liberalism is people who endorse options B or C. The Nazis and the Communists have tried option B and the result has always been war and collapse. The violence of their purges always seem to include too many innocent people and make too many enemies to succeed. But option C, and moral position C, has never been tried. Frustratingly, the obvious solution to all undesirable groups is option C, separation, but the only people who implicitly endorse it are the people who are already enjoying the blessings of their separateness. Japan doesn't have to explicitly endorse its policy of separatism from undesirables, because it implicitly already is. Those of us who are mixed up with all sorts of undesirables, however, have to endorse an explicit policy of separation. This means hurting various groups. And this, in turn, is unacceptable to the limp-wristed majority, which means we can never implement the policy and then show the beneficial societal effects thereof.

Due to this, liberalism will eventually win out. As Ayn Rand said, an inconsistent, unprincipled opposition can never overcome a consistent, principled ideology. Liberalism is principled and consistent. The only opposition to liberalism lies dead in the ashes of history, or has never before been tried and thus has no track record of superiority over liberalism. Conservative stances against homosexuality are at best fruitless and at worst counter-productive, because they make opposition to homosexuality look senseless and stupid. If we are to live among gays and celebrate all of their perversions, we can't possibly argue they shouldn't be allowed to join the military or adopt children. It just doesn't make sense. On what basis? It's one or the other. Either gays are evil or they aren't. Either they can be trusted or they can't be. Either they should flourish or be stamped out. There is no such thing as a completely neutral group. Gays are either better or worse than straights, as a statistical average. If better, we should all be liberals. If worse, we should all be separationists. There is no middle ground.

Supposing a certain percentage of gayness were desirable, but any higher percentage is against our own interests, we can come across a very strange moral picture. For instance, enough gays that we still have composers like Tchaikovsky and artists like Michelangelo, but no more. Enough gays that we don't have overpopulation, but no more so we also avoid underpopulation. Enough gays so that family estates can have enough cash to raise at least one well-off family, but not so many that family units cease to exist. These are all theoretically interesting questions, but they ignore two important points:

1) Society has the right to be free of groups, but it does not have the right to enslave them, for the sake of the greater good. Saying gays should be allowed in our society as second-class citizens with all sorts of discriminatory laws, because they yield us various benefits, is predatory and cruel. I don't want to violate an individual's human rights for such mercenary gains. I would rather forgo all those goods than stain my hands with the discriminatory, unjust laws necessary to poke and prod gays to be the 'exact right percentage.' Nor do I want a single person to suffer the pain of being gay who doesn't have to be, even if that means he will be the next Michelangelo. I am not so selfish that a good painting is enough to torture someone their whole life long in order to make it. Since all the statistics show gays are a tortured minority, I want no part in encouraging it, no matter how good gays might be for the rest of us.

2) Practically speaking it is impossible to control 'gay percentages', or 'black percentages', or any other threshold minority's percentages in the long term. You can either allow them to overtake your whole society or do away with them entirely. There is no stable, steady state. At some point, some cultural, demographic, or external force will dis-balance your precarious existence and push the percentage that was desirable into the undesirable region. There are only two final solutions to the threat of 'bad minorities,' extermination and separation. Weird rude-goldberg machines that try to 'control' various groups always end in failure. Slavery failed. Segregation failed. Don't Ask Don't Tell failed. All other contrived systems that try to maintain a steady state of societal balance will also fail. We cannot maintain the 'golden percentage' where gays, blacks, or any other group always end up helping our overall society more than if they weren't here. Therefore, it's better to make a clean break with them and forswear these groups entirely than to play with fire. For the same reason, we should ban alcohol and smoking. Our precarious attempts to keep them in the 'golden region' where they enrich people's lives more than they harm them is impossible to maintain and encourages some people to suffer so that others might be yet happier, an immoral, tainted position that costs too much for a healthy conscience to bear.

Does this sound rambling, contradictory, or muddled? Well of course it does. This is because homosexuality is such a difficult issue and because it involves entire philosophical debates that must be pre-proven before anyone can even address the specific issue of homosexuality. This is why I didn't want to write about it! But it will have to do as a good-faith attempt.

In conclusion, gays are bad people who hurt their communities, therefore they should be excised from our communities. Intermediate positions may deter the rate of gayness in a society, but it is ultimately an insupportable and unsustainable position, which will have to give way to liberalism sooner or later. What benefits gays bring to their communities are overshadowed by the harm they do, and I wouldn't accept slavery on the basis of the good it does for the community either, because some things are just plain wrong. Gays and perverts are icky and I don't like them. I don't want them to have any access to my life, or the life of my children, in any way, shape or form, as passive role models, or activists. Gays are more harmful than other, false equivalencies, like childless couples. Unless we accept overarching principles like the right of separation, the ends justify the means, utilitarianism, the principle of non-contradiction, and other philosophical issues, we can never legitimately reach the conclusion to discriminate against gays. Most people aren't intelligent or brave enough to endorse all of the intermediate philosophical steps to be legitimate anti-gays. This means that most anti-gay individuals end up looking stupid or prejudiced, the very irrational bigots that liberals gleefully paint them as. The only way to avoid the triumph of liberalism and the acceptance of gay perversions spreading out to 100% of the population is utopianism -- ie, the moral assertion that everyone in a country should belong to said country as a component part. Sort of like how every cell in your body has the entire dna of your entire body, and could reproduce, given the right chemical triggers, every other cell in your body. A proper individual in a utopia should contain the full dna code of the fully expressed utopia, and should be able to reproduce into the full body and restore the utopia completely even if left to its own devices. This means holding the values, interests, and capabilities that the utopia has set for itself, and no others that might get in the way. This means the right to exclude anyone who doesn't qualify. This means we can hate gays. ^_^.

Got it? Okay.