21 Apr

A White Picket Fence & A Garden [Reader Post]

                                       

Homo-Ehe

There are 106 boys born for every 100 girls. This is a well established scientific fact. Modern medicine and then abortion has made it possible to alter this ratio. It’s a major problem in Asian countries. In China it is said there are now upwards of 130 boys for every 100 girls born. In India, South Korea, Indonesia, this is happening too. This altering of the ratio is what is going to cause some major social problems in these countries. It’s not that the boys will be gay for the lack of girls – it’s that they will become violent. It is this violent cohort that is going to stop Asia in its tracks in the coming decades.

But what of the extra six boys in America? We’re the gay boys. Every attempt at trying to count us trends towards this 5 or 6 on top of the 100. From the 1948 Kinsey study’s 4% who are exclusively gay – not the 10% that is so often bandied about – to the recent Gallup phone survey which alleged that 3.4% of the nation was “LGBT” – every single study points to the extra six boys. Even when factoring in that more boys die in childhood and that women live longer you still come up with an extra 5 or 6 boys after you all get guy-gal married.

There are roughly 160 million males from 0 to 100 in this nation. If 5% of us are gay then that’s an absolute number of 8 million gay men from 0 to 100. This is what you’re worried about. A tiny population that is spread out into 99% of all the counties. This number will not go up or down except as a mathematical function of the number of males overall. When the nation comes to 200 million males, then 10 million will be gay. There is no way around this number. This is not true just in the United States, but in every country on earth. There are not gay pride events in over 150 nations for nothing.

The idea that we are some Democratic Leftist plot to take over the nation is so absurd I can’t imagine anyone thinking it. The idea that gay men have this goal to well, I don’t know what – the “radical, militant homosexual lobby” is up to something – you are all very sure of this. I wish I knew what. The way you describe it I don’t like it one bit. The way I know it simply does not fit your beliefs. And as you are well aware, conservatives deal with facts, logic, reason, figures, something concrete – and it is liberals who are dreamers and number fiddlers, who use tortuous logic to come to irrational conclusions.

Frankly, I submit, no matter how conservative you all are on every issue, when it comes to gay men you are like liberals. You come up with willy nilly nonsense and demands for us to change or go away or hide, or do something I don’t know what. Some of you think we should all be arrested; putting us in jail together for being together is not logical. Still, when I read the comments here it is obvious there is great confusion.

I do not call this “homophobia.” This is “gay perplexed.” It is wholly understandable that you are. For we are America’s new play toy. Gayness is a fad right now. Everyone is out playing with it, just to see how they can pull it and stretch it and bounce it around – and see what political points they can score along the way. There are people making a living off of “defending” us, “stopping” us, even “changing” us. I’ve never seen such arrant nonsense over a tiny group of people in my life.

You know, 40 years ago, when I was a teenager, nearly 100% of everyone was against gay existence. We were illegal, mentally insane, subject to everlasting scorn. Fortunately for me, my family was reasonable. Probably because we were more concerned with my cousins in Prague who were suffering under the Soviets. Maybe because my family Czech Hussite religious tradition is more focused on good works than Bible preaching. I don’t know, frankly. All I know is, every time I hear how “homosexuals” are “anti-family” I call one of my extended family of 150 people on three continents in two languages and talk to them about something or other than this idea. For it just doesn’t come up – I’m just Jim – uncle, cousin, brother, son.

But I’m not the only gay man embedded in his family. I’d say 90% of my friends are embedded in theirs. The other 10% weren’t against their family – their families were against them. In fact, back during the 1980s and then trailing off through the 1990s, and almost never now, weekly I came across some kid chased away from his family. I grew up in the NYC area, and wound up working and living in Manhattan; it’s my hometown, not where I moved to a “gay ghetto.” So when some 17 or 18 year old kid was wandering around the streets, near tears, a look of desperation on his face – what was I to do? Just hound him some more because his family told him to get lost because he was one of the extra six boys? Hell no, I took them in, and not just me, all of us with means did it. We gave them shelter, money, jobs – we got them started – and we didn’t have sex with them. We did what fathers are supposed to do – because their fathers abandoned their job.

Even more amazing to me is that nearly 100% of the theories for why the extra six boys are gay is that our fathers, or mothers, or environment, hormones, predisposition did or didn’t do something prenatal, postnatal, combo – oh there’s more theories than Carter’s liver pills – “made” us gay. Who cares the reason, some heterosexuals made us. Then we got blamed for being made. So, some father in Ohio made his son gay, then couldn’t handle that, and chased the kid to Manhattan, and I solved the problem and made the kid productive to society. As a gay guy, for sure, for that’s what he is, but productive. The only theory that says otherwise is “Choice.” And if you think that in junior high when I realized I was gay it was to choose to argue with you today … well, that’s just nuts. I’m sorry.

When you all speak of the social service nightmare of the inner city you’re talking about heterosexuals. They’re the ones having all these kids out of wedlock. They’re the abandoning fathers, unwed mothers, generations on welfare. They’re the ones shooting up everything in sight with illegal guns and drugs. They’re the ones on every welfare program known to man – and more coming it seems. And gay men? Well, we wind up in the “gayborhood” – a nice, peaceful, charming, productive, tax paying, no one on the dole, enclave in the inner city. The French Quarter, Greenwich Village, the Castro – all fine places where you and your family could stroll at any hour in utter peace and bliss and find an ice cream or a curio. The differences could not be more stark.

Consider 40 years of peaceful gay marches – worldwide, with millions of people attending – and they never turn to violence – unless attacked by police. What we ask for is decency, inclusion, the end of the theocratic-police-medical state against us. No gay march demanded money or power. Our marches don’t even make the news, except a brief snippet of a drag queen, maybe. Oh my, a clown at a parade, the horrors!

Now contrast that with Leftist marches like at G-8 meetings, or Occupy, or the Weathermen, Black Panthers, Unions, Greek Socialists, Muslims – they all turn into violent riots. There’s brick throwing, bomb throwing, broken windows, riot police, water cannons and pepper spray. There’s disruption and mayhem. The marchers demand your money, your property, your very lives. The difference between every known type of Leftist or Big Government march and gay events could not be more stark.

Not a one of you had any problems with Democrats or Soviets or even Muslims when it came to gay people. The world was united on this – “homosexuals” were to be pilloried and harassed forever. Killed or at least threatened with death constantly – for being born or made different by heterosexuals. You broke us, and you didn’t like it, oh well. And 60 years ago when this gay rights thing started in America we had to argue with each and everyone of you.

We started by talking to our moms, dads, sisters, families – and because they knew us they could no longer abide by the “horror” model of us, even if they still kept the “pity” model. Oh, I don’t care if you think I’m crazy or psychologically stunted, or as I’ve heard: “you don’t know what you’re missing.” Well, no, I don’t. I never had the slightest inkling that there was anything to miss, but you enjoy, OK?

Are there gay Leftists? Of course. There’s heterosexual Leftists too, apparently. Smooching seems to have nothing to do with it. For the life of me I can’t find the “homosexual” position on the confounded IRS code. Nor on the fraud of global warming. Or the absurdity of the quantitative easing of the Federal Reserve Board. I can’t find any political connection or similarity between the gay men of New Zealand, Argentina, South Africa, Israel, England, Russia, China or Japan other than that they’re all gay – and want nothing more than the end of these wild theories about us and what we are supposedly doing.

The goal of legal marriage for gay men is to make it easier for us to pursue our happiness. Not get it guaranteed, but merely to pursue it, behind a picket fence, with a garden, and the way it’s going, a gun, and deal with the realities and legalities that life presents. The Democrats have realized there’s votes and money involved – and raking Republicans over the coals. And gay men, being mostly apolitical ninnies, and desperate for a nice word about them, go for the first politician who says “hello.”

Meanwhile, you folks are telling us to go vote for the people you don’t want. I find this the oddest political strategy I’ve ever encountered. Some have gone so far to say that even if a heterosexual is gay friendly they should vote Democratic. This is ludicrous. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. I’m not the only conservative gay man, I assure you. You don’t know it, but there’s the same Left-Right discussion over everything on gay blogs as there is everywhere else. The idea that we’re some Borg like collective out to assimilate the world is fantasy.

Yes, gay men are a conundrum, a weird part of humanity. Call us runts of the liter, put us on the Autism spectrum, put us back on the psychologist couch – we’re still not covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act – we still have to work and pay taxes. There are no programs for gay men to live off the public dime, that’s for sure; and we don’t want or need any. But stop speaking in some wild eyed speculation over a hypothetical and listen to a gay men once in a while. And since I know more gay men than all of you combined, I just might be a little more knowledgeable about what “the real goal of gay marriage” is.

This entry was posted in Gay Marriage. Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, April 21st, 2013 at 6:01 am
| 440 views

14 Responses to A White Picket Fence & A Garden [Reader Post]

  1. RiverRat says: 1

    I’d only add a few words after created equal in the Declaration of Independence: “regardless of sex, race, religion, or sexual preference”. Of course this just means under the law and not necessarily in eyes individuals or freely associating groups such as churches. Like horses, you can lead bigots to water but…

    ReplyReply
  2. Skook says: 2

    Jim, you have written an honest effort at explaining your position. There will need to be many more written to change the attitudes of the general public.

    Unfortunately, straight men don’t like to be approached or propositioned by gay men. Young college boys with muscles are often asked by gays if they are interested, this is often when young men become aware of gays. From anecdotal experience, this is the least of concerns for the young lad in college who admires the feminine form.

    It often leaves the young man with an aversion to gay men. You don’t hear of straight men with a gay friend, (it is rare) but women will have gay men for friends. My girlfriend instructed me to work for her gay friend at the end of the day, after 5 stops and over 300 miles. It’s not easy to maintain a friendly attitude after a schedule like that. He was a nice enough guy and he loves his horses, but we will never become friends; although he and my girlfriend have long conversations on the phone. Still, straight men don’t have lesbian friends and their partners would be really upset if they did. LOL

    I don’t know why there is this gulf in our culture. However, I don’t attend gay rodeos or watch the parades. I take my computer lessons in an area with many gay people and I suspect some of my instructors are gay.

    While waiting for a lesson, I was talking to a retired Colonel who flew a C-130 in Vietnam (Puff the Magic Dragon), he leaned over to whisper to me, “I think some of these guys are gay.”

    I smiled and said, “We are in the town that is famous for gay people. This is the way of the future.”

    He said, “We had to put up with them in the military, but I don’t like it.”

    I just laughed and shrugged my shoulders.

    Anyway, I am glad you are a Conservative, the local gay radio personalities seem to be Libs and most of the gays I meet in my business are usually Democrats. (There is way more than 6% in the horse world, it must be closer to 30% to 50%)

    It is best not to approach straight men to ask if they are interested, it does harm to your movement. No one ever asks me anymore, maybe it is because I am old or maybe I just scare people. I like it better this way.

    ReplyReply
  3. Lloyd Wiebe says: 3

    Skook, I’ve lived around, with and worked with large numbers of gay people, men and women most of my life. I hung out in Gay bars during the mid 80′s in Canada because they were places where you could go to just hang out. I’ve learned one thing about gay people. Male or Female, if you get approached, it’s easy to just say no thanks. Gay people know that NO means NO, and won’t bother you thereafter. Oh, and I’m a straight white male… :-)

    ReplyReply
  4. RiverRat says: 4

    As I said what we should be addressing is equality under the law. You don’t have to like all gays or any anymore than you like all straits. You’re free to associate with anyone you choose except, god forbid, ProgNazis…LOL

    ReplyReply
  5. Pingback: My Flopping Aces Post «The Daily Mush The Daily Mush

  6. Petercat says: 5

    Frankly, I submit, no matter how conservative you all are on every issue, when it comes to gay men you are like liberals. You come up with willy nilly nonsense and demands for us to change or go away or hide, or do something I don’t know what.
    Not a one of you had any problems with Democrats or Soviets or even Muslims when it came to gay people.”
    Sorry, when you lump us all in together you lose any regard I might have had for you. You, personally, not gays in general.
    Do I have gay friends? Yep. I also have straight friends. What’s your point?
    I might even have friends who are gay and I don’t know it.
    And gay men? Well, we wind up in the “gayborhood” – a nice, peaceful, charming, productive, tax paying, no one on the dole, enclave in the inner city. The French Quarter, Greenwich Village, the Castro – all fine places where you and your family could stroll at any hour in utter peace and bliss and find an ice cream or a curio. The differences could not be more stark.
    Every gay fits into this stereotype? Enough wishful thinking. Whatever makes someone gay doesn’t automatically make them a good, upright, law-abiding person. Yes, I do have gay friends. I also know some gays that I don’t want near me. Some gays, like some straights, are real douchbags. Drug users. Criminals. I tend to avoid them.
    Skook:
    Still, straight men don’t have lesbian friends and their partners would be really upset if they did. LOL
    Ummmm… Wrong. Some of us do. It’s nice to spend time with a female friend when there is absolutely no sexual pressure. Makes a very relaxing date.

    My attitude towards sexual orientation is simply, I don’t care. Gay, straight, whatever, none of my business. I. Just. Don’t. Care.
    I’ve got too many more important things to pay attention to than someone else’s sexual orientation.

    ReplyReply
  7. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 6

    Such openness and acceptance among conservatives commentators on this issue. I wonder why there is such opposition among conservatives regarding gay marriage—especially among far-right-wing congresspeople.

    ReplyReply
  8. Aqua says: 7

    And gay men, being mostly apolitical ninnies, and desperate for a nice word about them, go for the first politician who says “hello.”

    Jim, I don’t think this is true overall. Conservatives are slow to change, hence the term conservative. And being on the libertarian side of conservatism, I’m a firm believer that your right to be free includes my right to be free of you. That doesn’t apply to just the gay and lesbian community, that applies to everyone. Personally, I don’t care if people smoke pot. But there needs to be a determination on how long after smoking pot a person may be impaired. And as such, an employer can refuse to hire or fire anyone that is determined to be under the influence.
    I have no doubt that you and thousands of other gay couples want nothing more than the same rights as everyone else. But there is a radical element within the gay community that wants nothing more than to destroy the institution of marriage. This is an excerpt from a speech Masha Gessen gave. Please feel free to Google the whole context, but I assure you it only gets worse.

    “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

    I think the decision about marriage should be left to the States. The federal government should have no input. The feds should just repeal the contract law as it pertains to marriage and allow the States to deal with it. Doing so would automatically grant civil unions, but leave the definition of marriage to the States.

    ReplyReply
  9. Jim Hlavac says: 8

    @Aqua: thank you — finally a name of a militant homosexual — I never heard of this person — I’m opposed to what ever this Masha says — it’s nonsensical. As I said, there are gay leftists — socialists to the core — new world order wackos — and they seem to be vocal — and they are in league with that woman who thinks the government should take all the kids. I’m sorry — I don’t speak for these people, and they don’t speak for me — nor the over 150 gay men I know as friends.

    But this has been my complaint — and I think people are beginning to see it — there are us “conservative” or “liberty minded gays” who are trying to figure out a way to fit in –and there are these lefty gays who are just as lunatic as Nancy Pelosi.

    You know, I’d much rather hear about some specific person — such as this Masha — who I can now rip apart — then about what “homosexuals” are doing — like we’re some collective who all think alike. As I say here too, there is a vigorous left-right argument on gay sites — and I’m thinking, to stop the left, you conservatives can use all the help you can get — so, take my vote, and stop lumping me and many I know in with the Masha’s of the world. Thanks.

    ReplyReply
  10. Jim Hlavac says: 9

    @Petercat: Sir, the gay subject is so complex and big over a tiny group that no blog post could possible cover every angle. I can only fit in what I can. I’m working on a bigger project to deal with every single aspect of it all. And it’s good comments like yours that help me try to separate the wheat from the chaff in this confounded subject. Thank you.

    ReplyReply
  11. retire05 says: 10

    @Jim Hlavac:

    Are you ended now with putting on your own website opinions that you should just kill all the “straights?”

    Ironic how your tone here is so different than it is at your own website. Anyone who gives you any credence is a fool.

    ReplyReply
  12. Skook says: 11

    Jim, I happened to drop in on American Thinker and noticed your article. I was once a regular but dropped out after the management became frightened over Liberal resistance to my commentary.

    I noticed the commentary was almost abusive toward you and your ideas. I will apologize for the peanut gallery over at AT; none of the commentary writers were among those I once commiserated with a few years ago, the new people are rude, abrasive, and contribute nothing to the conservative cause with their attitudes. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but I am willing to give every conservative writer the benefit of an open mind. Continue on with your mission, you have a message for the gay community as well.

    I work for hundreds of gay people, mainly women, for some reason gay people seem to like horses. I find the percentage of dead beats and animal abusers is a little higher among straight people, but that opinion is purely anecdotal at best.

    I will take my computer lessons later in the day, many of my instructors are from artistic backgrounds and it is often hard to determine their proclivities, but it doesn’t really have an affect on whether they can teach. I have a good relationship with all my instructors and they tell me I am one of their favorite students, so it is surely obvious that I look forward to my lessons.

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05 says: 12

    @Skook:

    I noticed the commentary was almost abusive toward you and your ideas.

    Actually, I think what most objected to what Hlavac’s whining, which he seems to relish in. Were there a “few” who were insulting? Yes, but for the most part, not. If Hlavac wants to change minds, perhaps he should start with his OWN community who seem hell bent on suing people who don’t cater to their demands.

    ReplyReply
  14. Petercat says: 13

    @Jim Hlavac: #9
    Thank you, Jim.
    You get it. I try to judge other people by the choices that they have made in life. Sexual orientation, skin color, physical handicaps, etc. are not the result of that individual’s choice, so they are not on my radar.
    I have many more valid criteria for deciding with whom I wish to associate with than who they are inclined to love.
    After all, I never actually “chose” one day to love (eros) women. It just happened.
    So how can I justify excluding someone else from friendship just because something different happened to them?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>