Butt Surfing - How Hard A Choice Is It?
posted Feb 21, 2005 at 07:17PM
"Whoever you hate is going to show up in your family"
Life, sometimes, is not without a perverse sense of justice. The past week saw yet another openly homophobic, religious conservative, Alan Keyes, turn on his TV, only to find out that the fruit of his loins is a lesbian, in other words , one of "them". As such he has joined such luminaries as Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich in this regard.
I am always bemused when one of these right wing moralists comes on the air declaring that homosexuality is a "choice". It begs the question, "How hard a choice was it?"
It is clip of dark comedy to imagine, a Jerry Fallwell or a Pat Robertson agonizing over their choice. How did they do it? Did they grab their Sears catalog and flip between women's lingerie and men's briefs? What erotic imaginings did a James Dobson try to choose from? Did he compare diddling French maids, all heaving breasts in stockings and heels, to getting reamed in a barn by big black studs with salamis for dicks? Now if Larry King asked those kind of questions, we would actually start learning something.
How hard a choice was it for these guys? To hear them speak, you would think they had made a tremendous sacrifice in choosing to be heterosexuals, and are not getting their due recognition.
Was it really a choice for them? It certainly would explain their willingness to expend inordinate amounts of time and energy in trying to get gay men to "change" their minds. Using ironically leftist tactics, these conversion "support" groups are a cross between 12 step abstinence programs, and Communist reeducation camps.
Never seems to stick though. You are always hearing about how the leaders and founders of these groups are inevitably discovered going back to the cookie jar. It doesn't matter how hard Mommy slaps their wrist, that good old chocolately goodness still remains the path of least resistance.
Perhaps another way of trying to visualize this effort is to attempt the reverse procedure. Take your typical heterosexual sexist oinker, and try to make him "choose" to become a cock gobbling butt surfer.
Now I myself am not the measure of all things, and certainly do not and cannot speak for all in this regard.
Yet personally I feel quite confident that you could innoculate me with weeks of gay porn flicks, cajole me for weeks on end on a stack of Bibles how my soul was in jeopardy, and I still wouldn't "change my choice".
Quite frankly I can tell you that even if God entered the room, and started farting galaxies out of his ass, it would not change one thing at all.
In the end you would have to ask yourself what would it take to make you choose to change your sexual and erotic nature. What would it take for you to even try something sexual which ran counter to your brain's wiring? I suggest it would take nothing less than a gun to your head, and your effort would end the second you heard the safety being put back on.
This is just a small example, however, that highlights a central characteristic of fundamentalists. Like all highly ideological species, they spend a lot of time, money and energy trying to put squares into circles. Catastrophe inevitably ensues, after which comes the impulse to destroy all squares.
This little episode also puts on a whole new spin on the "nature vs nurture" debate.
As the black neo-conservative apologist Walter E. Williams wrote in a recent essay, "The only behavioral genetic explanation that campus anti-intellectuals unquestioningly accept is that homosexuality has genetic origins."
Of course two paragraphs down he also writes, "The creed of the leftist religion is that any difference between people is a result of evil social forces"
Well one of these theories are right. So that means that homosexuality amongst right wing moralists either runs in the family, or is a product of their own fundamentalist, neoconservative upbringing.
Either way, it explains much.
The above is written for educational/entertainment purposes only. Under no circumstances should it be mistaken for professional investment advice. The commentary simply reflects the opinion of the authour on the current status of the market. It is prone to error and to change with no notice which itself is again prone to error.