Querying the Homintern
The idea that gay people are an oppressed minority would be laughable if so many otherwise intelligent people didn’t take it so seriously. Just look at what happened to Tim Hardaway, when, during an interview, he said “I hate gay people.”
The iron fist of political correctness wasn’t long in coming down, full force, on his head.
The former Miami Heat star was banned from the Las Vegas all-star game, and forced to recant: no doubt he’ll have to attend a reeducation class. Not only that, but he’ll have this “hate crime” to live down for a long time to come.
I wonder what would happen if the sneaker was on the other foot: imagine if, say, newly-“out” NBA player John Amaechi declared “I hate straights.” What would happen to him is … nothing! He sure wouldn’t be forced to apologize, and he wouldn’t be demonized, as Hardaway was: everyone would say, “Oh, the poor guy – see what ‘homophobia’ has done to him!”
In Europe, it is against the law to say what Hardaway – in a moment of honesty – said. Asked about Amaechi, he averred:
“First of all I wouldn’t want him on my team. Second of all, if he was on my team I would really distance myself from him because I don’t think that’s right and I don’t think he should be in the locker room when we’re in the locker room.”
Like most straight guys, Hardaway thinks gay men —all gays, everywhere—are just waiting for the chance to see him in the altogether. They all want him. And that makes him uncomfortable. This is what it boils down to: a barbaric conceit and crudeness typical of his milieu—but he should at least be allowed to express it.
The lesson of this whole episode isn’t that gays are in an especially bad position. Quite the contrary: it underscores their social power, i.e. their ability to make their avowed enemies suffer. Just as they made the state of Colorado suffer when voters there rejected legislation outlawing discrimination against homosexuals in housing and employment. Colorado was boycotted, for years, and dubbed “the hate state.” And for what?
Anti-discrimination ordinances attempting to legislate “tolerance” for homosexuals are about as effective as the 1964 Civil Rights Act was in eliminating racism – i.e. not at all. To begin with, there is no way to know when “discrimination” is occurring – did that real estate company not rent to you because you’re gay, or is it because there was something in your financial record that made them think twice about it? Did you fail to get that job because you were wearing too much Armani – or because you’re just not qualified to be a sheet metal worker? All this legislation, whether it applies to gays, blacks, or Estonians, assumes that everyone has perfect knowledge of everyone else’s motives and innermost thoughts: to these arbiters of socio-sexual equality, we are all mind-readers. The problem is, we aren’t mind-readers, and a lot of what passes for “discrimination” is nothing of the sort.
Another problem with this legislative “remedy” for the problem of “homophobia” is that it is a double-edged sword: it forbids gays from discriminating against heterosexuals. Thus, a homo homeowner who wants to keep his or her neighbor a pinkish shade of lavender is forbidden – officially – from selling only to one of his gay brothers or sisters (although everybody knows this happens all the time). Likewise, a lesbian nightclub is obliged to serve a bunch of heterosexual male sailors out to paint the town red – until, of course, they try to pick up the girlfriend of the butchest dyke in the joint, and it comes down to fisticuffs, flying furniture, and a visit from the fuzz.
A classic justification for “civil rights” legislation in the area of housing and employment has been the claim that certain groups are automatically, and through no fault of their own, put at an economic disadvantage by “discrimination” (i.e. the free choices of employers and/or landlords). Government, goes the reasoning, must therefore have a hand in “leveling the playing field.”
I won’t go into the arguments against this here, but will instead content myself with pointing out the obvious: homosexuals hardly qualify as an economically disadvantaged class. Lesbians and gay men have demonstrably higher incomes than heterosexuals, who are burdened, at least some of them, with the costs of raising children. With more disposable income, a higher level of education, and ubiquity in the arts, academia, and the professions, gays constitute an elite class that has nothing to complain about when it comes to the bottom line. In terms of homo economics, gays have a lot to be gay about. Of course, it’s only in the West, where capitalism and the (relatively) free market prevail, that a gay subculture has been allowed to develop – again, due entirely to the elite status of gays relative to the rest of the population.
Yet some people are just so hard to please, and gay political leaders have chosen to affect a stance of perpetual dismay; like a nagging wife, they’re never satisfied. Now they are demanding the “right” to get married. I emphasize that it’s the leaders, and the political activists, who are making 99 percent of the noise around this issue. The overwhelming majority of gay men – like all men, of all types and “orientations” – have no desire to get hitched. What they want is an endless series of sexual encounters, preferably with a different partner each time – although a few repeats might be merited – for as long as they can keep it up (so to speak).
This whole “gay marriage” business is a conspiracy to make homosexuality just as boring as the most conventional vision of heterosexuality: the husband/boyfriend, the jointly-owned San Francisco Victorian, the matched set of poodles, and – inevitably – the sordid little affairs and one-night stands, artfully concealed. Gay political leaders really believe they can do a makeover of their constituency, and convince Middle America that most gays live an idealized vision of domestic bliss. Gays, they aver, are just like everyone else.
The irony of all this is that domestication of the gay male could conceivably lead to his near-extinction. After all, it is the sexual freedom his homosexuality makes available to him that makes the lifestyle so attractive, at least to the young. As a recruiting device, the supposed appeal of gay married bliss is no match for the allure of rampant sexuality. Once they have managed to make homosexuality boring, bourgeois, and banal, gay leaders will likely find themselves with a considerably reduced constituency.
Why oh why do some gay men want to ruin it for the rest of us? Think of it: endless sex—without responsibility. What red-blooded male would want to give that up – and for what?
I’ll tell you for what: the advent of gay marriage will see the rise of a truly ugly phenomenon – gay divorce. Watch out world – you don’t know what kind of genie you’re letting out of the bottle! How many aging gay guys will be trapped by money-hungry twinks? Why, the little gold-diggers will have a veritable field day!
Which means that if gays of a certain age weren’t economically disadvantaged before they got their “civil rights,” then they’ll certainly be in the poorhouse by the time the gay rights activists enshrine gay marriage as a legally-recognized institution.
Justin Raimondo is Editorial Director of Antiwar.com
Comments
I think this is a very insightful and truthful piece.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Just so. Had Hardaway said “I hate whitey”, talking heads of all hues and chromosome counts would still be lauding his keen insight on race-relations.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m still waiting for the first Palimony case, but having watched various halves of divorce contend with support payments and the “friend of the court” collections system and debtor’s prisons, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to bring this forth on their worst enemy. Of course there is the BDSM contingent, emphasis on the M. But that aside, Jerry Falwell wants you to be saved - and from this family court system too!
Though I’ve noted before, the arguments against extending the franchise of a temporary, easily ended (bankruptcy is harder than divorce), sterile, mutual physical relationship to others is weak precisely because they rarely argue from the full tradition (the one that absolutely prohibited contraception before 1930 - if the preacher caught you with condoms it would have been little different if he caught you with porn). Marriage used to be both a vocation and covenant. The aristocracy sometimes did it for convenience but rarely broke the bonds, now all classes do it for trivial reasons.
And finally, whatever the religion or utter lack thereof, or orientation or occidentation, I care more about whomever I support destroying the ability of government to coerce. Which is why this piece is only a part of the greater irony (Edwards and the Bloggers as another example) - We support government expansion to micromanage every aspect of your life and hate you and don’t understand why you are fussing. If they supported removing government intrusion (from seatbelts to toilets), go ahead and hate me, I’ll vote for you because you would have to use your own sword to implement your hate, not one paid for by the taxpayers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As a gay “married” libertarian living in Virginia, I see Justin’s post as reflecting the typical view of most gay men who are baby boomers or older. Their brand of self loathing and accompanying self destructive behavior form the roots of the AIDS crisis that hit the gay community 20 years ago.
The younger generation is far more healthy, both physically and mentally. As a libertarian I support the right of anyone to speak of me as they wish...but I do wish the government would not intrude upon any personal contracts or affiliations I wish to make with my husband. Justin’s generation will never understand the likes of me, and they never will. Their hatred of themselves always gets in the way.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sometimes I almost suspect “Gay marriage” is a conspiracy concocted by divorce lawyers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m not gay-but I have mentioned this to my gay friends. It’s all a scam for lawyers and insurance companies to create a new market. Pretty much tapped out the hetro market.
Aging gays and money hungry twinks HAHAHAHA man I just about fell out the chair laughing. I saw that coming years ago.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Bravo!
Now, by extension, how about the question of gays in the military?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If you liked this blog entry, you would enjoy “When the kissing had to stop” (ISBN: 087000199X)
by Constantine FitzGibbon.
A novel of the way things might be when the Homintern rules....and the correction.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I came to this article from Antiwar.com, having been warned by the author that the
article was shocking (particularly to those on the left).
Now, I am left-leaning on certain issues - eg. public health and education - though
only to the extent that I can abide the whole idea of government, (which,
spiritually, I can’t really).
But, after all the anticipation, I was not shocked. It was easy to agree with
everything Justin said aboutpolitical correctness. (Those things I wouldn’t
necessarily agree with - that allstraights think gays are after them, and that
‘real’ gays want promiscuity not marriage - were just too witty for me to take
seriously!)
I would like to know why I was not shocked. Was it that Justin only said it would
be shocking to make me click on the link? Or am I just not left-wing enough?
My theory - I wasn’t shocked because I don’t live in America. (And perhaps Justin
thought we’d be shocked because he does . . . maybe some part of himself was
shocked?) Back to my theory . . . in my experience, American visitors to my
country (Australia) are always so damned shocked at everything and anything.
Each to a man is political correctness incarnate - not least of all when it comes
to a perceived ‘racism’ directed against their own good selves. ‘Humourless’ is
the word (and don’t forget to spell it with a ‘u’).
Long time fan of your work, Justin. They don’t build conservatives like you here
in Australia, more’s the pity.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
On the technicality that homosexuality requires sexual intercourse, gay marriage will most certainly result in a reduction of the homosexual population...excepting, of course, the advent of gay adultery.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m all for Gay marriage, Why should they be happy?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
it’s their money. if they are dumb enough to want to get married they should be able too. they should at least be able to get the same benefits as the straight people they work alongside. otherwise it’s essentially a gay tax isn’t it? it’s stealing from them
Click to flag this comment as abusive
One of the most heroic homosexuals of all time, Alexander the Great, certainly would have opposed gay marriage. It would have meant fewer available boys for him.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great article Justin!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A point that should be made is that the notion of “gay marriage” could not have come about had the character of marriage not already been altered and debased from what it traditionally was.
Marriage originally existed as a sort of compromise between the unrestrained sexual desire of the male, and the need of the female for security and to provide for the upbringing of her children. It also dealt with the inheritance of the marital estate through such legal constructs as primogeniture, dower and curtesy. None of these have relevance to a homosexual partnership.
The problem of what to do with children has increasingly been resolved by contraception and abortion, while the inheritance of property is considered a reprehensible activity, somewhat like drinking liquor or smoking tobacco, and like them is highly taxed.
Marriage is now all about entitlement to fringe benefits from employers and the government, and to privileged status in taxation. These are legal artifacts of relatively recent origin. Instead of extending the dubious benefits of the debased institution of modern marriage (including modern divorce) to homosexuals, it would be better for all if we abandoned the apparatus of welfarism and redistributive taxation which brought us to this pretty pass.
Marriage could then again offer its traditional advantage to the union of a male and female with intentions of raising a family. Such an institution would confer no benefits on homosexuals and there would be no demand amongst them for it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Did you ever notice that the folks most supportive of “gay” marriage,
are not very respectful of the sanctity of marriage at all. For instance,
the Mayor of San Francisco. It’s sort of like the same people who claim
that gender and race behavior is socially determined are the most adament that
being gay is genetically determined?
I have to laugh at the “gay libertarian” in Virginia who thinks that he’s
more “healthy mentally and physically” and show it by entering into the
farce of “gay marriage”. Now that’s HYPOCRISY!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Over the eons the sancity of marriage supervened upon the the sacrifice that parents offered for their offspring’s well-being, and indirectly the well-being of the nation, until the institution became a sacrament, something sacred. Now the homesexual wants in on some of that sanctification, but with none of the sacrifice. (The author is mistaken in believing that legalizing these unions will impose any real let to infidelity. The only “adulteration” to come out of this will be that of “holy matrimony” itself, which will become dislocated from the idea of natural law, and hence merely expedient at best, adventitious at worst.) “Think of it: endless sex—without responsibility.” Verily, they have their reward!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I see that despite my best efforts a typo crept into the above post, but one not without some redeeming pun merit. Allow me to Introduce the “homesexual” (pronounced “homey-sexual"), meaning, if you will, a domiciled, house-broken, and absolutely pathetic quondam blade.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great to hear from you on this site, Justin.
I hope to hear much more from you.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.