THE CASE FOR ACCEPTANCE: Addendum, Part II.5

Oh goody, a new card! (See the Comments for Part I.) This post (II.5, or however Roman Numerals indicate halves) is an interim installment to examine it.

“Anonymous” says the following: “There is one other thing wrong with being gay - besides some peoples' reaction to it. This also supports the ‘unnatural’ argument. Though I don't use right and wrong I have a pretty simple litmus test for behaviors. If everyone in the world did it, would the world be a better place. In the case of homosexuality, if everyone in the world was [gay], the human race would have become extinct long ago.”

First of all, “other?” That implies I’ve said there was at least one thing “wrong.” I haven’t. The homophobic bigot did, and I disagreed with him.

Second, while there are people who would consider it a boon to the universe if humans were extinct (if anyone knows a tongue-in-cheek emoticon, please share), this “litmus test” strikes me as not only specious but also as thoughtless. Let’s use the process I’ve proposed and examine it.

Define. “If everyone in the world did it, the world would be a better place.” First, better than what isn’t clear. Setting that aside, it might help to think of this in practical terms. There are things that take up not much time (for most people, this would probably include sexual activity), and there are things that take up enormous amounts of time. But “Anonymous” has applied this litmus test indiscriminately. So while the definition doesn’t necessarily mean that whatever we’re examining must be something that everyone on earth does, it nevertheless does hold that IF everyone did it, improvement would be obvious. I think that’s all the clarity we can get, as it’s stated.

Now, Apply. Let’s select a few activities and see what happens. Consider winemaking, academia, politics, computer technology, physics, undertaking (as in caring for dead bodies), finance, teaching, day care… is that enough? None of these activities, in and of itself, would perpetuate the human race and/or guarantee that we wouldn't become extinct. And each of these activities takes up so much time that if everyone did any one of them, nothing else would get done; the world would come to a grinding halt. What would the world be like if everyone made wine? Or if everyone taught physics? We need someone growing vegetables and grains. We need someone distributing these foodstuffs. If we apply logic, we can see that we need different people doing different things. There are many activities that, if everyone did them, the world would NOT be a better place. The litmus test “Anonymous” proposes would demand elimination of these activities.

Perhaps even more important: What is the underlying assumption “Anonymous” must hold in order for his/her litmus test to condemn any sexual orientation? How about this: the assumption is that sexual orientation is a CHOICE. IT IS NOT. Winemaking and teaching physics are choices, but sexual orientation is dictated by nature. Therefore, saying homosexuality is wrong because it would be bad if everyone were homosexual implies that everyone who is homosexual should just – what, not be homosexual? And how would that happen, exactly? (See my first installment for how I shredded the “Unnatural” card.)

So. Can we now Reconstruct? Hardly. We can't choose the color of our eyes, the date on which we were born, our parents, or our sexual orientation.

“Anonymous” says this test proves the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality. Evidently he/she didn't read the part in Part II about pheromones and how Nature gets gays out of the way of heteros so they can perpetuate the species (even though the comment was left after Part II was posted). I can't remember the name of the gay comic who said something like this to heteros: "Hey, just let us be gay, and we promise not to marry any of you."

Now, it's true that "Anonymous" used the word "behaviors." And while one's behavior can be said to be a choice, I'm hoping "Anonymous" won't turn out to be as ignorant about what it means to be gay as the Catholic church, whose contemporary position is that while the church recognizes homosexuality to be an orientation rather than a choice, it expects gays to remain chaste. (Here I need an emoticon for "Are you sh***ing me?") And anyway, even if all the gays in the world refrained from expressing this huge, compelling, critical component of who we are, it still wouldn't satisfy "Anonymous." It's not like we're going to apply this test to our lives, see that the human race will become extinct if the 5-7% of us who are gay don't go out and procreate, sigh wistfully at our true identities and go out and make babies for the sake of making babies.

So this litmus test gives only a nod to nature and ignores much more compelling evidence. What it has much more to do with is Choice. That kills any valid application of the test to any sexual orientation, which is not a choice. I think this "test" is a smoke screen for someone who has deeper problems with homosexuality. In other words, "Anonymous" is holding the card "Would the world be better if everyone did this?" in front of the card "There's no need to think; I feel instinctively this is wrong." I'll shred that one in Part V.

As for this card? SHREDDED.