Confessions of a Homophobe

Confessions of a ‘Homophobe’

This essay was originally a penance for not listening enough; for not having sufficient regard for an interlocutor and accepting the possibility of being moved to change ones view on the basis of an argument and the evidence led for it.

The argument was between me, a secular, non-traditional, conservative-back-to-basics fundamentalist, and a homosexual man and advocate of the legitimacy of homosexual marriage and the right of homosexual couples to adopt, third party surrogate and bring up children.

In our initial encounters, I think that I did not engage him with same degree of intellectual charity that he did with me.  He paid me the respect of looking at my arguments in detail and responding to them.  I paid him back by attacking his position from pre set entrenchments that were all about my views, and not his. 

This is my attempt to make amends.

I have not resiled from my views, but I do accept the need to meet my protagonist half way.  Nobody is convinced of anything against their will because they have been bludgeoned into a corner.

This individual deserves as honest, extensive and soul searching an appreciation as I can of the circumstances that have moved us from the first concerted revolutionary efforts in the late eighteenth century to shake off the grip of pre-modern values and behavior, to the current demand for Gay and Lesbian marriage and the right to adopt children or import them via surrogacy or third party sperm.  In doing this, I hope to engage each one of the ideological leverages that presently buttress the arguments led by my protagonist, the homosexual lobby and its supporters.

I also do an appreciation of some of the vectors that may call into question and undo much of this ideological leverage as we move towards the end of the Modern Period into Post-Modern times.  In my view, while the issues that swirl around the political claims of the homosexual lobby are no particular reflection on homosexual communities anymore than anyone else, they are emblematic of a decadent latter day period in a society dominated by ideological excesses, delusory thinking, morally corrupt behavior and life marginalizing disregard, in much of what it does.  Further, the claims being made on our marital institution are both a symptom and re-enforcement of its ongoing decline and decrepitude.

This piece is designed to focus discussion not in terms of past tradition versus current thinking, but in terms of how events and values are likely to shift as Modern societies start to unwind in the face of insurmountable environmental, economic, social and existential (a brain biological ‘software’ infrastructure alternative to ‘spiritual’) pressures, that are coming to bear as a result of their broadly unsustainable character as social and economic organisms.  (See also Meditations on the Road to a Post-Modern Age at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1576546-Meditations-on--Postmodern... which posits a general view of the journey we are shortly going to make out of the modern period.  Post-Modern Heroes: Michael and Giordana at : http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1810745-Post-Modern-Heroes-Michael... gives some idea of what the post-modern experience might look like.)

The kind of conservatism that is being represented in this work is not backward looking, if for no other reason that there isn’t much left to fall back on.  It is ‘progressive’ in the sense that it has a vision that looks forward to a period of unavoidable economic and social reconstruction.  This effort will likely draw as widely as is practicable on those parts of the modern experience that did not contribute unduly to its undoing and can help build a stripped down back to basics forms of community, struggling with what will undoubtedly be difficult circumstances.

In the short term it is very likely that the homosexual lobby will get its way, for it would seem there is already too much momentum in place to stop it.  In essence its campaign is an intelligent opportunistic move on a society whose existential bearings, social regulatory mechanisms, and institutional settings have almost ceased to exist, as a result of having been deconstructed by politically libertarian laissez-faireism, exposed to a culture of consumer choice and colonized by market forces.

What is more, in Australia and perhaps in Britain, its main current opposition is an almost defunct old traditionalist  religious and secular middle-of-the-road ‘establishment’ left over from the nineteenth century.  Much of its influence is severely eroded and/or divided from within, as on the one hand its ‘conservative’ wing struggles hopelessly to maintain what it really believes in, despite relentless and steady defeat and marginalization, and on the other, its ‘liberal’ wing, that needs to still seem ‘relevant’ in the overwhelming rush of late modern ideas and practices, even if that means cutting itself off from its own roots.   

The emergence of the kind of much more aggressive, politically self confident and ascendant fundamentalist religious movement now commonly found around much of the rest of the world, has not made itself felt here in Australia to anywhere near the same extent, as yet.  They are an ominous symptom of just how far and rapidly Western utilitarian liberal ‘progressive’ views are becoming delegitimized.  And a secular, post-modern, socially re-regulating and retraditionalizing equivalent of it is presently hardly more than in introductory assemblage in these pages. 

(In my ‘Hypatia’s Ghost’, I lay out how modern ideologues need to shift focus from denialism in the face of traditional religious fundamentalism and move to compete for their ideological territory, to ensure a secular rather than an old time religious wave of coming change at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1759367-Hypatias-Ghost .)

The conservative vision being laid out here is not hostile to homosexuals and wants to be inclusive of them, as long as they stay out of the central business of reproductive society and avoid even the perception of proselytising their sexuality as an alternative of equal standing.  But in the absence of that, how this predisposition plays out will be determined in some measure by how the political struggle unfolds and the alliances it gives rise to coalesce.


In the unfolding of The Age of Reason, philosophical utilitarianism and the onset of industrial revolution, a set of ideas were propelled onto the world stage, of which only some came to fruition at the time.

The declarations of Independence in the US in 1776 and the declarations of the rights of man in France and then the US, in 1789, spelt out the sovereignty, rights and equality of the individual before the law and the institutions of governance, thus profoundly confronting not just the immediate long standing narrow privileges and arbitrary practices of the political power elite in the traditional world, but ultimately the pervasive grip of traditional communal authority and values, right down to the grass roots family structure. 

But in its initial thrusts, it only effected this for certain men of European origin; not men of color, nor colonial peoples in general, nor slaves, nor those working under long terms of indenture or other unconscionable terms of industrial labor, nor any women, and certainly not homosexuals, whose ‘nefarious’ sexuality long remained universally criminalized and morally condemned.

Thomas Jefferson, who was an architect of both declarations (He was the US ambassador in France in 1789) owned slaves and had a black slave mistress by whom he probably fathered one or more children, the first of whom was likely conceived while in revolutionary France. 

The extraordinary irony and hypocrisy of this seemed to have escaped him.

The revolutions of the later eighteenth century were but a start to a detraditionalizing process that would take over two centuries to tease out and deliver, at least in part. 

At every turn in this story, the traditionalists fought bitter and protracted rear guard actions that are still playing out in many conflict theatres throughout the world (although it would seem that the current rise of religious/conservative fundamentalism throughout the world is now resulting in a counter-attack rather than rear guard action, but that is another story.  (See ‘Hypatia’s Ghost’ for an analysis of the ascendency of religious fundamentalism at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1759367-Hypatias-Ghost ).


The first shots that would eventually lead to the campaign for homosexual ‘emancipation’ were fired by the early feminists Mary Wollstonecraft in England and Olympe de Gouges in France, during the period of the French Revolution.  Their efforts fell well short of their target, but they did raise fundamental gender issues in the earliest phase of the ideological transformation of the modern world. 

As time went on, feminist advocacy broadened political debate out of the larger political struggles of institutionalized public life; its governance, laws and industrial practices, into the gender realms of the private and the intimate, as to how men and women should think of themselves and each other. 

Their radical sexual/political ideological trajectory in the ethnically European world moved from notice-of-intention in the 1790s, to acquiring more equitable legal marital/property status for women in the nineteenth century, then political suffrage in the early twentieth, to demanding a more equal career and domestic politics in the mid/late twentieth.  This struggle is still an ongoing, albeit battling to maintain a politically principled momentum for changes in gender behavior, against a radical narrowing of their agenda around sexuality and the overwhelming pleasure streaming that is the mark of a mature consumer society. 

The unfolding story of the modern emergence of an altered status for women has provided an ideological template and campaigning style to fight the claims of traditionalists and their authorities in ways that would later inform the homosexual struggle for legitimacy, legal and social protection, and equality before the law in all respects, including the right to marry and adopt children.

What feminists, like the homosexuals who came after them had to tackle, was a set of institutionalized constructions of their nature and role that had been long entrenched by precedent and powerful ideological agreement.  To break that circle meant deflating its claims, disputing them in detail and exposing audiences used to a received wisdom, that the matter was now in question.

As with all traditionalist authority structures, the patriarchy assumed a divinely ordained and sanctioned ‘natural order’ that had always been taken for granted and was not seen as a man made  political construction.

Under this ‘natural’ regime, its anointed male masters had the stewarding responsibility of ‘protecting and guiding’ a ‘vulnerable and infirm’ group caught in the immediate, hazardous and absorbing biological web of child birth and nurturance, a ‘delicate’ constitution and an emotionally unstable ‘irrationality’ which rendered their judgment small and unreliable in important matters requiring ‘objectively’, and thus pre-ordained them to be subservient dependents of men. 

Feminists countered that the imagined disabilities of women that would justify their inferior status, marital bondage and lack of political participation, were not only a wild exaggeration and a product of blind male conceit, but insofar as they were they were true at all, they were a product of active repression and denial of educational, social and economic opportunity.  They were able to show that the rationale for their ‘biological disability’ and political/domestic dependency were merely propaganda tools of political dominance for the male beneficiaries of a conveniently comfortable status quo, for them.

This radical challenge to traditional ideas drove a wedge into the end grain of the patriarchal order that they sustained, and progressively levered it towards its heart, gradually splitting it asunder.  It filled the space created with opportunities for further penetration by other groups, such as the homosexual lobby, that in concert with war, economic and technological change, reconfigured the mind space of successor generations; shortening memory, altering consciousness and reconstructing reality.


Notwithstanding the above, at least initially, the path that homosexuals had to tread was more treacherous still than that of women, for at least they had some kind of legitimate function in society, albeit a limited one.  Thus misogyny, for all its miserable consequences, was never going to be a match for the disgust, revulsion, contempt and revilement that afflicted all homosexuals.

Homosexuals received the full force of a Biblically proportioned opprobrium for their ‘unnatural vices’.  Even discussing it was extremely difficult because sex generally, let alone homosexual sex, was hedged around by viscerally powerful taboos. 

A writer and sexual practitioner like the Marquis de Sade, whose career spanned and paralleled the early feminists and the rise and fall of the radical Jacobins during the French Revolution, took considerable risks in exposing himself to the common view.  His open discussion of politically revolutionary libertarianism, untrammeled desire and the sexuality of punishment and pain, while briefly and partially entertained during the revolution’s headiest moments, was otherwise uniformly regarded somewhere between ‘obscene’ and criminally insane, and consigned to the realms of pornography, prostitution and the always lengthy shadows on the underside of respectable society. 

Homosexuals were right at the bottom of the ideological queue, on a par with de Sade and his crew, if for no other reason that large chunks of traditional ideological thinking had to be undone before they could get a sniff at legitimacy.

Without the work of the women’s’ movement in contradicting long established gender assumptions, the homosexual community wouldn’t have had the kinds of leverages to challenge the ones applicable to them.  Feminists helped undermine established gender in ways that could later be ‘spilled’ over into collateral matters of sexuality, to the point that everything about it could be questioned.

But that was not nearly enough by itself without the rise of another child of The Enlightenment; the post WW2 civil and human rights movement that gave all traditional outsiders a voice and a constituency from which they could gain political traction and legitimacy, on a mass scale. 

This movement leveraged an already powerful ideological language and proceeded to energize political mass movements against international and local tyrannies.  Anti-colonial, anti-racist and civil rights struggles erupted in its wake and in the process, they spilt over into a much broader attack on patriarchy and sexism.  This then became a general purpose fighting vehicle against traditional oppression of homosexuals.

It is no co-incidence that within just under a decade of the charter of the UN being adopted, the Wolfendon Report on homosexuality and prostitution in Britain came out.  It echoed the utilitarian values of the enlightenment.  It took the view that private sexual acts between consenting adults and the private morality that they might represent, was outside the realm of public policy, because it did not in its view qualify as a public harm or ‘disease’, in any meaningful sense of the term.

This could not be a clearer statement of the emerging power of the utilitarian ideological order; the ‘privatization’ of moral thinking, the marginalization of the traditional moral commons, the narrowing of notions of ‘public harm’, and in an age of burgeoning psychiatric ‘syndromes’, ‘conditions’ and ‘pathologies’, homosexuality was summarily removed from the medical lexicon.  The space it left was now reserved for its opponents’ mind set to be added later, as its replacement; the ‘homophobe’.

Within ten years of its publication, homosexual acts between consenting adults in Britain were legalized.  But that was just the beginning.  What was required for acceptance and respectability was a further demolition of traditional views of not just gender status, but sexual conduct, made possible by the consumer and sexual revolutions that came in the following decade after the Wolfendon Report.


The emerging consumer economy required a dominant ideological regime of ‘disinhibited’ and deregulated behavior and values that would ‘free up’ consumer responses to the blandishments of an increasingly sophisticated and pervasive system of commercial mass motivational management.  It is important to note that this move was an analogue of the deregulatory push by transnational capital to remove traditional ‘barriers’ to trade, productivity growth and the intensification of economic activity across all markets.

There were three intimately inter-related prongs to this move.

The first one was to truncate the ideas of the enlightenment by splitting rights away from the regulatory disciplines of personal responsibility and social obligation that underpinned them; then delegitimize traditional moral judgment (judgmentality) and social enforcement (repression/ abuse) that might challenge the removal of this personal/social balancing mechanism; then enshrine rights as a stand-alone unconditional ideological artifact; and finally, substitute the whole structure of personal and social discipline and autonomy with overwhelmingly persuasive marketing drivers that would control consuming behavior and attitudes instead, and residualize ‘unnecessary’ character formation and sensibility into a state of  ‘benign’ neglect. 

The second was to remold the enlightenment notion of the primacy of  the individual in relation to the state, social authority and personal integrity, into a very vulnerable form of egoism, which put the self and what it wanted at the front and centre of consciousness and social thought.  This effectively conflated notions of the citizen and the customer, with latter colonizing the former.  And the social commons was also residualized into a state of ‘benign’ neglect.

In this process, rights, needs and wants became virtually indistinguishable.  It gradually stripped away social context, in favor of a consumer one, and facilitated a new version of psychological atomization that broadened out from the traditionally alienated capitalist relations of economic production, into the consuming social milieu. 

And what had once been a matter of a disciplined critical judgment that would bulwark the individual as a character and citizen, degenerated into libertarian sloganeering, sloppy excuse making and empathetic sentimentality. 

The third was to bypass the rational/critical/consequential ‘superego’ in the cerebral cortex, by getting inside and manipulating the ‘id’ sexual/pleasure/power drives of the most primitive part of human consciousness at the base of the brain that we share with crocodiles.  And it brought in its train a very powerful sexistentialist ‘philosophy’ or principled ‘volupturism’ that would overwhelm social thought and the politics of intimacy.  (More of that later).

Together, these strategies provided an unprecedented level of privatized mass consciousness management unmatched in its totalitarian density and invisibility by any previous system of totalitarian control, which until then had depended on a command state and a regime of overt intimidation.

The really stunning result of this system was that ‘change’ appeared to be ‘spontaneous’, ‘commonsensical’, ‘benign’ and a seemingly ‘inevitable’ path towards a confluent ‘progress’ of business, egoistic self-interest, and unlimited and accelerating economic growth, raising the consumption of its pleasures and satisfactions into a quasi-religion, and co-opting laissez-faire libertarian social consciousness as an ‘Enlightenment’ gloss to consumer ‘freedom’. 

Pre-capitalist systems of social management and consciousness didn’t stand a chance.  They collapsed with hardly a whimper, for they just didn’t understand or get a real grip on why or how the carpet kept being pulled out from under them.

By the middle 1960s, the transitioning of traditional morality and discipline into ‘repression’ and ‘abuse’ was well underway.  Personal restraint and delayed gratification became ‘anally retentive’ and stodgily ‘straight’.  ‘Decency’ and ‘obscenity’ became standing jokes.  If it felt good, then it was good. Anyone who questioned that was seen to have the problem of being ‘old fashioned’ and ‘out of touch’.  Sexual experimentation was considered ‘adventurous’ and ‘liberated’.  Porn shops became respectable places to walk into.

Had de Sade lived to see this emerging world of sexual and ideological consciousness, he would have felt right at home, and that his political philosophy had found its cradle.

The traditional language of moral discourse simply dissolved, leaving its ageing advocates dead in the water, marginalized and made to feel like figures of fun and contempt.

Simultaneously, the bulk of health risk associated with casual multiple partner sex disappeared with the appearance of antibiotics, which could sweep away venereal infection as a problem of the past, at least for long enough to lull people into believing that incurable diseases like HIV/AIDS, genital herpes and warts, hepatitis B, Chlamydia, HPV and some of the more tenaciously drug resistant ‘traditionals’ such as gonorrhea and syphilis, were only ‘temporary reverses’ for which progressive fixes would be found, eventually.

The contraceptive pill did the same job by radically reducing unwanted reproductive risk, and by so doing, further contributing to the disconnect between sex, children and family life.  And it had the interesting ‘side effect’ of putting women under unprecedented ‘liberating’ pressure to sexually deliver-on-demand for a ‘quick friendly’, just like so many of their homosexual counterparts and the traditional world of prostitutes. 

Saying 'no' on the first date quickly became an uncool mistake and not likely to be amendable on a second one.

And the legalization of abortion meant that any mistakes that got past the contraceptives or carelessness could be easily fixed, to further ensure that fertile sexual union could be reproductively barren, just like its homosexual counterpart. 

The fact that this would kill biologically complete, but small people too young to have a social network to support them, or have sufficient neural networks to register protest or pain at death, meant that they could be removed antiseptically and covered in a shroud of clinically anodyne language that would balm doubt and conscience. 

Nothing could be allowed to spoil the fun of people who would now increasingly (and paradoxically) blanch at capital punishment, or acts of war.

These were all important milestones in the casualization and sterilization of inter-gendered sex, so that it became just another pleasurable pastime, making it indistinguishable from any other sexually inconsequential union.  And naturally, as pleasure became the main ‘product’ of sexuality, fetishistic garnish, experimentation and boundary testing adventurism made much more sense.

As the mortality of children plummeted, education extended and they became more aggressive consumers, and thus more protractedly expensive to bring up, affluent societies trended to small nuclear families.  Sexual reproduction became a much smaller function of family life.  And the development of demographic time bombs in poor third world countries gave further traction to the notion that reproductivity was some kind of threat to the future of the species. 

Reproductive sterility lost its bad name.

Even better, the progressive normalization of extended libidinous boundaries took on industrial dimensions, as the entertainment, advertising and marketing industries absorbed, glamorized and sanitized these agendas into their attempts to get into the most powerful iconic leverages within the human mind.  Human sexuality ceased to be a ‘private’ matter as explicit sexual imagery in the public domain became ubiquitous.  Traditional notions of sexual taboo, fear, guilt and disgust at the human ‘dirty bits’, faded away.


The fact is, as that old smutty joke relates, sex is a beautiful park with a sewer running through the middle of it.  Aside from the obvious physiological delicacy of that relationship and how easily its defenses can be disrupted by say the risks of multiple partner sex or poor hygiene, there is the metaphoric conundrum that it raises, of the nice and nasty bits of sexuality. 

The semi-domesticable sexual beasts that lives in the medulla at the base of our brains are things of great beauty, but without somewhere secure to lock them up and a firm willingness to muzzle and put them there when they threaten to get aggressive and out of hand, they can do a lot of damage to their hosts and those around them.  The sexual revolution taught us to forget the nasty and difficult bits, and only remember its pleasures, to our sometimes very great detriment, both individually and socially.

Women aren’t just pleasure vessels.  Saddled with almost a hundred percent of the reproductive suite, it imposes itself on them in every way.  For them, everything about their reproductivity is brimming with routine and episodically challenging consequences, most of them disruptive, uncomfortable, sometimes painful and always potentially health threatening. 

Unlike men, they have much more powerful and complex interconnects between their sexuality and their emotionality.  They can only be casual in their sexual relations for a while.  In the end it costs in terms of emotional patience and physiological risk, as they journey towards the ever approaching specter of menopause.  On balance, for them, sexual casualization has never been as ‘liberating’ as it was cracked up to be.

The messages emanating from the sexual revolution, like any propaganda campaign, conflated ‘liberating’ ideas with underlying control agendas for manipulating consciousness and behavior not necessarily in the interests of the ‘beneficiaries’.  Spontaneity in the face of desire is a form of freedom, but it is also its opposite by way of loss of autonomous control and discipline, making it much easier for background market forces to hack into social and personal agenda, legitimize second and third rate behavior and construct fantasies that would in any society in real possession of itself be the subject of not just a real concern and fear, but mockery and derision.

Conflating the honest truths of The Enlightenment with a culture of convenience, the easy, immediate gratification, compulsive pleasure seeking and unrestrained egoism, corrupted the discourse between men and women into an interpersonal free fire zone.  It undermined the sexual politics of life giving, and destabilized social relations in ways very analogous to the contemporaneous economic aggression against the life of the planet.  It was a milieu that any opportunist could use to leverage previously extraneous and marginal agendas, with a spurious ideological authority they could never have otherwise enjoyed.

Thus it came about that the reproductively inconsequential relations that govern homosexual relationships were gradually bestowed an equivalent value of credibility, legitimacy and identity in the competitive jostle with their inherently fertile, but increasingly lost and bamboozled heterosexual neighbors.


Within a decade of the sexual revolution’s beginnings, the naming of homosexuals shifted to the much more attractive and user friendly  ‘camp’ and then ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ nomenclatures, which became associated with ‘uninhibited’ fun times, and ‘interesting’, ‘theatrical’ and ‘creative’ lifestyles. 

Popular soap TV series started to run gay and lesbian community ‘issues’ portraying this population as ‘just like us’, only perhaps heart warmingly funnier or quirkier, and needing the same acceptance and love as everyone else.  Their humanity was just like ours. Deniers of this now obvious fact became official ‘bigots’, who as a result of ‘stereotyping’, ‘discriminated’ against designated ‘victims/poor things’ (the oppressed) who had ‘rights’ that needed to be defended by legislation against ‘vilification’. 

The language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that had emerged out of a terrible period of mass murder and totalitarian state tyranny cascaded down the hierarchy of repressive severity into the warm and open arms of  a consumer culture that loves self-indulgence, a good story and a well crafted punchline.

Homosexual ‘differences’ seemed so absurdly unimportant when appropriately repackaged through the mass media, as we either forgot their criminal (sorry ‘criminalized’) past, or were now made to feel guilty for it, which was not difficult to do in the light of a whole academic industry of ex post facto historical revisionism, armed with appropriate ideological keywords, analysis and a very selective memory, dedicated to exposing the perfidies and injustices of the Old World Order, and not just as it pertained to homosexuals. 

In any other context, these exercises in ideological colonization of a social culture would have been instantly recognized as a propaganda campaign.


The processes of regime change and the ebb and flow of rehabilitation and purging within traditional totalitarianisms has been long well understood.  However, those that occur under the aegis of consumer capitalism are not. 

The consumer capitalist Brave New World works off much more powerful pleasure motivators mediated by apparently apolitical and benign persuaders, and the symbols of freedom to ‘buy’ any hearts’ desire, whim or idea.  There is no centralized apparatus or chain of command that might alert conventional critical understanding to just how enormously powerful it is.  Instead, there is a virtual organism that ‘backgrounds’ consciousness and behavior orchestration in ways that traditional command economies and social compacts could never possibly match.

The relationship of ‘progressive’ libertarianism with ‘progressive’ consumer capitalism has never had that direct quality where there was an obvious ideological chain-of-command coming down from say a Communist Party through its party apparatchiks to the masses.

Unlike its totalitarian predecessors, Consumer Capitalism became so powerful and secure that it didn’t require ideological consonance from its intellectual apparatchiks.  The freedom to critically and aggressively confront ‘the system’ gave the lie to the consumer notion of ‘free’ choice for all products, services and ideas.  The market organism could indulge ‘radicalism’ because the intellectual artifacts in question overwhelmingly belonged to it, as it owned and controlled the system of cultural mediation. 

But very much like its Soviet counterpart, the system gave these ideological officials sinecures in the legal, social welfare, media and education system to keep them busy administering and ideologically justifying the system of disinhibition, the myth of freedom and the impression of criticism within the totalitarian whole.  But the clincher was that these ‘Libertarchs’ were extremely efficient at getting rid of traditionalist pre-capitalist values that got in the way of ‘progress’, i,e, the axis of business power and market freedom.

If it didn’t do so much social and ecological damage, this system would be a thing of great beauty and elegance, as it assembled a world order in which anyone could become a customer or producer of anything within the absolutely minimalist boundaries set by the need to maintain uninterrupted flows of every fantasy and whim that could potentially be turned into a product, service or useful idea.

Anything that did not serve that end or got in its way was interrupted, marginalized and/or discredited.  Consumer capitalism became a ‘benignly’ multi-national, multi-cultural and multi-sexual all inclusive absorber of grist to its mighty mill.  But what was not apparent was the enormous price extracted for participation within its machinery, the extent of its totalitarian character and the falsifications of reality that its propaganda machinery necessarily embodied.

(See ‘The Age of Bottled Water’ to watch commercial consciousness development in action at: http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1770378-The-Age-of-Bottled-Water .  For some idea of the intensity of the hyper slave economy see ‘Quiet Revolutionaries- The Idearchs, at  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1613943-Quiet-Revolutionaries---Th... .)

This has started to become more overt and obvious as consumer capitalism has reached the tolerable ecological limits of global expansion and the capacity of communities to withstand the chaos left behind by long term laissez-faire social libertarianism and consumer ‘choiceism’.

More, the mantras of freedom and the language of libertarianism have started to wear thin as their own history and the ideological leverages they made available have so very often led to Orwellian reversals in meaning. 

Regrettable, and much nastier third world tyranny, disorder and violence all too often replaced perfidious first world imperialism.

The tyranny of  ‘racist’ paternalism and population wide traditional ‘repression’ was replaced by an even worse tyranny of life without borders, as worlds ‘freed up’ from moral constraint dis-empowered actors to the point of excuse riddled incoherence, behavioral incompetence, character under-development and existential/spiritual software impoverishment. 

Society’s bottom feeders were no more vulnerable to this corrupting influence than the top ones.  Welfare abuses paralleled those in board rooms.  The ultimate consumer ‘trip’, the drug culture, hit the affluent even harder than the poor, for the former have far more money to abuse themselves with.  And performance and injury recovery 'enhancers' leveraged pathological corporate behavior into professional sport to force absurd health threatening performance vectors into the realms of normality.

Thus attempts to ‘help’ the unfortunate and infirm with a welfare state have had the unfortunate ‘side effect’ of all too often disabling its recipients and turning them and their families into uncomfortably comfortable inter-generational dependants and social parasites, with all the dysfunctional and unproductive values we have come to expect from a permanent underclass, notwithstanding that they have a level of opportunity, security and standard of living the average third world peasant would kill for.

At the other end of the social system, the misbehavior and dysfunctional thinking that pervades our social system was most spectacularly exemplified in the recent GFC, when obscenely over-rewarded bankers allowed delusionalism, dishonesty and d’greed to all but destroy the global banking system.

Mass education combined with a human rights culture has delivered whole generations of undisciplined children, too many of whom can barely read or write after ten years of schooling, or whose more senior skills are so inferior that they can barely write a university tutorial essay and are being rapidly overtaken by people from non English speaking cultures that still insist on and enforce standards.

(For an analysis of how laissez-faire libertarian ideology has managed to further destroy already deeply disabled indigenous communities, see  ‘A Sorry Story’ at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1594087-A-Sorry-Story .  See ‘Judgment Day’ at: http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1808742-Judgment-Day for what lack of boundaries does to moral thinking.  See ‘Lies, Damn Lies and Excuses’ at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1721110-Lies-Damn-Lies-and-Excuses... to assess the effect of excuse making.  And see ‘Satan Speaks’ at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1759332-Satan-Speaks to understand how easily moral thinking can be destroyed by selective consciousness.)

And over a 50-60 year period, as consumer economies transformed themselves into despotisms of the 'free', homosexual minorities moved from being a criminal underclass to being able to vulture the carcass of the heterosexual commons in the name of ‘equality’ and their ‘human rights’, in ways reminiscent of the behavior of the court Eunuchs in the dying moments of the Confucian empire in China, when they started to steal from what was left of the Imperial treasury.
 

As the momentum of the consumer and sexual revolutions gathered pace, what was once considered ‘normal’ started to ‘spontaneously’ disintegrate.  The sacrifice of marital reproductive security and stability in the 1960s was simply unfortunate collateral damage in the shift to relationships built around consumer satisfaction, sexual fulfillment and shared lifestyle values. 

Straights could be funsters too if they adopted the naughty-but-nice, reproductively inconsequential, socially truncated and casual sexual values that had once been the near monopoly of the world of prostitutes (sorry, ‘sex workers’) and homosexuals (sorry, ‘Gays’ & ‘Lesbians’), now relentlessly pedaled by popular culture, and made respectable by ersatz notions of romantic ‘love’. 

And once a party falls out of ‘love’, well it’s all over isn’t it?  ‘Drifted apart’ I think is the cliché-of-choice.  The reality that sex and romance is just nature’s bait to get people into a very tough and demanding long term reproductive working relationship was effectively obscured and replaced by a fantasy of perpetual eroticism and grand passion-on-demand.

Marriage, despite ritualistic early protestations to the contrary, was not for life and single and remelded families started to redefine what families were.  This institution to cement permanent reproductive relationships that would secure the upbringing of children, became socially discretionary, as notions of reproductive illegitimacy ‘disappeared’ and social conduct was increasingly ‘deregulated’. 

People who once enforced the family legitimacy norms of their day by ‘taking’ children from what were then regarded as grossly irresponsible out-of-wedlock mothers, came to be retrospectively vilified as ‘child thieves’.  (See how this was worked through on the ‘race’ front in ‘A Sorry Story’ at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1594087-A-Sorry-Story .)

Increasingly, a family could be anything at all, including gay and lesbian ‘families’.  And why not?  The barriers were coming down faster than people could pull them down. 

‘Family’ came to include non genetically related progeny, an increase in gender imbalanced parenting and  the emergence of excluded/marginalized but genetically related third party losers.  Such ad hoc patched together arrangements are not A1 social infrastructure.  On top of all the ordinary problems that beset conventional family life are added weaker intra familial relationships, overhanging emotional baggage, divided and reduced loyalties and mentoring capacity, and more problematic and complicated relationships. Like so many inconvenient truths within the consumer society, these negative shifts have been glossed over in the rebranding exercise that was ‘progress’.

As the old domestic world of adults crumbled; as its authority and coherence disintegrated, the world of children was imperceptibly colonized by the electronic child minders and they turned them into the capitalist equivalent of Mao’s little Red Guards: The Consumerbabelets.

From an industrial perspective, the most vulnerable and easily manipulated part of society, its children, were integrated into the system as key definers of the consuming culture.  Prematurely sexualized little Consumerbablet princes and princesses were glamorized and pandered to by markets, empowered with rights, lavished with appropriate hero models and decoupled from the authority and control of parents and elders, thus encouraging them (and increasingly younger babelets) to sexually experiment as freely as they liked. 

So if they had gay or lesbian tendencies, how cool would that be?  Who is going to be a fuddy duddy about the prospective loss of either a whole generation grandchildren, or having to make do with ones who are third party surrogacy or sperm cribs, or even having to watch silently while one’s child grows up to rip off scarce adoption opportunities from reproductively malfunctioning heterosexual couples who are genuinely in the real business of  natural reproduction? 

And you blame yourself because you failed to stop it happening when you had the chance; well sort of.  For who was being a naughty boy or girl by having the outrageous temerity to suggest something grossly inappropriate, like you think it might be ‘wrong’ for one’s child to homosexually experiment, and ought to desist?  What a cheek!  What an unforgivably ‘judgmental’ and ‘repressive’ breach of human rights to be any sexuality you want!  Call in the welfare officers!

(For a view of how the culture of parenting and child mentoring has been transformed since the Renaissance/Reformation, see Romeo and Juliet Revisited at http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1581878-Romeo-and-Juliet-Revisited... .  Also see ‘A letter to his Younger Cousin’ for a crash course in parental adolescent political appreciation and management at http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1817231-A-letter-to-his-younger-co... .)


The more unstable and shifting family life became and the more consumption intensive its tastes, the better it was for business.  Homosexual ‘families’ have been especially good for business, for they have tended to take more indulgently glamorous discretionary consumption decisions that were not so available to the reproductively encumbered straights in suburbanland.  In some ways, the gay and lesbian community started to become consumer icons, making sexual ambiguity fashionable and well, sexy.

‘Coming out’ became no longer ‘courageous’.  Naturally, people who in the bad old days would not have considered exploring that side of themselves, now felt free to do so, even if it was just a bit of bi-on-the-side, thus swelling the constituency increasingly into the mainstream. 

The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras become a leading event in the national and international calendar.  Good family ‘fun’, sexually explicit display for the kiddies, out there fashion statements, color and movement, and the look of mass appeal has brought sexual marketing, lifestyle and the consumer system into ever sharper shopper friendly focus.

Along with that, the legal system went into high gear with ‘anti-discrimination’ and ‘anti-vilification’ legislation which turned the situation of half a century before right on its head. 

Now it was the ‘backward’ straights that were still in league with ‘reactionary dark forces’ who were in danger of being morally pilloried, ridiculed and punished if they are foolish enough to dare to ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals in any way, shape or form. 

Homosexuality had metaphorphozed from a nocturnal, furtive and subterranean phenomenon into not just respectability, not just a sexual iconography within the consumer culture, not just equality, but eventually a secular version of an untouchable sacred site subject to ‘blasphemy’, ‘heresy’ and political deviationist laws second only to the ones pertaining to ethnicity (race).

Political opposition to the advancement of homosexual agenda became constructed as homophobic ‘hatespeak’ that took on a remarkable similarity to the way the late period soviet regime tried to destroy its political opponents, as morally degenerate and emotionally and sexually unstable characters suffering from a ‘phobic’ (pretentious use of ancient Greek to confer academic authority) ‘psychiatric’ (scientific medicalization of a political condition) disorder.

Anyone who is foolish or brave enough to challenge homosexual agenda is tarred with the same brush, whether they actually have a compulsive fear of homosexuality or not.  And of course, no one questions whether such a condition might be at least in part a psychological software routine, that is there as an ‘evolutionary’ defense against sterile sexual relationships.  But that would be a pseudo scientific rip off of Darwinism, wouldn’t it?  Or would it? 

We can, up to a point, be as open in our sexual as our food tastes.  A quick survey of porn sites would attest to this.  The ease with which a concerted campaign against ‘homophobia’ can at least partially disarm it, might re-enforce that perception.  But maybe a culture of indulgence/toleration only masks ‘built in’ adverse reaction for a while, as long as the living is easy and our biggest problem is having too much of everything.  Maybe it is always there, just waiting for a more favorable environment to give it back its persuasiveness, like the hibernating frogs in dry Lake Eyre, which re-awaken when it occasionally floods.

When a society starts losing a lot of people to famine, pestilence, war etc, Darwin or no Darwin, maybe sterility gets back its bad odor and focuses the collective mind on the world of reproductive necessity and the basics of dealing with it.

As with all discussions of human behavior, cause and effect frequently become interchangeable or circular.


The internet has colonized everything we do, and as a substantial component of its content, the sexual revolution goes on in cyber space.  Every possible sexual taste you have ever heard of, and then the ones you haven’t, are now available in excruciatingly intimate detail at the push of a key.  Plain homosexual sex is now so tame it’s almost suburban straight.

It is a measure of how far things have moved that elements of the now respectable ‘Gay’ and ‘Lesbian’ community want the suburban dream with a couple of kids in tow and a sedan plus SUV in the garage.  They want their sterile sexual cake and eat its reproductive fruits as well, even if it’s other peoples’ fruit.  And why not, when so much of what male, female and parenting roles were imagined to be has so profoundly ‘changed’? 

Perhaps unpicked is the more appropriate word.  ‘Change’ seems such a neutral and values free word, as if it were just one of the little inevitabilities of ‘The Historical Process’, or ‘Progress’, rather than a deliberate design of a consuming society and the politics of indulgence of customers, who by definition, are always right, or within their rights, as long as they spend every possible dollar on its pleasures and subsume their lives to it.

The only difference between this kind of indulgence and the ‘indulgences’ (the sale by The late medieval Mother Church of heavenly salvation and reduced purgatory time for a ‘small’ fee) that helped trigger The Reformation, is that they are now aimed at the living rather than the dead.  Now consumers are ‘saved’ from low self esteem and ennui by goods and services satisfactions for the here and now, not tomorrow and the hereafter.  But, whatever the service timeline might be, here or ‘heaven above’, it is the same old ideological crock that it was five hundred years ago. 

Like their late medieval predecessors, consumers can buy product and services ‘salvation’ even as these hopeless ‘sinners’ consciously and unconsciously participate in tearing down the disciplined and other regarding social software wealth built into sociophile (as opposed to ‘egophile) behavior that in reality grounds them and gives meaning and coherence to their lives.  The more the devotees consume, indulge their whims and egos and become creatures of consumer propaganda, the ‘poorer’ they get and the more pulverized their social infrastructure becomes, as everything caves in to the marketing free-for-all.

As Martin Luther said, at some risk of being toasted for his trouble, you cannot buy salvation.  You must do the hard yards to live it.  If the system of the time colludes in pretending this is not the case, then the value of a virtuous life is debased and made a mockery of.  Virtue is the currency of a sociophilic infrastructure, and if you run it down for long enough, it’ll collapse.  In the end, all you have left to cling to is a blind faith that somehow, one day, history will make amends and restore what in reality is a large piece of our personal and collective net worth.

The sociopathic substitution racket of replacing social obligation and discipline by market propaganda control drivers leaves the victim hopelessly at the mercy of the ‘needs’, whims and the sexual fantasies that have been pedaled to them by the marketers.

Thus having your cake and eat it is what the consumer society is all about.  If you can afford it, you can have it; any lifestyle you want.  And who is going to say there is anything wrong with that?  The Catholic Church?  You know, the one that gave us Divine ‘Indulgences’ that sold just that; that still (as it always has) turns a blind eye to the sexual shenanigans of its wretched celibate priests.  What the homosexual community is now demanding is just par for the course, albeit a corrupted one.

But what is so really ironically amusing is that marriage was once regarded as a form of disgusting petty-bourgeois respectability and the subject of contempt by ‘progressives’.  And now, perversely, when the institution is at such a low ebb that it is almost bankrupt, it has become a sacred object of conformist desire for ‘straight’ emulation.  Weird.


Even though the institution is only shadow of what it once was, the straightest thing of all is still to get married.  One might suppose that even gays and lesbians get tired of ‘alternative’ lifestyles and want the ‘Full Monty family product’ with the same marital legal framework and fuss made of them, as if they were going to reproduce and genetically join the creation partners’ families into the tree of life, the same way as the other lot.  Lots (well some) of inter-gendered marriages are childless by choice, so who is to say that there are any right or wrong answers here, even if one uncharitably suggested that the homosexual ones seem a little bit over-leveraged? 

What could be more charming than seeing the homosexual Misters and Ms’s having rice or confetti thrown over them in the traditional way.  Perhaps it would only be the parents who had actually married and reproduced, who would get the awful joke that this was a dreadful leering caricature of the real thing, like going to watch their progeny collect a degree that had been conferred by political pressure rather than a genuine intellectual outcome.

And why stop at just couples?  What’s wrong with polygamy or polyandry?  You know, mum and two dads, both of whom are bisexual, could be all the go.  The kids won’t mind, as a generation later they go off to explore their sexuality in exciting multiple, multi role relationships. 

I particularly like cathartic marriages where, cheered on by the ‘congregation’, one, both or all the parties mercilessly beat the other while tied over the altar, until he or she is ‘forced’ to say ‘I do’, as a symbol of commitment not just to their partner(s), but the ‘lifestyle’ they are going to share with each other.  And the rest of the wedding party and guests, all in fancy leather underwear, throw increasingly generous wedding money gifts at the foot of the altar, the longer the show goes on. 

The possibilities are endless.

Can humans marry into other species?  Not happy with that?  Animals have rights too I’ll have you know!  You can’t ‘stereotype’ them with your ‘humanist’ judgmentality, or discriminate against them just because they aren’t right at the top of the food chain.  How species elitist is that?  Animal apartheid!

Human sexuality can go absolutely anywhere.  If the boundaries aren’t there anymore, it frequently does.  For a society that doesn’t encourage boundaries because the economic system drives off minimally restrained and maximally encouraged consumer behavior, nothing much is off the menu. 

It is not that social prohibition prevents ‘out there’ sexual experimentation and habits, but it does drive it to the margins and provides some sort of prophylactic against mainstreaming.  Just ask the Marquis de Sade.  He wasn’t merely regarded as disreputable and sexually violence prone, but a madman.  He spent nearly half his life in mental asylums, both before and after the revolution.

Today, de Sade would be a leading light in a BDSM ‘community’ growing faster than the GDP of an Asian Tiger.  He would no longer have to harass and victimize servant girls when appropriately masochistic women are available at the touch of an ‘enter’ key.  And he and his friends would know that they could still test the boundaries a bit under the currently very liberal dispensation, because they would understand that even where attempts at enforcing such legal and social boundaries are still being tried, they are increasingly ineffectual. 

De Sade didn’t mind a bit of the young stuff to torture.  He wouldn’t have much trouble in that department because a culture lacking a normal sense of inhibition or restraint of self-indulgence, that boasts a pervasive tendency to sexualize children, legitimizes willful ‘experimentation’, over-values pleasure and egoistic ‘fulfillment’, deconstructs responsible adult values, social authority and the infrastructure of personal accountability, and drowns moral prohibition and what little is left of socially effective disapproval. 

What, you don’t like pedophilia?  You think that’s going too far?  Feeling a bit paranoid about the older guy who hangs around the street outside the school, or teachers being alone with opposite sex students for too long, even though you have no idea what they are watching or who they are dealing with on the internet, or what they are doing at those adolescent parties they go to, where you really aren’t that sure about the supervision?

And can you really trust the younger live-in boyfriend with your oldest girl by someone else?  Can he resist the temptation to get a mother and daughter double act?  Yes?  No?  Are you sure?  Will she run away with him if you make a fuss?  Wondering where the adult clout and your mentor standing went, that might protect and guide your children? 

(See ‘On the Edge 3: The Simmonds Family’ at: http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1851246-On-the-Edge-3-The-Simmonds... for how family life can come to this.  Also see ‘A Letter-to-his Younger Cousin’ for an explanation of the deconstruction of parental authority at: http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1817231-A-letter-to-his-younger-co... .  And if you are really interested in the politics of social management inside a mature consumer society, see ‘Corporal Punishment is not the issue’ at: http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1835708-Corporal-punishment-is-not... .)

Where is it going?  What have we done?  Should it be any surprise that the homosexual community is making the moves?  What fabric of resistance is left that can’t be brushed aside with minimal effort and rhetorical slops?


When we speak of sexual orientation, we are not for the most part talking of ‘gender’, unless there has been an in utero gender misassignment that makes individuals seem ‘different’ as they start to socialize and they begin to realize that they don’t feel like their own gender. 

Sexuality on the other hand is likely a complex and probabilistically determined feedback loop interaction of varying degrees and nature of predisposition, and personal history, which is to some extent socially constructed by either direct or indirect contact with sexual influences during formative moments of life.

From what I can see of the research on same sex predisposition, very little has been definitively established, even to the extent of determining what is cause and what is effect, despite quite a lot of research effort. 

Part of this is the elusive variability and multifactoriality of the nature of learning and susceptibility to it, the difficulty in separating heritable and acquired construction in brain architecture and software development, the arbitrary nature of significant life event timing and influence, and the untidily difficult to quantify environment in which all these factors and relationships take effect. 

I suspect that if there were to be any validatable scientific conclusion in this matter of sexual development, it would be the result of something that looked like a probability modeling exercise, using large sample populations and collecting enormous amounts of data, maybe.

Another part of why research hasn’t been that forthcoming with definitive breakthroughs is possibly that this subject is saturated with ‘politics’.  This pushes ‘scientific’ enquiry into the standard hazards of social ‘science’, which front load unstated assumptions and prejudices into a political agenda clothed as disinterested ‘objective’ research, replete with all the decorative tabulations, footnotes and bibliography you would expect in a real science paper, using scientific method, that could be replicated either by modeling or conventional experiment.

Does doing research on the ‘caring’ attributes of homosexual couples, to compare them against those of heterosexuals, simply investigate the obvious probability that they are exactly the same, to establish their competitive ‘parenting’ credentials and claims to the right to adopt?

Isn’t that rather presuming that there are not other critical attributes to parenting that are tied up in the heterosexual act of creation and its deep connecting qualities with its progeny, and its capacity to model this very particular and temperamentally difficult relationship to the next generation?  The assumptions of this research discount/avoids the unique contribution each gender brings to the inter-generational reproductive effort and the mentoring politics of their collaborative conflict.  And it discounts what each gender party brings by way of blood relative family roots, and what they uniquely bring to the mentoring process and sense of identity at its profoundest level.

‘Caring attributes’ are the sort of things one might look for when wanting to hire a nanny or an infant teacher.

Another part of the reason that the science relating to sexuality is a bit vague is that it suffers from the effects of the whole subject becoming fantastically overblown.  If sex is really just powerful biological sugar to get us to reproduce, then all the rest is just color and movement that is as often as not, opportunistic and arbitrary.  My first pre-adolescent sexual experiences/experiments were same sex, but most of us did not end up in becoming its devotees.  But perhaps if an older boy with a more mature sexual awareness, who I rather looked up to, had taken ‘an interest’ in me and showed me affection, I might have ended up being that way inclined, or not. 

And I would suggest (and it has happened to me in relation to my career) that the difference between remaining a hetero and not could be as simple and almost impossible to spot, as an iconic gesture; a single moment that galvanizes sensibility into another direction.  It is one of the qualities of our intelligence that we are capable of being extremely flexible and opportunistic, particularly when the exigencies of necessity and the power of direct social management are removed for any length of time.

Homosexual lobbyists like to emphasize the biologically deterministic possibilities of their sexuality as it constructs a kind of ‘identity’ fait accompli.  But then they have to gloss this as some kind of ‘constructive evolutionary mechanism’.  This is patently a pseudo-scientific rip off of Darwinism to avoid the conclusion that homosexuality is a biological off message ‘mistake’ or psycho-pathology. 

This appeal to behavioral or psycho-Darwinism is as scientifically bogus as Social Darwinism or Marxist dialectical and historical materialism.  It is just another over-dressed ideological polemic to hide or minimise personal responsibility for one’s sexuality and fluff up its political credentials.

On the other hand, they don’t like to entertain the social influence on sexuality because that would open homosexual society to the charge of ‘corrupting’ people who might otherwise be ordinary heterosexuals.

The relationship between the homosexual lobby and ‘scientific’ rationalization of the status and capacity of  its sexually oriented community is about as valid as that of the anthropogenic climate change sceptic/denialist lobby, because its main purpose isn’t scientific, but to reinforce political claims, deny or reduce personal choice in sexuality and obfuscate the role of that community in grooming the next generation of ‘freshies’.

From a heterosexual reproductive ‘family’ point of view, homosexuals plainly are not equals and represent an off message error.  If they were equals, they wouldn’t need to crib from others to get a reproductive outcome.  And if partnership sterility, which they share with necrophiliacs and bestials weren’t enough of a hint on this, that is on top of the ordinary hetero error messaging of sexuality they share with sado-masochists, pedophiles, golden showerers, foot and enema fetishists, nappy wearers... 

However, if we (not just the homosexual lobby) and powerful background social forces redefine the point of view from family as reproductive partnership to family as sexual ‘lifestyle’, then any lifestyle qualifies as well as any other.  And of course, they become equals in this shifting game and the message can be anything one wants.

The homosexual lobby is winning this political argument hands down, because they are sufficiently politically savvy to know how to manipulate the available ideological leverages arising from this shift, and work the marketing, ‘academic think tank’ and lobbying systems with the efficiency and efficacy of the Israeli lobby or the US National Rifle Association.

When Jeff Kennett, an ex premier of the state of Victoria, in his capacity as chair of ‘Beyond Blue’ (a depression support and mental health lobby group) opined that he didn’t think marriage should be open to homosexuals,  heavy hitters from the academic and mental health industry came at him from all directions, in an assault that purported to be an ‘intellectual’ attack based on professional ‘scientific’ expertise.  What it really was, was an ideological attack based on propaganda messaging, leveraging academic credentials and jawboning institutionally placed mouthpieces.  Their tactics were indistinguishable from that of the free market ‘science’ politicizers working out of the Hartlands, Cato and George C Marshall Institutes/foundations, or our very own Australian Institute of Public Affairs.

We on the currently retreating side don’t have to make an unnecessarily large and paranoid deal about homosexuality in the way that old style traditionalists have done.  The reproductive urgency issues just aren’t as pressing as they used to be, at least for the moment.  And besides, homosexuality is an inevitable fact of life that should be be treated with compassion and tolerance, for its acolytes are still our kith and kin, who deserve our love and support to live their lives in peace and without discrimination or let in their economic and social lives.

But that does not mean we have to like it, or encourage it, or indulge it as some kind of pretentious fantasy existential lifestyle ‘alternative’ on a par with the real business of life giving and raising.  It plainly isn’t.

Nor does it mean that we won’t expect them not to promote that sexuality beyond the reasonable requirements of self defense and ensuring mutually respectful and circumspect co-existence with the dominant heterosexual majority. 

Conventional reproductivity is the authentic real deal.  The rest is just part of a temporary ideological superstructure for an economic system that is neither safe nor secure.  That so much of  the popular constituency now at least passively ‘buys’ the lifestyle primacy line over the reproductive one is a testament to how thoroughly ‘off message’ we have all become. 

If familial based social reproduction were an ordinary industry, it would be seen as laissez-faire deregulated, without enforceable industry standards, producing unreliable, poorly designed, badly made and flimsily underconstructed product, and likely trading while insolvent.  It’s a mess. 

We have failed to properly model sustainable values and behaviors that can be mentored forward into the next generation.  We have provided opportunists with both the temptation of political weakness and powerful  ideological cover to hack into our reproductive infrastructure where they have absolutely no business.

Sexual toleration does mean that we suspend responsible critical judgment of our deviances and perversions.  We have a responsibility to be honest with ourselves in acknowledging and managing our wayward behaviors.  More, we are stewards and exemplars to our children and have an obligation to them to make honest representations to them as to the nature of their reproductive identity, empower them to be decent, robust and successful operators within that identity and try not to pass on to them our mistakes, including our sexual ones.  Period.


Much of the leverage for homosexual propaganda comes from meshing into the sexistential corruption of moral discourse and its radical narrowing of notions of identity into sexual categories.  These have been raised to mystical quasi religious heights, replete with sexologians, porno priestesses, retail temples, ideological analysis, sexological research, medicalized advice and endless streams of romantic propaganda, that as a whole will likely sink without much trace once the consumer stream starts to dry up.  And with that, a large lever for homosexual lobbyists will disappear.

The bottom line is that once one has done one’s reproducing; whether or not one had a ‘good’ sexual relationship, is really beside the point.  While sexual compatibility is a plus for any heterosexual relationship, if that is what it rests on, it isn’t much of a relationship.  I hesitate to use the word ‘’love’ because it has become such a hideous cliche it is almost beyond redemption as a concept, but some of its elements; equity, compromise, tolerance, respect, trust, loyalty, commitment and genuine liking, are what in the end really hold couples together in the long term.  And that, in the absence of all the propaganda machinery of the consumer society, is going to be blindingly obvious to everyone.  Much of the concern about sexuality is ‘cooked’ for the consumption of the masses, to keep them under control by manipulating its numerous iconic leverages. 

Sexistentialism conflates and fudges broad character identity, gender and sexuality.  ‘Character’ normally takes in the broad sweep of selfhood within which there are numerous categories of which gender, i.e., our reproductive function and characteristics as a man or woman, are but one, albeit an important one.  Sexuality is a subset of gender and indicates our preferences, fantasies and sexual values, which can end up anywhere and seemingly overwhelming important if we let them, which of course we are strongly encouraged to do.

By conflating them we confuse the superficial with the profound and fudge the extent to which we can intervene to determine our responses, both personally and collectively.  We, all of us, not just homosexuals, shelter under an ideological umbrella of sexual determinism that gives our whims and fantasies almost divine authority, and when consummated, a bogus version of ‘salvation’.

Sexistential conflation takes this subset of a subset of character and inflates it into the whole, so that a personal idiosyncrasy becomes the personhood. ‘I am my sexual fantasies’, which is pure bollocks.

Sexistentialism is a largely propaganda tool of the consumer/sexual ‘revolution’ which entrenches the thinking and discourse of voluptuaries, for whom the politics of desire means forcing sexual conduct and feeling to the absolute centre of what it means to be human and a social agent, which is also grossly inflated bollocks.

Sexistentialism legitimizes the constant message sent out by the marketing system that self indulgent behavior is good, that values sitting outside that paradigm are repressive and any attempt to resist its blandishments is at best ‘oppression’ and at worst ‘abusive’.

‘Sexistentialism’ is part of a push to ideologically overburden notions of sexuality and gender, to an extent that renders them into absurdity, as its protagonists go around the planet preaching the message that we are not only helpless before our desires, but that we have an obligation to explore them, even if this means reproductive sterility and/or disruption of the axis of natural life giving and parenting.  We have created an imperative to spontaneously experiment whenever the opportunity arises because opportunism is now considered socially benign.  This justifies dumping previous obligations and responsibilities as ‘needs’ and the means to satisfy them arise.

Homosexual communities have been large beneficiaries and end users of ‘sexistential’ indulgence.  In the Australian film, ‘Priscilla Queen of the Desert’, the lead character deserts his wife and son to go on the road in a bus called ‘Priscilla’, to explore his transvestite and homosexual fantasies with a ‘tranny’ lip-sync-‘n-dance troupe playing in outback clubs and pubs.  They and everyone on the bus lavishly support his quest as if it weren’t a gross piece of denial of a fundamental long term commitment to his family, and an egregious example of personal irresponsibility and betrayal. 

And all those Australian rural outback characters who don’t like him or the things his troupe stand for are just monstrous redneck grotesques conjured out of a racist/sexist caricature that comes with the spinifex (spiky outback turf).  It is all very amusingly and well crafted, but essentially it is little better than a blatant piece of propaganda on a similar level to the enormous box office success and acclaimed (Golden Lion prize at the Venice film festival 1940) Nazi German film ‘Jud Süss’.  It was about an ‘Aryan’ German leader and the society he ruled, that was almost destroyed and then colonized by the greedy and mendacious hook nosed Jew Süss and his associates.  ‘Priscilla’ is that crude and similarly engaging. 

The lead character’s need to sexually indulge himself is justified as a kind of ‘quest’ for a Monty Pythonesque holy grail of ‘sexual identity’.  It doesn’t tolerate social trailing edges that do not wholeheartedly ‘understand’ the overwhelming importance of this and his sacred right to do whatever he likes to ‘find himself’.

‘Sexistentialism’ puts a much exaggerated profundity into sexuality as if that is the be all and end all of human identity.  Homosexual lobbyists have not only keyed into this alternative-way-of-being claptrap, but then piled on extra baggage by trying to suggest that their sexuality is an ‘enlightened’, ‘creative’ and ‘liberated’  and then puffs the demographic into not only a substantial minority, but one that has more to offer the rest of us than the other way round.

‘Sexistential’ thinking of this nature makes no attempt to differentiate this claimed ‘community’ of sexual identity, because to do so would undermine its rationale, the advancement of its agenda, the cohesiveness of this constituency and the effective weight of its influence and size. 

To blandly suggest that there is say a ten percent homosexual demographic in the general population is pure propaganda aimed at audiences who have no idea about how specific demography has to be to validly measure anything.  Ten percent might start to sound plausible if one included everyone who had ever had a same sex fantasy or sexual contact at least once in their lives.

Looking at the Wikipedia survey of studies, if one is observing a hard core of people who are only into same sex partnerships, we are probably only talking two to three percent.  Of that group, there is probably a small fraction of genuinely gender misaligned, who from very early in life have been psychologically stuck in the body of the wrong sex, or are hermaphroditic. 

As to the rest, at some point in their sexual development they have been to some extent ‘turned’ by contact with homosexual peer group experimentation, and/or with an older person at a critical point of sexual imprinting that crystallized their lifelong sexual obsession and fantasies.

We can argue till the cows come home as to the balance between how much the individual gravitated to certain sexual tendencies or were more influenced by them than others similarly exposed.  But I think it is a fair bet that much of it is blind chance and circumstantial combinations.  My own sado-masochism came out of an English boarding school environment where caning was a pervasive disciplinary measure, the peer group culture adopted it into its sexual play culture and I was bullied a lot, because I am a mild Asperger syndromer.  Very likely, none of this had anything to do with some imagined ‘pre-disposition’. 

Like homosexuality, it is just another socially acquired fetishistic taste and sexual mistake, which resulted from the social milieu of British boarding schools in the 1950s.

Then there are the bisexuals who are either half turned sexual ambigués or are just indiscriminate voluptuaries and opportunists who don’t care where the hole is or whose it is, as long as they can get it off.  It is probably a bit of a stretch to call these ‘visitors’ part of the homosexual ‘community’.                                                                                     

I am suggesting that this diverse smorgasbord of sexual behaviors and motivations is driven for the most part not by deep biological alternative drivers as just psychologically de-tracked non reproductive behavior inside a society that is quickly forgetting its primate roots and the real reasons it exists, which is to reproduce itself reliably, maintain this reproductive ‘industry’s’ standards and promote the integrity of its main product; its children.. 

And finally I am suggesting that most people who say they are completely defined by their same sex sexuality are either an extremely narrow characters, or being very selective and exaggerating of bits of themselves, or deliberately propaganda puffing, or worse, are frightened of, dislike or feel contemptuous of the other sex.

You know, can’t tolerate the sight and smells of female genitalia; hate the mood swings and sometimes irrational behavior when they are having their disgusting periods; can’t abide the way they expect commitment just because they’ve had sex and make nesting noises when it’s more than once; can’t stand their sexual tardiness once they take one for granted; can’t handle their emotional neediness and their overweening desire to be told that they are beautiful, even when they are not, or require flowers and silly little gestures to make themselves feel appreciated, and get so upset if it isn’t forthcoming, immediately and in the measure they expect; and get bored silly by the way they fill the ear with domestic trivia, babies and children and nag remorselessly when they want something….

What? Heterophobia?  Never heard of it.  Mysogeny?  Not really, but if they were more like men, they might be of more interest.

Spartan women used to shave their heads and dress like males to look more like boys, so that their soldier husbands would feel more comfortable about leaving their adolescent barrack-room orderly/batman ‘concubines’ for long enough meet their obligations to father children. 

Now that’s more like it.

At least female homosexuals have legitimate gripes to feed their disgust with men, many of whom still seem to still think that liberation is freebie on tap sex and a free ride on someone who on top of looking after the children and valet servicing the marriage and most of the chores, also has to bring in income as well.  The sexual revolution was never really about liberating women so much as bringing them into the production economy.  Plugging the gaps in the domestic economy left by this shift was never really on the collective male agenda, or anyone else’s.

In some ways it is a testament to their reproductive focus that they haven’t deserted their menfolk en-mass. Within the massive divorce rate we now suffer, on the male side it is probably a matter of boredom, too many complaints and a wandering attention, but on the female side, it just seems more to be accumulated frustration at the sheer inequity of their relationships.  The lousiness of this deal makes taking up with other women who actually pull their weight and understand the emotional infrastructure of relationships seem attractive, even if the sex isn’t.

No society can work anywhere near its potential with its sexual politics running that dysfunctionally.  Men are at dire risk of losing their legitimacy as bona fides players in the reproductive stakes, and that has to be fixed by a lot of social resources being commandeered to properly train and discipline young males to get their act together.  No more laissez-faire libertarianism for them until they start delivering on the bottom line; and no more of it even then, to make sure they stay that way.

The whole business of gender politics is a real mess and the homosexual community has been able to work it a treat.  This is not their fault.  They haven’t caused the problem.  They are just a symptom of it.


We are not helpless before our sexuality.  Mine is a very powerful part of my sexual imagination, but I have abjured it for most of my adult life and have been in a very ‘vanilla’ relationship with my wife of nearly 30 years.  It hasn’t been great for our sex life, but we both understand that sex is an important, but nonetheless the least important part of human love and what makes a really good marriage.  And we have still managed to produce a lovely daughter together and magically manage to avoid divorce at least once a week.

And it goes without saying that it is a relationship of which I am intensely proud, with a woman for whom I don’t just have an enormous respect, but love very dearly, who I would never dream of letting down, even though she is not and never has been the fantasy woman of my dreams.  In marrying her, I made an adult choice to abjure a quite important piece of myself, as she also did, because I certainly wasn’t the man of hers.

My being an ‘Asperger syndromer’ has at times been very taxing on her.  It is a mistake in my character development and I have sincerely tried, with very moderate success, to modify my behavior.  She has had to wear it and I don’t make grand ideological excuses for myself as a substitute for doing my utmost to minimize its impact.  I don’t try to spin yarns about what a wonderful boon it is for creative thought and meditative struggle.  It is at times a pain in the butt for others to deal with someone who spends so much time in his own head, lacks empathy and is as incompetent at reading social sub-text, as I am.

My sexuality is a mistake that I have learned to live with.  It is a potentially disruptive perversion that puts already challenging ordinary reproductive relationships more at hazard than they already are.  It brings with it violence and power asymmetries that can corrode and corrupt a relationship, even if it doesn’t do so immediately. 

If there are children from such a relationship, there is always the risk that during the inevitable periods of tension and conflict that challenge every couple, the direct and indirect effect effects of that sexual prediliction can ‘leak’, no matter how ‘walled off’ from the rest of the relationship it is, or discreetly screened from the children..  And no responsible adult would ever want to spread those kinds of sexual politics to their children.  (For those interested in an exploration of the politics of this kind of relationship, see,  ‘Wendy Liked to be Spanked’ at: http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1627775-Wendy-liked-to-be-spanked)

I suggest that the great majority of homosexuals are in the same boat as me, and could, if they chose to stop subscribing to sexual identity puffery and make a reproductive choice in their intimate partnerships.  My sexuality is every bit as all encompassing in terms of my sexual imagination as theirs is.  It never leaves me alone and my sexual relationship with my wife has paid a cost for that, particularly as we have got older.  But that is the price one pays to live the life of a responsible and virtuous (yes virtuous; sounds unfamiliar and ‘silly’ doesn’t it) adult.

The question that anyone wanting to fix the willful damage consumerist ideology has done to social governance has to ask, is why would one countenance marginal homosexual behavior becoming mainstreamed, encouraged and open children to characters who think that it is alright to expose them to homosexuality in the context of an intimate and powerful parenting mentoring setting of legitimate family life that would inevitably draw into itself homosexual associates and peers.  And this is especially critical if one thinks that it is mostly direct or indirect exposure that likely spreads much of this realm of sexual practice and gender conflation in the first place!

One doesn’t have to actually sexually interfere with a child to give it the wrong message about sex, sexuality and gender.  Don’t just tell them that homosexuality is ‘normal’ and ‘OK’.  Do a parent mentoring model of it over an entire reproductive cycle.  Introduce them to homosexual society while you are doing it so that they can have a ‘balanced’ view to ‘make up their own minds’.  What could be ‘fairer’ than that?

At the end of ‘Priscilla Queen of the Desert’, the main character’s early adolescent son is sent off on the road with his father by his ever indulgent ex-wife, to have ‘tranny’ adventures with his dad and no doubt ‘find his sexuality’, with perhaps a little help from the spunky young group bus driver who can ‘show him the ropes’.  No pressure.  Above board.  Strictly social mentoring. 

And I am sure if they did the sequel to ‘Priscilla’, this boy’s ‘sexual odyssey’ would be a very moving story and we would all ‘understand’ if he joined the gang.  And if he didn’t, well there you go.  Sexuality vigorously tested in the heterosexual affirmative.  No harm done and a heart warming story of adolescent rite of passage, with no doubt a couple of close shaves where he was almost tempted...  Sweet.

This is why, if I were a homosexual, I would never take on that parental mentoring role for fear of inappropriately influencing them.  It isn’t ‘normal’ and isn’t a desirable family outcome.  It is a tragic loss on which we put the most compassionate and understanding face, because the victims are still our children and grandchildren.

That is the honest truth and to pretend that it is some kind of existential triumph of alternativism is just a pretentious and inflated fantasy which no responsible adult in full possession of their consequential moral faculties would ever dream of accepting.  It is the model of Aesop’s fable about the fox who lost his tail and tried to persuade his peers that not only was not having a tail very cool, but a fashion statement for the sillier and more gullible ones to follow!


When a market reaches a point where it seems to be invincible and the normal rules of supply and demand don’t matter, (ideological exceptionalism) that is the time to sell up and put one’s winnings somewhere safe and boring.  The same goes for the adventurism and corruption that inevitably accompany any periods of heady excess and abuse.  Their consequences have a terrible way of crashing in later on those unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall. 

And the measure of that will be once the consumer gravy train stops and the societies of the formerly affluent start to fall to pieces.  Beyond the demands and satisfactions of producing and consuming, there is precious little else now holding these communities and the individuals in them together. 

Over the last 60 years, most of the previously extant socially organized existential and character securitization systems and protocols of disciplined social management have been demolished as surplus to requirement, and replaced by the controls of marketed thinking.  And when the stream of toys and diversions starts to stop, it will not only become all too brutally clear how absurdly overblown our product consciousness has become, but it will also become obvious just how trashy the social and existential product of consumer societies really is.  (For further discussion of the toys economy, see ‘The Dictatorship of the Toys’ at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1850511-The-Dictatorship-of-the-To... ).  Also see how whole nations can be consumed by fantasy bubbles in ‘New York Busted’ at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1595584-New-York-Busted ).

When this system does start to unwind, we can look towards a disturbed period of messy forced adjustment leading to stripped down, disaggregated and cantonized economic systems that will have everyone struggling to find well being and meaning in the absence of the surfeit, toys and distractions of yesteryear.  It will be tough on everyone as they start the journey to find what really matters in a world of enhanced mortality, morbidity, scarcity, want, warfare and no easy outs or indulgences.

The shifts in social values driven during the height of the consumerist period were a product of a reconstruction of the economy and its social relations, moving through the ongoing intensification of mass production to a corresponding intensification of distributional marketing and financing. 

The production accelerant of total war production by war machines was swapped for production war run by marketing machines, the protracted and totalitarian 24/7 mobilization of social labor, the ransacking of global resources, the infantilization of adult populations into the psychology of ‘Youth Think’, their recruitment as shop troops and their use as ordinance fodder for market saturation ‘bombing’ campaigns.

Once capitalism in its present form starts to unbundle in the face of its unsustainability, all the ‘exotic’ cultural arrangements it brought in its wake will look out of place; where all the givens have become ‘inoperative’, because they no longer have traction.  Moral arguments which once carried the day, like dated jokes, will just fall flat. 

Communities will be forced to retreat from the moral and social adventurism and deconstructionism perpetrated by what will then be seen as the ‘ancien regime’.  They will find themselves having to reconnect to the basics of life and social reproduction in a world struggling to feed and make sense of itself during insecure and hazardous times.

I think people in the homosexual ‘community’ need to prepare against that day, because ready or not, it’ll come sooner than they think.  Our oligarchic rulers seem bent on continuing the environmental march of the lemmings and financial leveraging approaching the suicidal.  And if homosexual society hasn’t foreseen sufficiently, gets caught in the open and comes to be seen as ‘interfering’ with inter-gendered society and its children, it will not be pleasant.

Anyone in any doubt about this need only note the increasingly aggressive tone and behavior of religious fundamentalists in faiths that all too recently seemed to be terminally foundering on the rocks of modernity.  Not a little of this resurgent movement is driven by a visceral disgust at the greed, decadence and chaotic behavior that they perceive within affluent capitalism.  More importantly, it can smell its disease and sense the coming change of fortunes.

What is also noticeable is the way they are pulling significant chunks of the political spectrum with them into a much less tolerant and liberal new world order that is much more prone to sectarian violence.  And where populist uprisings are occurring, one should not be expecting necessarily the rise of a secular democratic order; quite the opposite.

All moral thinking is contextual.  Thus the notion that modern systems have permanently shifted the ideological goal posts is delusory in the light of their unsustainability.  Once that becomes apparent and people get to see that history is not a unidirectional ‘progress’, much of the extant ideological baggage will get unceremoniously tossed into the garbage bin of history.

And all I am saying to homosexuals, is to get out of the road of that as much as possible, while they still can.  Any sexual, ethnic or socio-economic community that is vaguely marginal, different, or ‘foreign’ can be constructed as at least symptoms, if not causes, of the deconstruction and collapse of the consumer society, particularly if they are perceived to have been its particular beneficiaries.  And just how difficult that is likely to be for them will be entirely a product of how farsightedly they have anticipated, how conservatively they have allianced, how far they have retreated into defensible ground and how well and how timely a manner they have dug their agenda into it.

Of course they won’t anticipate these events any more than the corporate industrial drivers will, by adopting capitalism ‘lite’ in a timely manner.  When it comes to weighing immediate opportunity against a longer term warning, the latter almost always suffers the politics of denial, and/or payment in rain checks.


By contrast, the women’s movement may well hang on to many of its gains from the late modern period because it revealed that women, that is, half the population, have a lot of talent, insight and productivity to offer any regime willing to tap into it.  Those that refuse to fully leverage female potential may find themselves significantly disadvantaged in the survival struggles of post-modern times.

That is not to say that post modern economies will not shift female labor out of a declining system of industrial production towards more reproductive roles as populations age and suffer the demographics of misfortune, but it will likely do that in the context of how much else women can demonstrably deliver, given half a chance.

There will be a renewed appreciation of just how important proper management, regulation, oversight and capitalization of the domestic ‘economy’ is in producing psychologically high net worth social product and how much of that social machinery had been asset stripped to feed the consumer production stream. 

Women will get recognition that that nobody manages these reproductive industry construction sites as well as mothers, especially if they are appropriately supported emotionally and practically by menfolk who no longer have to be asked, chivied and berated into make themselves domestically useful and proactive; and who give them the space to contribute in the larger world affairs, according to their talents.

At the same time, they will also be remembering that among the best of the top political tough guys in late modern times were the Golda Meirs, Indira Ghandis, Maggie Thatchers, Benazir Bhuttos and Aung San Suu Kyis, and yes, even our Julia Gillard. 

Women have the incomparable natural talent of emotional intelligence that any man with any sense at all should listen to, trust in and profit from, because, chances are, he doesn’t have anywhere near as much of it; and that is their strength and his weakness, not the other way round as was traditionally supposed.  In the coming period of great uncertainty, that kind of intelligence will be a beacon to guide us; to save what can be saved.  Formidably powerful matriarchs may well become a key part of the institutionalized setting of such a period.  (See ‘Post Modern Heroes: Michael and Giordana at:  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1810745-Post-Modern-Heroes-Michael... ).

Once sex and sexuality is put back into some kind of perspective with everything else, it may be possible for the establishment of a system of gender re-regulation that ensures young males deliver responsibly on the hard yards of being across the board supportive partners  (See ‘Sister Mentor’ at  http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1835590-Sistermentor as to how that might evolve.)

And for males who are worried that this vision of a stronger female leadership role may diminish them, there will undoubtedly still be plenty of work for the less sensitive and more carapaced areas of life.  There will be plenty enough fighting and defence work to be done, as social order starts to disintegrate.

The fact is, ‘liberation’ of any sort is mainly disciplined,  justly and thoughtfully allocated hard work.  Its reward is quality relationships built to last the long haul at the highest and most consistent possible standard.  It is a balance between individuals and their commons; their rights and their obligations; their giving out and receiving back

For me, liberation is synonymous with salvation, integrity and virtue that leads to a higher state of existential grace.  That may sound rather ‘old fashioned’, but to me it sounds like the measure of what we have lost and a testament to just how third rate our libertarian and consumerist ideology has become.

In this reconstruction effort, a lot of social recapitalization will go into ensuring the inter-generational viability of family life and its social product; its children.  Family building and its ongoing maintenance arrangements will be intensively scrutinized and audited like a business, except more so, for a business only makes and loses money.  Its focus will be about the perpetuation not of lifestyles, but life, through its creation partners and their inter-gendered role modeling to the next generation; no gender cribbing, no fudging and no substitution rackets.

Anyone in any doubt about this need only observe the effort those separated from their genetic roots go to, to recover them.  If there is any lesson to be learned from the tragedies of those separated from their natural parents, it is that there is no substitute for the real thing, even if the loss arises from death or the most extreme adversity.  Fostering and adoption is always a second best option, even when it is necessary and unavoidable.  Therefore we owe it to those who cannot have their natural parents, to raise them in a manner as close as possible to what they have lost; a mother and father. 

And to crib parenting from surrogacy or third party sperm without some genuine reproductive disability to justify it (and even then I think it is morally ‘tricky’), if nothing else, is a gross denial of a child’s right to be, where at all possible, born into and live in the care of both its natural parents, and a testament to the present legitimacy of self indulgent extremism.

Homosexuals do not present the inter-gendered modeling and mentoring attributes of creation partners.  This is not to suggest they don’t have the same distribution of parenting and ‘caring skills’ as anyone else.  They just do not and cannot represent to the children in their care, the species identity model of family life required by an authentically reproductive society.

Animals can be quite successful ‘carers’ of human children, and bring them up as one of their own, even graduating them to become leaders of their pack/herd/troop.  They only start to have problems when people try to re-integrate them back into human society.  But no human being with any sense of species identity would knowingly leave a child in that state, no matter how well adapted, how good the animal ‘care’, or how difficult the re-integration process might be.  The standard of animal care is not the issue.  Nor is it with homosexual ‘parenting’.

Children have a right to and society is entitled to expect, that all children, where at all possible, have a creation mother and father to look after them, in whom they can see something of themselves, who represent the two sides of producing life and what each uniquely brings to the broad reproductive experience over its whole upbringing term.  Having two dads or two mums does not qualify to bring that necessary gender balance over that reproductive cycle.  Both sides are necessary. 

Children are not just a lifestyle choice.  Nor should they be the product of any old sexual union.  They ought to be able to expect that they are the product of a properly prepared for, constituted and secured marriage that is structurally supported, audited and disciplined by a responsible community to guarantee a completed reproductive cycle, from its beginnings till its ‘product’ is ready to go out into the world to establish the cycle all over again.  Much of the real wealth of any society is tied up in this project, both in terms of its outlay of social capital and labor and the security and well being it delivers.

Society is a balance of rights and obligations on all sides of the equation.  The challenge ahead of us is to rebuild the rights and integrity of our commonwealths, not just as a counterweight to grossly over weighted individualism, but as a means of preventing markets from continuing to loot and wreck what is left of our domestic and community infrastructure.

This is, as much as anything else, a call to clean up and to some extent limit the effects of  the now thoroughly corrupted and expurgated version of philosophical utilitarianism that we inherited from the philosophes and the French Revolution.  Moral and social behavior is a ‘product’ in exactly the same sense as any other concrete or abstract artifact that we we create, build or manage.  While we may accept a great diversity in these things, we universally expect high standards of production, finish, and reliability. 

All I am advocating is that we apply this principle in everything we do, for all our ‘industry’ output, regardless of design or use. 

Ecclesiastical and Shariah Law have in the past covered this territory, but there is no suggestion here that we return to those models of administration.  We are free to build entirely novel and secular ‘industry’ structures to protect and enhance our social commons.  And I suspect that the process of devolution out of modern times will bequeath us a great variety of experimentation and innovation in these matters, that would eventually rejoin the public and private regulatory realms within overarching systems of public administration. 

We have done the experiment with moral privatization, and it is time we started the journey towards a new compact between individuals and society, where the social commons has rights and individuals have enforceable obligations in everything they do and are held accountable for them.  In the end, it will be liberty without effective boundaries that will be seen to be ‘oppressive’ and unconscionable.

Homosexual lobbyists and their constituency need to see such a project as much an opportunity as a threat.  If they play their cards right and get on board as early as be, they will secure a legitimate minoritarian position at the negotiating table that will protect them from wider attack and preserve their status of social toleration, employment protection and a businesslike framework of legal domestic partnership and property settlement. 

Blithely walking on their present trajectory will see them taken out of the equation as if they had walked in front of a train.  Their neighbors just won’t forgive them for what will come to be seen as predating on the reproductive commons.


There will come a day when people will see pictures of families with a couple of smiling Daddies or Mummies in them, and they will ask themselves, as much in puzzlement as horror, “What on earth were they thinking of?”