Friday, December 27, 2013

A Perverse View of Perversion — Some Thoughts and Facts About Homosexuality

Some thoughts about homosexuality that I've accumulated over the years: First off, there's a distinction between homosexual behavior and homosexual people, right? I have to think that there are a lot of people of both sexes who have all the heterosexual urges but who, for one reason or another, have had homosexual experiences. I mean, prison rapists aren't homosexuals in the usual sense, right? My understanding is that, before homosexuality became a political thing, it was considered a vice, like drunkenness or thievery, that a person might indulge in, but that didn't define the person. Now, there have always been exclusive homosexuals, people who have no attraction, and maybe even an aversion, to the opposite sex. But they're always a small percentage, for rather obvious Darwinian reasons.  Since it's all political now, the tendency is to define as many people as possible as homosexuals, which really skews our perception of reality. This has reached the ridiculous extent of "gay marriage," which is an oxymoron, because marriage is an institution for reproduction, and homosexuality, whatever its merits is not about reproduction. More on that HERE. Also HERE.

In an effort to clarify things a little, here's

The Straight Dope on Homosexuality

Is homosexuality a perversion? If not, is it entirely normal? Almost normal?

These days, the very idea of perversion is out of fashion. The Washington Post would probably use the word only to describe an intense desire to balance the budget or enforce immigration laws.

However, a practical, even scientific definition of sexual perversion begins by defining the objects of normal, healthy reproductive desire. Wanting to have sex with anything that falls outside that definition is perversion.

Obviously, reproductive desire should be for another person. This means that sexual desire for trees or goats or ladies’ shoes is perversion. Sexual desire should also be for a live human being, which rules out dead people. And the live human beings should be at least of reproductive age, so wanting sex with children is also perverted.

But what do all these excluded objects of desire have in common? They are a complete dead end. For someone’s reproductive drives to be oriented toward children or rocks or goats or dead people is perverse because a reproductive urge in any of those directions is bound to fail. It’s an evolutionary absurdity.

So we’re not far if we define perversion as acting on a sexual desire for something or someone with whom reproduction is obviously impossible. But that definition would classify homosexuals among the perverts.

To consider homosexuality abnormal is now considered outmoded—maybe even perverted. The American Psychological Association calmly explains that “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality.” However, people who say that are in the odd position of having to agree that, yes, having a reproductive urge for every other reproductive dead end is abnormal and maybe even perverse, but it’s fine if men want to have sex with men.

I can’t think of any scientific or logical basis on which to make that exception. A dead end is a dead end, whether it’s a sheep or a corpse or someone of the same sex or a toaster.

We must, however, exclude from perversion certain makeshifts to which people resort when they can’t be with a live person of the opposite sex of at least reproductive age. Masturbation is the most common example; the basic orientation is normal but you couldn’t find a date. And it is obviously not perverse for a man to continue to have sexual relations with a woman past menopause.

Perversion or not, homosexuality has become respectable with astonishing speed. Before 1962, it was illegal in every state. As late as 2003, 14 states still had anti-sodomy laws on the books. Now the District of Columbia and 14 states (and eight American Indian tribes) recognize same-sex marriage, and four more states recognize same-sex “civil unions.”

As recently as 1982, the Department of Defense stated bluntly: “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” Nowadays, open homosexuals serve in all branches of the military.

Is this progress or decadence?
(Keep reading HERE.)

3 comments:

  1. Is this progress or decadence? DECADENCE AND SIN. Soon, like every other nation that turned away from God, this nation too, will be punished for the sexual sins allowed to go unchecked.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What it is... the personal business of the people involved... There is as much wrong, nutty coercion going on by those who want force everyone to accept it, for whatever reason, as there is by people who want to prohibit and punish others for doing things they don't like.

    Everyone ought to try minding their own business and leave everyone else alone to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Religiously, i am inclined to say that any sex act other than consensual acts between a man and a woman in a sacramental marriage not using artificial birth control methods is a sin. (I'm a Roman Catholic.)

    Civilly speaking i am inclined to say that who you fuck is none of my business as long as the act is between people who give competent consent to each other. It is unacceptable to me for anyone to be denied their political or property rights over their taste in consenting sex partners, including the right to form legally recognized unions of the type commonly referred to as marriage. (i'm a libertarian).

    ReplyDelete