A homosexual apology.

From time to time I purposefully bring up the topic of homosexuality around my peers and my relatives to elicit debate on the topic. Homosexuality is a topic filled with prejudice, misunderstanding, and outright hatred. My peers are members of the armed forces of the United States of America, a job which openly discriminates against homosexuals and even charges them with misconduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I usually start the arguments by either responding to a veiled anti-homosexual statement or by asking what the harm is with homosexuality. The responses I get from people are predicable, ranging from the pure hatred: "Those goddamn faggots should be eliminated!" to the revolted: "Those gays are so gross, do you know what they do?" to the slighted: "'They' stole the word gay from 'us', and 'they' shouldn't be allowed to get married because 'they' are trying to 'steal' that word from 'us' as well." to the offended: "Those fags are always sticking it in 'our' faces, why do 'they' have to make such a big deal about their sexuality? 'We' don't make a big deal about 'ours'. to finally the ignorant: "I don't care if they are gay, as long as I don't know about it, and they don't tell me about it." The pronouns 'we', 'ours', and 'us' typically refer to the broader heterosexual population, as though any individual were qualified to speak on their behalf. Every one of these responses is profoundly hypocritical, and will each be discussed in turn.

First a diversion on the topic of hypo criticality. I am a hypocrite. I always have been, and I always probably will be, but I fight it within myself every day. Everyone of you reading this is also a hypocrite, in fact, just claiming that you are not a hypocrite makes you one, so be careful how you respond. Hypocrisy, double-standard, prejudice, or special-case, all synonyms for the same thing. Hypocrisy is the enemy of rational thought and the destroyer of critical arguments. Fortunately, hypocrisy is easy to discover. Unfortunately, hypocrisy is difficult to convince someone who is guilty of it that they are a hypocrite. No one likes to be called a hypocrite, because it means that they are not being fair or rational, which is true. They hypocrite is easy to spot starting at an early age as in an example of the schoolyard bully who changes the rules to benefit him mid-game. Hypocrisy drives school children mad, and they respond by rightfully calling the hypocrite a cheater. Among adults, the tactics do not change, but the terminology does. Hypocrisy is found in the laws and regulations that govern everything from residential zoning to marriage. Hypocrite-fighters often respond by with the platitude: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Originally, this proverb was used for equal rights between men and women, but it works equally well in the case for homosexuality.

I am not a homosexual. I don't find homosexuality particularly appealing, and I am somewhat revolted by homosexual practice. Homosexual and gay are terms usually used to denote male homosexuals, while the term lesbian is reserved for the female homosexual. For the purposes of this article, homosexual will be used to refer to both male and female homosexuals.

Homosexuals have as much right to be as anyone else. I have a right to be disgusted by the practice of homosexuality. No one has the right to tell a homosexual that they cannot be. A person responding with hatred and malice toward homosexuals, calling for their elimination or extermination is the most thoughtless of the anti-homosexuals. Their response is emotional, and on that level they cannot be subjected to reasoning. They are hypocrites because when pressed about why homosexuals should be eliminated, they usually respond by saying something like homosexuality isn't natural, or that is is gross. The logical next question is to press them to define what is 'natural', or to ask them if anyone who does anything that is gross should be eliminated. People do gross things all the time, like put ketchup on eggs, or watch NASCAR, but they are allowed to continue. Hypocrites.

Less caustic are those who do not wish to eliminate the homosexuals, but rather to restrict their freedoms in some way. These hypocrites quickly point out that time-honored institutions such as marriage have always been defined as between a man and a woman. They may feel slighted or threatened because a different lifestyle than theirs is gaining acceptance. The best counter-argument for these poor souls is to ask them how someone else's definition of marriage affects their own. If someone else says that marriage is between a man and a man, does it really affect their own heterosexual marriage of many years? The answer is no, there is no effect. Each has an equal right to the word. This argument is the rose-by-any-other name argument. Homosexuals have not 'stolen' any word from anyone. The issue of homosexual marriage is perhaps the most highly publicized of the facets of gay life today, and more will be said about this shortly.

The offended and the ignorant are the least vehement or at least the most secretive of the anti-gay crowd. They are not openly trying to eliminate the homosexuals, or explicitly restrict their rights, but they typically subscribe to the same views as those who would restrict their rights. The hypocrisy of these individuals is the most obvious. They claim to not care whether someone is gay, as long as the person who is gay keeps quiet about it. I recently had a conversation with a married elderly couple. The wife is particularly outspoken in her hypocrisy. She claimed that she didn't care if someone was gay, because she didn't want to know about what goes on in anyone's bedroom. Sounds like a safe argument, right? I asked her then if there should be any restriction on marriage, to which she replied that it should be between a man and a woman. I responded by asking how she could restrict marriage in such a way because to do so, she would have to ask about what goes on in the bedroom. Hypocrite.

People who are offended by the propensity for gays to flaunt their sexuality by holding hands in public, kissing on television, or even laying in bed in the movies are hypocrites. The wife in the elderly couple was especially offended by wanton displays of homosexual affection. "Keep it in the closet.", she would say. Ahem. Elderly people watch and have watched enough television and Hollywood films to know that if anyone is flaunting (by their definition of the word) sexuality, it is the heterosexuals. To note just a few examples from recent history: Frank Sinatra, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, Joe DiMaggio, John F. Kennedy, Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Wilt Chamberlin, Mick Jaggar, and the list could go on. Plainly, some of these people have led very publicly, and in some cases very promiscuous heterosexual lives. They flaunted their heterosexuality from the silver screen to the white house. Where is the hue and cry over this debauchery? Hypocrites.

The heart of the issue is not about homosexual rights, it is about human rights and individual freedoms. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic or a choice is immaterial, homosexuality just is. Homosexuality doesn't affect anyone more adversely than heterosexuality. The people I press on this issue like to press back by asking: Would you let your child go on a camping trip with homosexuals? My answer is yes, just as I would with heterosexuals. However, the question and answer is more complicated than that, because I would feel equally uncomfortable allowing my child to be in the presence of a heterosexual couple who engaged in a great deal of sexual affection near my child as I would with homosexuals. The issue of gay marriage is not an issue with gays, it is an issue for people. Should the institution of marriage be restricted by law to exclude gays? The question is should the institution of marriage be restricted by law at all?

The best question to ask anyone who wishes to restrict another person is by what authority they would do so. Just because a person is in the majority doesn't give them the right to tell others how to act. Appeals to religious doctrine are really just appeals to personal preference, because religion is a choice like any other. Not everyone reads the Bible, Koran, or the Torah. Critics may claim that my argument is for moral relativism, and that if I cannot appeal to any objective measure for correct action, how can there be any standard at all? People who argue against moral or cultural relativism are also hypocrites, because their 'objective' measure it not at all objective, it is their choice to subscribe to their doctrine, just as it is my choice to subscribe to mine. No one restricts them from choosing their lifestyle, neither should they restrict others from theirs.

Critics may also take my live and let live attitude to the extreme, saying that by my rule any behavior is acceptable. Under moral relativism, they say, people can murder, rape, and pillage because there is no standard. This is a childish argument because murder and rape deprive the victim from their right to be free to choose their own destiny, while someone being a homosexual deprives no one of their freedom. If we define a victim to be someone who is otherwise innocent being deprived of their freedom, then homosexuality has no victims. Murder and rape creates victims.

As for freedom, people should have the freedom of association. If homosexuality is disagreeable to you, try to limit your association with it. While this is not absolutely realizable in all cases, it should also be understood that not everyone shares your preferences, and people are free to make their choices, as distasteful as it may seem to you. Voltaire one said, "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I say, "I may find homosexuality disagreeable, but I will defend to my death the right for people to be homosexual."