Annual Gay Pride Rant

Gay marriage has been legalized nationwide in the USA, and the world has erupted in a gigantic gay orgy.  So this seems like an appropriate time for my traditional gay pride post.  My personal position on gay marriage is that marriage is not within the legitimate domain of government power.  When it comes to whether or not it is preferable for government marriage to extend to gay couples or other kinds of non-traditional relationships, I don’t really care.  A lot of social conservatives seem to believe gay marriage is a portent of the apocalypse, even though, if gay marriage caused an apocalypse anywhere it probably would have started in Utah, which already had court-imposed legal gay marriage (as did 37 other states).  But it turns out that some of these people actually have a point; it seems that a lot of gay activists are not content to be satisfied with gay marriage; they now must force everyone to be okay with it (including churches).  My general position when it comes to this kind of thing is to do whatever is morally right and not be concerned with the political consequences.¹  Not only is that the principled thing to do, but I believe that it is also the pragmatic thing.  There is nothing pragmatic about undermining your principles and making them meaningless.  But there is nothing morally right about government control over marriage.  There is a reason for traditional marriage supporters to agree with me on this: everything the government touches turns to feces.  Marriage is no different.  Give control over the institution of marriage back to the people who care about it (which would also prevent any one entity from having a monopoly over it, allowing each entity to give it their own definition, satisfying everyone except for power-hungry statists).

Having said all that, I am turned off by the victimhood that has infected the Right. That used to be the Left’s domain, but now the Christians are convinced that they are the new “oppressed minority.”  Regardless of whether or not there is some truth to that, adopting the Left’s questionable tactics isn’t the way to deal with it.  There is no dignity in playing up your victimhood.  Also, while it is a worthy cause for the right to be attacking the left’s desire to silence dissent, I can’t help but notice that it was the gay marriage decision and not the Obamacare decision that has the Republicans up in arms.  It’s almost as if banning gay marriage is a bigger priority than repealing Obamacare (Canada has both gay marriage and universal healthcare; guess which one is more detrimental to Canadian society).  Whatever ridiculous reaction (some of) the right has to this decision, though, is dwarfed by the ridiculousness (and vileness) of (much of) the left’s reaction, as it usually is.  The left never has been gracious in victory, has it?

There is, though, a legitimate point to be made about religious liberty (although that is not how I would characterize it).  The most frightening thing here has been the left’s desire to force small businesses to serve gay weddings when gay weddings go against the business owners’ religious beliefs (which, by the way, was happening long before gay marriage was legalized nationwide).  As I said, I wouldn’t characterize this as a “religious liberty” issue because private entities should be free to do whatever they want as long as it is not illegal (according to what should be illegal based on natural law).  If you own a bakery and you want to refuse to serve black people just because you’re a big ol’ racist, you should be free to (although that would be stupid of anyone to do because you would lose a lot of business).  That has nothing to do with religion; it is just none of the government’s business how business owners run their businesses (again, assuming no illegal activities).  It’s the same thing with churches and other religious entities; I don’t think churches should be treated any differently from any other private entity, as a matter of principle.  So their refusal to perform gay weddings (if they choose to do so) is not a matter of religious liberty, just a matter of liberty in general.  After all, religious liberty is merely a corollary to freedom of thought and therefore (true) freedom in general.

Now for the fun part.  Gay pride.  It is an embarrassment.  Regardless of whether or not everyone who participates in it behaves like a histrionic libertine, that is the image you see when they report about it on TV or when you search “gay pride” in Google Images.  In addition to rainbow flags, you also get lots of almost-naked people, people who are fully naked, people dressed up as genitals, sex toys, drag queens, etc.  Is this really the image gay people want to associate with themselves? As a gay guy myself (although I use the term “gay” loosely), it is mortifying. Especially to the gay kids who are watching that on TV and becoming ashamed of their sexuality as a result.  I’ve written a lot of posts on gay pride in the past (it is a tradition to rant against every year, after all. Because it’s fun), so I’ll just quote some other posts I’ve made in the past on the subject now.

Gay Pride is where gay guys march around in speedos and/or dresses making themselves look like idiots and confirming all the worst stereotypes about homosexuals.  I guess, more than anything, posts like this are meant to distance myself from those homosexuals who have no dignity and to remind people that homosexuals aren’t all about bright colours, dancing suggestively to electronic music, and dressing up as penises.  Many of us have several characteristics, and, in some cases, our characteristics do not include a tendency to do any of that (or to act in any stereotypically gay manner, for that matter).

I’m gay, so it should be second nature to me to march around wearing nothing but glitter and a pink jockstrap while thrusting my pelvis and dancing with drag queens and giant penises to techno music.  I mean, that is pretty much all gay people do, right?  Of course not. Stereotyping is appropriate for The Simpsons, to an extent, but this is real life, not The Simpsons.  And people can’t be shoved into boxes (or, they shouldn’t be able to be shoved into boxes).  And that is essentially what Gay Pride parades are doing.

I hate the word “queer.”  As I said, I generally fit pretty well into mainstream society.  But, I have my quirks, like everyone does.  So, why exactly is homosexuality uniquely weird to be designated with the word “queer,” which literally means “weird”?  I know it isn’t “normal,” but if there was a person who fit the definition of normal in every way, then that person would be a freak.  Homosexuality, to me, is basically incidental.  It changes how I live my life in a fairly minor way (I just date guys instead of girls.  Between the period before I even realized I was gay and now, I have changed how I lived my life in exactly one way because of that realization, and that is the change I just mentioned.  I eat the same foods, I have the same career plans, I have the same basic daily routine; pretty much everyting is the same (or is different because of some other, unrelated reason)). Being gay doesn’t inherently make me any more abnormal than anyone else (other things probably do, but that is another issue).

The narrative that the gay pride parade represents “progress” is universal (on the left, at least).  Any sort of statement to the contrary is promptly stifled with accusations of homophobia or worse.  Well, gay pride is stale. True progress for gay people would mean that there would be absolutely nothing to celebrate, which I believe is the case, and also that most people would recognize that there is nothing to celebrate, which obviously isn’t the case.

It is insulting to be reduced to the most negative stereotypes about gay people and have that celebrated.

On that note, it would make so much more sense to have pride in your accomplishments than it does to have pride in some characteristic you were born with.  But, you see, the problem with that would be that it goes against the left’s vision of equality, since not everyone has the same level of accomplishment and it would hurt the feelings of less successful people.  The left doesn’t believe in individual rights (or individuals), so people are reduced to their ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation (as well as what animal they identify as and their “traumas” they suffered at the hands of the patriarchy). That is a noble thing to do now (unlike in the 1800’s when the Democrats were doing basically the same thing), because it puts everyone on the same level (as least on the same level as everyone else with their same privelege score).

That is why it makes more sense for gays to be conservative (or libertarian or whatever).  The left debases (what they define as) minorities.  It is insulting. But, of course, the right is anti-gay, so all gays must be, by default, leftists.  Or they are self-loathing Auntie Toms.  It’s so liberating being required to think a certain way; we sure have come a long way since the ’50’s.

In actuality, the right is anti-gay in that it opposes “gay rights.”  Which it should, because gay rights don’t exist except as a subset of individual rights. And, being an individual (who merely happens to be attracted to men instead of women), I am all for individual rights.  That is why I am not a leftist.  “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities,” as Ayn Rand said.

So, if everyone is an individual, does that necessarily deny the legitimacy of a “gay identity”?  That is not necessarily what I am saying, although I do think the concept of a “gay identity” is a ridiculous anachronism.  Gays are well-enough integrated into mainstream society.  But, I am ultimately indifferent to however people want to identify themselves.  That is up to them.  Just don’t force that identity on people who don’t subscribe to it, which is what the left wants to do. Incidentally, this is the dumbest thing I have ever read.  The kind of person who wants to be a part of an “outsider culture” doesn’t need to be gay, they just need to be that kind of person. There are a lot of different “outsider cultures” that are not predicated upon sexuality.  It seems that a disproportionate amount of gays are like that, but a lot aren’t.

So, that is my annual gay pride rant (and overarching homosexuality-related post). I’m sure any leftist reading this would assume that my intention is to ban gay pride parades, which would be consistent with their way of thinking. However, I want to do no such thing.  People should be free to behave how they want to within the law. It seems to me, anyway, that gay pride parades have evolved into an excuse to have fun (by acting like a moron in a lot of people’s cases) more than any kind of gay rights rally.  But I’m also free to sit in my room and bittery complain about people having fun like the cantankerous old man yelling at the kids on his lawn that I really am trapped inside my 23 year old body.

See also: this spot-on Onion article.

1 – With the confederate flag issue, for example.  It is simply wrong to say that the confederate battle flag represents anything other than slavery, and I would be embarrassed to live in a place on whose capital grounds flies that reminder that it was once a horribly racist Democratic stronghold.  So while the Left might want to ban every instance of that old Democratic Party flag from public view, which is moronic, it is morally right to remove it from public property (i.e. government owned property).  I see no difference between opposing the Left’s desire to take down the flag and opposing their desire to ban it from public view altogether, other than the fact that one of those desires is actually justified and the other isn’t.