Homophobia, one last time

*cracks knuckles* *dives in*

Today I am going to try to answer the question, "Does it matter if someone is a homosexual?" I believe this to be the central issue of the homosexuality debate. By addressing this question our analyses will be far more fruitful and probing. It will not only deal with the problem of online homophobia, but all homophobia.

[Forgive me if my descriptions are slightly graphic in this next paragraph. I find them necessary for my argument.]

In order to field this question we must first decide, "Who is a homosexual?" What few people realize is that sexuality is not polar. There is a complete spectrum of sexuality from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. According to study I recall looking at in one of my Psychology classes (which, unfortunately, I cannot reproduce) a large majority of North Americans have had, at one point in their lives, a homosexual or homoerotic experience, be it kissing a person of the same sex or stimulating their genitals. I, a male, have looked at gay pornography (both male and female) but have never had physical relations with other males. Am I gay? If I were gay and I was aroused by heterosexual porn, would that make me straight? I have a friend who has had anal intercourse with his girlfriend, and she has stimulated his anus with a sex toy. Is he gay? As far as I know, these acts are quite infrequent and to me seem experimental. Nevertheless, these are, at the very least, homoerotic experiences and they bump you towards the homosexual end of the spectrum.

If we accept that there is a spectrum of sexuality we will find it far easier to identify and empathize with the receiving end of homosexual attacks.

Of course, we have learned to define hetero or homosexuality not merely by sexuality, but emotionality as well. A large cultural component of being straight is that one is expected to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex, get married, etc.. We must remember that this happens on the other side of the coin, and throughout the spectrum. Last time I checked there was nothing objectionable about falling in love.

What is objectionable is that homosexual sex cannot lead to procreation, and this is somehow a moral abhorrence--and is also where the terms "natural" and "normal" get pulled in, which I will address shortly. This seems to be one of the cornerstones of the anti-gay position and I find it rather baseless. Think of the amount of sexual acts that occur that are not intended to create new life. Why are homosexual acts segregated from this massive group of sexual acts? Any sexual act that does not create new life does not contribute to the evolution and growth of the species.

Some may argue that any sexual acts of the kind just described are equally abhorrent because they do not contribute to the evolution and growth of the species. Agreed, non-impregnating sexual acts do not contribute to the growth of the species; as it stands, this is not a problem. We live on a planet where the total human population is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, more than triple what it was in 1950. Compounded by our increasing energy needs and collective shithouse job of managing our resources efficiently and effectively, I would say that having a minority of the population not procreating is better for the species. If it was the case that the majority of the population did not procreate, homosexuality still wouldn't be an issue because--B1GsH0cK3RoMG--homosexuals are still capable of procreation! Just so we're clear--population growth, not an issue.

In terms of not contributing to the evolution of the species, I would be inclined to agree that it is a shame most homosexual people (I assume) don't procreate because there are a lot of laudable and admirable homosexuals with desirable genes that would be caring, nurturing parents; however, procreating is not the only way of contributing to the evolution of the species. I won't list them all here, but an important one is educating others about the planet they live on. If you can teach someone a functional, useful piece of information--such as how to calculate one's basal metabolic rate and use it to determine one's daily calorie intake--you are contributing to the evolution of the species. The more you know about your environment, the better able you will be able to adapt to it. If one actively chooses to isolate oneself from world news, science, etc., and instead indulges predominantly in pop culture, for example, they are contributing to the de-evolution of the species. The less useful and relevant information passed through generations, the more apparent the inability to adapt to our environment will become--and that inability seems extremely apparent at the present time. If you want to argue that homosexuality is an evolutionary issue then you're going to have to prove it, because I fail to see any convincing evidence.

Using the words "natural" and "normal" get you nowhere in this debate. First of all, by using these words in support of your position you assume that they are somehow virtuous and just, and I often find they are used without adequate justification or definition. Both of these terms are extremely vague and definitely ambiguous. Usually it seems people use the word natural to mean "occurring in nature". Homosexuality has certainly been perceived in other species, so you're owned right there because homosexuality occurs in nature. What many fail to realize (which, in part, has led to the exploitation of the world's resources) is that even if no other species exhibited homosexuality, if humans were the only ones, it would still occur in nature! Humans are a part of nature. Don't forget it.

The way many people use the word normal seems to indicate what is common, popular, or of the majority. It is a completely arbitrary and ignorant thing to believe that whatever is in the majority is desirable and what is in the minority is undesirable. Geniuses are not part of the majority, but they're doing a hell of a lot more for the species than you are (assuming you aren't a genius). Divorces (at least in North America) are in the majority, which makes them inherently good, right? Using the word normal to argue your point: EPIC FAIL.

Pending other objections that I have overlooked, the answer to the question "Does it matter if someone is a homosexual?" is a resounding "No". That people still concern themselves with whether someone is a homosexual, or has performed some sort of homosexual/erotic act encompassed by the sexual spectrum, is stupefyingly bamboozling. None of the arguments I have addressed show homosexuality to be damaging in any way. Once the majority of people realize that homosexuality is a non-issue, things like bullying, on or offline, or use of the word gay as derogatory will disappear.

There will always be new leaks that spring up, and patchwork never seems to catch up. I applaud GLAAD and other similar organizations, but I feel that the core question must be addressed if homophobia is to be eradicated in all facets of life.