THE CURMUDGEON CHRONICLE - #285

THE CURMUDGEON CHRONICLE ©

AN IRREVERENT VIEW


Time Line: August 8, 2010
Date Line: Chicago IL

Good heavens! “Gay Rights” has replaced beach pollution in Sunday’s Editorial pages.

In a gentler age, beach pollution did not mean oil slick; it meant beer cans and sandwich wrappers. Everyone was against beach pollution: all of us were willing participants in a display of righteous, but ho-hum, indignation. Someone should tell the NY Times and the Chicago Tribune that Gay Rights are a very different matter. For one thing there is no uniformity of reaction to the issue and for another, not everyone cares about it.

Rights are one thing, Gay Rights is another.

I find very little that can be considered “gay” about homosexuality. For the participants it is deadly serious. For the vast majority of the earth’s population it is as far from the stream of immediate conscious thought as is the departure date for the next shuttle to Mars.

However, some political opportunists have made hay out of the concept that a non-issue can always be blown out of proportion if one makes enough noise. It seems that they have succeeded. The proof is that even the Chronicle (which has no axe to grind) is addressing the subject.

Homosexual congress was defined by a Roman author who said, “[sic] do it once and you are a philosopher. Do it twice and you are a pervert.
(He used congress in the physical rather than the political sense, though in both cases someone gets screwed.)

Defining lawful conduct in this country is not as simple as one would like. While some would say we can do anything short of murder and grand larceny, others would say that the New Testament should rule our lives, minute by minute. Neither position is acceptable in a diverse society. We are left to tussle with the difference between freedom and license. (e.g. “Headcheese” means something different in Lancaster PA than it does among the head hunters of Borneo.)

While we may differ on the acceptability of homosexuality as a lifestyle, we are compelled to deal with it in our society. Does the proponent of a form of conduct seek to do what he wishes regardless of the harm to others; or is he trying to live in accordance with standards that do no harm but which others may find distasteful though not unlawful per se?
Is the homosexual seeking license or freedom? I do not know if a single rule applies to all homosexual or heterosexual conduct.

Rape is not typically a homosexual crime, but we don’t ban heterosexuality between consenting adults because of an illegal sex act. Homosexual congress is not attractive to the vast majority of men and women, but is that a reason to ban or criminalize it?

Some of the hue and cry against homosexuality between consenting partners is based on religious teaching. Our federal laws do not outlaw that conduct any more than they outlaw heterosexual congress. Regardless of personal preferences, Americans cannot argue against any practice merely because of religion or personal preferences.

We can’t make homosexuality disappear any more than we can solve recurring beach pollution. Whatever Gay Rights means**, the issue has made us think about freedom in a way that beach pollution never could.

Howard Stamer

** The Attorney General has ruled that Gay Rights do not permit you to drill oil wells negligently or toss your empty beer cans on the sands of Coney Island. The first determination rules out support from BIG OIL; the second eliminates the backing of the NRA.