|
Essay #1
There exists in our culture
a cult of the collective. Combine this with the near-universal phenomenon
of sexual or religious social identification, and the result is the
ubiquitous subcultures and exclusive clubs which deny individuals the
true personal and social freedoms they deserve.
The gay population of most of the industrial world
is among the worst offenders in this area. In the dubious quest for
power and "acceptance," homosexuals have adopted, perpetuated, and promoted
the very social ills and stereotypical behaviors that demean and constrain
them. Rather than helping to contribute to the sexual liberation of
our society, most homosexuals eagerly adopt the very philosophical preambles
that have resulted in decades - if not centuries - of self-righteous
repression by religious, political and educational authorities.
The roots of these offenses go much deeper than politics,
"community," or sex alone can explain. Rather they are based upon inherent
personal shame and lack of identity, the roots of which lie in the philosophical
points-of-view held by such perpetrators in regard to the role of sex
in human biology and psychology, the concept of sexuality in its social
context, the influence of collectivism, and a desire - despite pleas
to the contrary - be seen as "normal" and to "fit in" in the eyes of
peers and elders.
Sex and Man For human beings, sexuality plays a distinctly different
role than in any other animal or organism. Over millenia, man has developed
the ability to regulate his procreation and to overcome the natural
obstacles to sexual and social bonding. As the need to engage in sexual
activity purely on reproductive grounds has diminished, its importance
in a social context has increased.
Rather than having seasonal reproductive cycles in
which polygamous males compete for maximum fertility with numerous females,
humans have grown capable of engaging in sexual activity at any time
of the year, at any time of day, from sexual maturity to death. Thus,
in man, sex the act - as well as the associated social preconditions
for sex - are removed from biology.
Man engages in sex for social and emotional purposes.
This applies to every human activity. Man's biological needs
are fulfilled with relatively small portions of the effort he expends
throughout his life. The remaining effort is based not on biological
need, but on the quest for emotional fulfillment.
Animals engage in all activities based strictly on
genetic determinism (with the exception of a certain few activities
in the higher primates and marine mammals). Because his rational faculty
has allowed man to overcome his genetically predetermined fate, man
engages n all activity with his ego - not his nature - as the driving
force.
Just like our need for sex, our need for food could
be taken care of with relatively minimal effort in comparison to the
effort every man actually invests in the pursuit thereof. If any random
lump of food were adequate to any man, the entire phenomenon of food
service, candle-lit dinners, and favorite foods would be unnecessary
and impossible - for, without any emotional accessory to the biological
need for food, minimal nutritional requirements are all that apply.
The latter, however, is not the case. Man engages in culinary discrimination
for the same reason, and to the same effect, that he engages in personal
discrimination when evaluating the compatability or desireability of
friends or sexual partners.
Regardless of whether sexuality is one day discovered
to be based upon genetic, psychological or philosophical factors, the
fact that man's rational faculty allows him to modify his actions to
suit his needs and desires cannot be discredited. Because he is seeking
emotional, rather than biological, fulfillment through sex, he is not
being played by his genes like a deterministic puppet when he chooses
a partner or partners. The argument that sexuality is predetermines
and unchangeable is insulting and destructive, as it eliminates the
possibility for free will or personal discrimination, and demotes a
part of one's life as important as love, romance and sexuality to the
level of non-value and non-choice equal to the development of inherited
heart disease, thus destroying even the possibility of obtaining any
fulfillment from the activity. How can one be emotionally or even physically
fulfilled by the crack of a slave-driver's whip?
Flaws in Attitudes Toward Sex Just as need is transformed to desire in the context
of the rational animal, so sex cannot be separated from interpersonal
relationships without a deliberate evasion of one's mental awareness
(mental amputation, if you will). Even if only encountering anonymous
genitals through a hole in the wall, one is reacting emotionally to
the activity in which one is engaging, so long as one is still a human,
and still alive - rather than just participating as a detached automaton,
such as an animal or vegetable, with no choice or ability to resist.
Such, admittedly, is the mental state of many humans, even when engaging
in activities as important as sex.
Because man's mind - his rational ability - is his
basic means of functioning on Earth (rather than merely his physical
abilities, as in animals), he must integrate his mind with the tools
that that mind was given as its connection to reality - his body - if
he wishes to maintain his mind or his life. A mind without a body is,
like a body without a mind, completely useless to a human being. If
he is incapable of manipulating the material world, a man cannot maintain
his life. If there is no governing and volitional force behind the muscles
in his body, man will be incapable of reacting appropriately to the
world in which me must live. This mind-body integration must be maintained
24-hours per day, and all the way down, otherwise one becomes an evader
of reality, believing oneself capable of turning reality on and off
at whim, without consequence - by severing the link between the mind
and the environment in which it exists. A mind without an anchor in
reality will inevitably perish, for in any disagreement between the
thoughts of a mind and the truth of reality, reality is the final arbiter.
Men who engage in such wholesale evasion only survive by the charity
of a provider who refuses to evade reality - something which our society,
unfortunately, is all too eager to provide in most cases, destroying
any incentive to integrate as is necessary to survive.
Similarly, the ability to see sex as "meaningless"
or detached from psychology is possible only for one who is a wholesale
evader. Regardless of the limited investment one takes in a particular
sexual act or encounter, or the minimal effort one expends to achieve
sexual satisfaction, there is an emotional and rational
need being fulfilled. As demonstrated before, the only biological need
fulfilled by sexuality is reproduction; something in which humans only
engage in a tiny fraction of their sexual encounters. Sex, in humans,
is a rational and quality-based need. This concept differs widely from
the common view by the "gay community," that sex is an animalistic,
biologically predetermined need. Such is the theory expounded by those
who supposedly seek "sexual liberation." Liberation from what, one may
ask? From thinking, of course.
Like the religious oppressors who stifle them, the
sexual minorities of the modern world believe that the only answer to
inescapable moral dilemmas is to remove said action from the realm of
volition. This is not only dangerous, but counter-productive. Sex, being
a rational desire - is entirely moral, regardless of who the partner(s)
involved may be.
The moral realm is not, as most religious doctrines
espouse, the realm of action alone - but rather the realm of motive.
Just as it is moral to take a life in defense of one's own life, but
immoral to take a life arbitrarily, thus one's motives are what must
truly be material for moral scrutiny.
Like the use of drugs - which, in the case of pharmeceuticals,
primarily - are widely regarded as a virtue when the motive is to assist
the eradication of pain, disease or suffering, so the use of sex is
subject to equal moral evaluation. The moral basis of one's view of
sex, if based on a rational morality, is not based on naked and shallow
concretes, such as numbers of partners or specific sexual activities
engaged in. Is one using sex, like drugs, to enhance the ability of
one to enjoy life in reality? Or is one using sex, also
like many drugs, to numb and escape life and reality? In the latter
case, sexuality is subject to a negative moral judgement. If one is
engaging in sex without regard to one's emotional needs or consequences,
one is behaving immorally - in a way detrimental to one's own life and
happiness.
The issue of moral pretext and personal rational fulfillment,
however, are seldom addressed by those in the "gay community" who endeavor
to defend their actions against religious or philosophical attacks.
Rather, they reflexively ooze the biological determinist argument, exclaiming
"we can't help it!" "it's not our fault!" - consequently admitting a
degree of moral vice from all sides - from the determinist camp,
who see them as genetic inferiors; and from the rationalist camp, who
recognize them as evaders. Evasion is in fact the last resort to escape
the shame of one's own private feelings of inferiority.
On a similar level, this same reflexive evasion is
a means nearly all sexual minorities use to evade the shame of moral
judgement by their peers. Rather than question the intrinsicist morality
of the Catholic Chruch, they demand that homosexuals and women be included
in Church infrastructure. Rather than question the validity of marriage
and other institutions of the sexual majority, they demand that marriage
be the universal and indiscriminate lifestyle norm. Rather than insist
that they enjoy their partner(s) and do not care to live against their
rational desires, they insist that their desires are so irrational that
they are incapable of choice.
Vice, Corruption & Evil Today's sexual minority community is, by and large,
extremely immoral. They refuse to question the institutions which discriminate
and war against them, but demand that those institutions stop the discrimination
and end the war. What they fail to recognize is that the institutions
and the discrimination are one and the same, and that their own lemming-like
stampede to join such institutions is the most immoral attack they can
make on their own life and happiness: sleeping with the enemy.
Religion, by its nature, is primitive. Unlike modern,
rational philosophy and psychology, religion insists that mankind has
no free will or volition, and that his purpose in life is - in a word
- death. Rather than existing on Earth for personal fulfillment and
individual growth, all religions insist that Earth is a temporary and
undesirable state which each man must reluctantly pass through on the
road to something "better." Thus religion depicts the physical and material
universe as a malevolent place to be despised and escaped.
What, then, is the point of desire? What the point
of life? Of personal needs or the pursuit of one's own happiness? This
is the way religion condemns the rational man - and exactly why the
rational man must condemn religion. By allowing some intrinsic, unquestionable
doctrine or dogma to rule his behavior and capacity for happiness, man
is resigning himself, like any animal, to a life of mind-numb slavery
to nature or any random demigogue. Thus religion, like biological determinism,
denies man free will, and this I why it can only be seen as the most
primitive of human mental processes.
Any group that endorses religion is endorsing their
slavery and demise. The same is true of those who endorse the doctrine
of bilogical determinism when it is applied to human desire and action.
Man is a creature of free will (or volitional consciousness), and that
will is determined by choice and reason, not genes. Genetics may determine
a basic quality or type of tool a man is given in his physical capacities;
but so long as the is a man, he is rational, and capable of overcoming
any natural constraints on his life or desires.
Unfortunately, one of the most arbitrary institutions
created by the society which constrains man is the same one which the
"gay community," as well as polygamists and other sexual and cultural
minorities, covet and defend more virulently than almost any other:
the institution of marriage. Marriage is the legal and social sanction
of a commitment between individuals. Any man who sees himself as a complete
and distinct entity has no need for that sanction, and would in fact
reject it if offered. Once again, in their shame and evasion, homosexuals
clamor to be allowed such sanction by the society and religious institutions
which condemn them, in order to by default feel the sanction of those
parts of their life which their own ego, in its evasion and insecurity,
refuses to sanction on its own. Like any collective, they see the institution
as a means of protection and a source of moral acceptance. This is also
the motive behind homosexual collectivism in general.
Most gays call it "pride." The use of such a term to
describe one's personal view of one's own sexuality - merely as an existent
- is not only dubious; it completely destroys the meaning of the word
"pride," and annihilates the concept of language in the process. Pride
is a term denoting a personal emotional satisfaction in an accomplishment,
achievement, or ability - physical or psychological. How can pride exist
for a personal trait or mere desire? One can be proud of one's specific
choice(s) of partner(s), or of particular sexual or romantic conquests,
but not of the static quality of one's sexuality alone.
Like all its other traits, the "pride" expressed by
the majority among the "gay community" is a meaningless collective trait,
devoid of substance and incapable of aiding the liberation of sexual
minorities from the social institutions which pronounce their choices
and desires as depraved and incorrect.
The "gay community," in its desperate quest for power
and "tolerance," has become a collective monoculture, which substitutes
learned behaviors, linguistic cues, universal social dialect and "pride"
for identity or personality. Like all collectives, it destroys differentiation
as a means of initiation, resulting in a universally recognisable subculture
which lacks any cohesion other than loathed surfacial traits like the
undifferentiated techno music, short shorts, hairless bodies and Madonna
mimicry of gay men or the overweight, crewcut, drag king butchery of
gay women.
Of course, there are exceptions to this sexual monoculture,
but it is usually itself a collective subculture which is merely reacting
to the "gay community" at large. In either case, the concept if individual
identity is lost in a sea of conformity and group-think. Dissention
from the ranks is only acceptable if it does not disturb the agenda
of further collective integration of gays into a faceless pressure group
within the society they hate.Disapproval in any form of the group-think
majority is "closed mindedness" or "intolerance."
Thus homosexuals - and for that matter, feminists and
most other sexual minorities - have become the new sexists, espousing
the newest and most oppressive sexism. Rather than discriminate for
inclusion, they discriminate for exclusion - creating an exclusive club
with an agenda that, severed from its deviant faÁade, differs very little
from the agenda of Jerry Falwell and his own fundamentalist, anti-secularist
minority.
. . . Like all forms of exclusion and discrimination, today's
gay fascism is a social disease which denies individual freedom. Those
who identify, because of their personal choices and freely chosen actions,
as "gay" are in turn prescribed a specific set of behaviors - to which
they must conform if they wish to participate in social interaction.
Perhaps an individual - if he wants to live on Earth
and as a human being - should question the collective as a concept,
rather than merely seeking one in which they wish to belong.
|