February 27, 2007
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