It's Only Natural
Thomas C Smith
Lately I find myself in the rather bizarre position of actually agreeing
with a stance taken by the religious right. Specifically, I find myself
believing that mothers should forego their careers in favor of staying
home to raise their children. Before I am crucified by those of you here
at SOC.MOTSS, let me make it clear that I also believe that fathers should
forego their careers and stay home to help raise the children.
But if all the heterosexuals are home raising their kids then who's going
to actually run this world we live in? Why we -- a gay and lesbian people
-- will, of course.
Obviously homosexuals exist for a reason. If one out of every ten
individuals is gay then we are far too numerous to be, as Dr. Laura would
have us believe, a biological mistake. Genetically speaking, biological
mistakes eventually breed themselves out of existence. However, against
all odds, gays and lesbians not only continue to exist but there seems to
be more and more of us each day. If nature continues to produce gay and
lesbian individuals then clearly we have a purpose, an evolutionary
imperative, if you will.
Just as obviously that evolutionary imperative is not the bearing and
raising of children, for if homosexuals were meant for procreation then we
would have come equipped with the necessary biological outlook. It does
not seem unreasonable to speculate that had nature wanted gay and lesbians
to raise children she would have just created us straight to begin with
and been done with it.
Fortunately, there are more than enough heterosexuals to assure the
perpetuation of our species. Clearly that is their evolutionary
imperative since they are so biologically suited to it. And everyone
seems to agree that raising children is the most important job that a
person could have. If it's that important then surely those who have that
responsibility should devote no less than 100% of their time to it. If
children are our future then obviously parents -- of either sex -- should
not be distracted from this vital task by trivialities such as running
board meetings and designing buildings.
If heterosexuals are destined for child bearing then clearly the only
thing left as a evolutionary imperative for gays and lesbians is, well,
EVERYTHING else. Obviously nature recognized that while most of the
population is concerning itself with the perpetuation of our species that
someone would have to be responsible for all of the other activities
needed in a civilized society and so evolution set aside ten percent of
the population to actually be in charge. While heterosexuals are
genetically intended for breeding, clearly the rest of us are intended for
major roles in architecture, business, education, law, medicine, politics,
religion, science and, of course, the arts.
And, honestly, that really isn't so different from the way things exist
today. Homosexuals already have a presence in the fields of architecture,
business, education, law, medicine, politics, religion, science and,
obviously, the arts. We simply need to now transform that presence from
behind the scenes to the dominating influence that nature has always
intended it to be. To do that we must insist that heterosexuals be
relegated to the role destined for them by biology.
I am not unkind, and neither am I the Catholic Church. I do not insist
that all heterosexuals must breed. Those straight males and females who
choose not to have children are welcome to join with the gays and lesbians
in running the world. Similarly, once all children have graduated from
high school a heterosexual is free to resume or start a career.
On the other hand, it is only fair that those gays and lesbians who wish
to devote time to raising children will also have to forego careers so
that they can devote ALL of their time to that endeavor. If raising
children is a full time job then nothing less than 100% of their time and
effort can be expected from those who commit themselves to this task
regardless of sexual orientation.
It may seem unwise to leave the raising of gay and lesbian children in the
hands of intolerant, homohateful bigots who will teach their children to
despise homosexuals and could cause immeasurable psychological damage to
the gay and lesbian children who unwittingly end up in their care.
Realistically, however, this is little different than the current
situation since almost every gay male and lesbian has heterosexual parents
who generally are not overjoyed to discover their child is queer. If we
survived the emotional scars of being raised by homohateful heterosexuals
then certainly future gay generations will also, especially since in my
scenario, homosexuals would be in charge of education and would have an
opportunity to teach all children -- not simply the gay ones -- the
tolerance and understanding necessary to function in civilized society.
Besides I envision a future in which gay and lesbians will become an elite
working class and parents will actually desire children who can join those
privileged ranks and so having a gay or lesbian child will actually become
a matter of pride rather than shame. If nothing else when 10% of the
population continues to be gay despite the best full-time efforts of
straight parents to prevent it that should finally put to rest the myth
that queers are made and not born.
I do concede the possibility that being a part of that elite working class
could be so tempting that thousands of heterosexuals will forego having
children in order to be a part of it and thus endanger the continuation of
the human race. This possibility, however, strikes me as rather remote.
The urge to procreate is rather strong among heterosexuals and few seem
able to resist it.
In the meantime, we must proceed cautiously. We don't want to damage the
fragile egos of heterosexuals by prematurely leaking the knowledge of
their true biological purpose before they are psychologically prepared to
handle it. (Although they probably already suspect the truth. This
unconscious inferiority complex is undoubtedly the true cause of
homohatred.) Despite their assertions of the importance of child
rearing, we can't expect heterosexuals to willingly give up their jobs and
become full-time parents, but gays and lesbians are a clever people and
with a little ingenuity I'm sure we can not only convince straights to
assume their evolutionary role as breeding stock but also that it was
their idea to begin with. It has to happen. We've got nature on our side.
Tom Smith
thcs...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Mack Therber
Thomas C Smith wrote:
[...]
<PBS monotone lady>
Stand behind the rope. Look, but don't touch.
We're walking... we're walking... we're looking.
There. Wasn't that a thrill?
</PBS monotone lady>
M.
MeanMary
I dunno. I thought it was a fascinating diatribe. Not that I
agree with the ideas there-in (or not with most of them, I
do like his emphasis on parenting and childcare ;-), but I
think he is, as I do at times, presenting a bizarre perspective
(such as the parent licensing scenario Greg, Jeffrey and I
came up with at the .con and I posted in an already volatile
thread - it seemed to "shake" people a bit, as though they
were doing a double-take) in an attempt to jar people into
looking at particular issues in a extensively reframed way -
he might not care if he convinces you of his viewpoint or
not (I rarely do), but he'll be happy if he gets you to
develop your thinking on the issue even an iota (my typical
goal).
MeanMary
--
Copyright 1999 Mary Ballard // I do not speak for Appalachian State U.
// ball...@am.appstate.edu
---
"All the angels kneel into the frozen lights...
ghosts that haunt you with their sorrow." cLove
MeanMary
: not (I rarely do), but he'll be happy if he gets you to
: goal).
er, generic you - that is.
Linda Yanney
lj
--
A decent provision for the poor
is the true test of civilization.
-- Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784
Jeffrey William McKeough
Robert Cumming <robe...@bahnhof.se> wrote:
>
>Robert, still unaware of the reason for his existence
Ah, well, you see you were created to provide the worl!@(&%!#9.@
NO CARRIER
Mike McKinley
Robert Cumming wrote:
> Hang on, are you saying that some people are biological mistakes?
So, did y'all (or all y'all) hear about the cloned bull in Texas?
D Lewis
>But if all the heterosexuals are home raising their kids then who's going
>to actually run this world we live in? Why we -- a gay and lesbian people
>-- will, of course.
they're staying at home with the kids. One option is that they stash away
dough in a savings account *before* the pregnancy occurs, along the lines of
the Mormon kids who save up oodles of money to pay for their two-year "mission."
A more likely possibility is that we gays who are running the world while the
heterosexuals are raising the future generation set up an "adopt-a-het-couple"
program. We would volunteer to sponsor a heterosexual couple, so to speak,
during the years they are out of the workforce to nurture their growing child.
In exchange, we'd get to sit with the family at the kid's graduations, when the
kid gets married, etc. Of course, competition will be fierce as sponsors vie
for "the better" heterosexual couples. (I, personally, would try for Brad Pitt
and Jennifer Anniston.) So some "less desirable" couples may eventually have
to petition for assistance from a federal program set up to sustain straight
couples not desirable to gay sponsors.
D Lewis
>Didn't quite work that way for me. Maybe if half of it had been cut
>out, it might have done as satire.
Satire *does* need to hold your attention in order to be effective...
Linda Yanney
>Linda Yanney:
>
>>Try reading the piece as satire.
>
>for you?
Yeah. I thought it was absolutely hysterical and right on point. Then
others responded to it seriously, so I reread it. If he meant it
seriously, he has the greatest gift for unconscious self-parody I've seen.
John Fisher
writes
>Thomas C Smith <thcs...@gcfn.org> writes:
>>But if all the heterosexuals are home raising their kids then who's going
>>to actually run this world we live in? Why we -- a gay and lesbian people
>>-- will, of course.
>
>Then there is the matter of where the heterosexuals will obtain cash while
>they're staying at home with the kids. One option is that they stash away
>dough in a savings account *before* the pregnancy occurs, along the lines of
>the Mormon kids who save up oodles of money to pay for their two-year "mission."
>A more likely possibility is that we gays who are running the world while the
>heterosexuals are raising the future generation set up an "adopt-a-het-couple"
>program. We would volunteer to sponsor a heterosexual couple, so to speak,
>during the years they are out of the workforce to nurture their growing child.
Aha! So *that's* what it comes down to. I don't think adopting one het
couple would do the trick. After all, taking Mr Smith's figure of 10%
gay and lesbian folk, that means that there are actually *4.5* indigent
het couples for every gay or lesbian person. In other words, each gay
or lesbian person would be supporting *nine* additional adults, plus
their children. In short, for "run this world we live in", read "pay
for it".
>In exchange, we'd get to sit with the family at the kid's graduations, when the
>kid gets married, etc.
Hardly seems to compensate, really.
> Of course, competition will be fierce as sponsors vie
>for "the better" heterosexual couples. (I, personally, would try for Brad Pitt
>and Jennifer Anniston.) So some "less desirable" couples may eventually have
>to petition for assistance from a federal program set up to sustain straight
>couples not desirable to gay sponsors.
Of course, the afore-mentioned ten percent would also be paying all the
taxes. I think a system of personal slavery would be the only way.
"We're John and Graeme and these <casual wave> are our 18 het slaves and
their 43 children, 16 elderly relatives, 25 houses, 31 cars and 83 cats,
dogs, guinea-pigs and gerbils, all of which we are paying for..."
--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
John Dorrance
> Tracy Cannon <m-...@io.com> writes:
I kind of faded out part-way through the first paragraph...
John
David Migicovsky
<ydlohAAA...@drummond.demon.co.uk>...
>
> > Of course, competition will be fierce as sponsors vie
> >for "the better" heterosexual couples. (I, personally, would try for
Brad Pitt
> >and Jennifer Anniston.) So some "less desirable" couples may eventually
have
> >to petition for assistance from a federal program set up to sustain
straight
> >couples not desirable to gay sponsors.
>
> Of course, the afore-mentioned ten percent would also be paying all the
> taxes. I think a system of personal slavery would be the only way.
> "We're John and Graeme and these <casual wave> are our 18 het slaves and
> their 43 children, 16 elderly relatives, 25 houses, 31 cars and 83 cats,
> dogs, guinea-pigs and gerbils, all of which we are paying for..."
>
Yeah, but the gerbils are for our benefit anyway.
Amanda Walker
> "all y'all" is redundant, sorry. (contraction of "you all", hence,
> it is also wrong to say "y'all" to one person. JFYI)
Travel more.
Amanda Walker
P. J. Remner
"all y'all" is redundant, sorry. (contraction of "you all", hence,
it is also wrong to say "y'all" to one person. JFYI)
What about the cloned bull? Did they name it Xerox?
Maybe it's a technological mistake instead of a biological one...
--
aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast"
'76 Ford Thunderbird - '87 Mazda RX7 GXL - '72 Ford Thunderbird
'85-1/2 Isuzu Impulse Turbo - '88 Subaru GL Wagon dual-range 4WD
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, robe...@bahnhof.se (Robert Cumming) says:
>
>Hang on, are you saying that some people are biological mistakes? And
>that by virtue of _numbers alone_, homosexuals escape this
>categorisation?
Most biological mistakes can be treated with modern plastic surgery
and prostheses. I've never heard of a gay person "successfully"
"straightened out". You can't erase instinct!
>Robert, still unaware of the reason for his existence
A Darwinist would say that you exist because you *can*.
I would say that you exist because God made you.
(Maybe not the God that thousands of years of corruption
and hatred by power-hungry madmen has created, but the
one that made *you*!)
- Izz (Oooh, I'm gonna get flamed for *that* for sure...)
PS - I'm all for a homocentric society. If anything, there'd
be a lot fewer lame-ass "coming out" episodes of TV shows.
MeanMary
: In a previous article, robe...@bahnhof.se (Robert Cumming) says:
:
: >
: >Hang on, are you saying that some people are biological mistakes? And
: >that by virtue of _numbers alone_, homosexuals escape this
: >categorisation?
:
: Most biological mistakes can be treated with modern plastic surgery
: and prostheses. I've never heard of a gay person "successfully"
: "straightened out". You can't erase instinct!
Have you tried "straitened circumcision?"
MeanMary
--
Copyright 1999 Mary Ballard // I do not speak for Appalachian State U.
// ball...@am.appstate.edu
---
a wild one - free and untamed as a wild ass!
Genesis 16:12 - paraphased edition
Eric Holeman
P. J. Remner <aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>"all y'all" is redundant, sorry. (contraction of "you all", hence,
>it is also wrong to say "y'all" to one person. JFYI)
Y'all'r wrong.
HTH.
--
-----
Eric Holeman Chicago, Illinois USA
W. Donald Cotter
> Being a product of corruption and hatred by power-hungry madmen sounds
> a lot more fun, now that I come to think about it.
Provided it comes with super-powers and a fatal construction flaw that
eventually causes one to destroy one's creators and run generally
amok, I agree. It might even all be worth the inevitable tragic demise.
Edgar J. Lawrence II
Amanda Walker <ama...@walker.reston.va.us> wrote:
> aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (P. J. Remner) writes:
> > it is also wrong to say "y'all" to one person. JFYI)
>
Sad to say, it doesn't always make a difference. For example,
while I was in the military, I often encountered people who
could spend an entire tour of duty overseas without really
learning anything about the host country.
Edgar
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Amanda Walker
> Anyway, nice to see you back. How did the move go?
Pretty well. The Bell Atlantic adventures are continuing, and the
carpet cleaners for the old place have not yet managed to both show up
when scheduled and have the right equipment with them, but all in all,
so far, so good. I'm a little tired, though.
Amanda Walker
Clayton Colwell
: "all y'all" is redundant, sorry. (contraction of "you all", hence,
: it is also wrong to say "y'all" to one person. JFYI)
Y'all'n's such a prescriptivist!
****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthTroll) ***** er...@bga.com ******
* "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically *
* mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." *
* -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal *
Brian Kane
>Robert Cumming:
>>Anyway, nice to see you back. How did the move go?
> Pretty well. The Bell Atlantic adventures are continuing
You, too?
Brian (moved July 31st)
P. J. Remner
In any event, it would be a great plotline for a bad sci-fi horror movie.
P. J. Remner
>aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (P. J. Remner) wrote:
>> In a previous article, wdco...@mtholyoke.edu (W. Donald Cotter) says:
>> >Provided it comes with super-powers and a fatal construction flaw that
>> >eventually causes one to destroy one's creators and run generally
>> >amok, I agree. It might even all be worth the inevitable tragic demise.
>> In any event, it would be a great plotline for a bad sci-fi horror movie.
>
That's what the movie's about? Gee thanks, now I can't see it
because you told me the plotline. :-) It's out of theaters already...
>Robert, apart from there being only one of Jeanane Garafalo in it
What is it about her that makes her so attractive to gay men?
(I think it's her attitude)
Ellen Evans
>What is it about her that makes her so attractive to gay men?
The same sort of thing that makes her attractive to lesbians, I'd guess.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
averti
>
> In a previous article, robe...@bahnhof.se (Robert Cumming) says:
> >In article <7rsk5p$gar$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> >aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (P. J. Remner) wrote:
> >> In a previous article, wdco...@mtholyoke.edu (W. Donald Cotter) says:
> >> >Provided it comes with super-powers and a fatal construction flaw that
> >> >eventually causes one to destroy one's creators and run generally
> >> >amok, I agree. It might even all be worth the inevitable tragic demise.
> >> In any event, it would be a great plotline for a bad sci-fi horror movie.
> >
> >'Mystery men' was actually pretty good.
>
> That's what the movie's about?
Um, that's what it's ''about'' sort of, but it's so
referential that it's really ''about'' a zillion other\movies and comic
books.
> Gee thanks, now I can't see it
> because you told me the plotline. :-)
No worries. There isn't one 8).
>It's out of theaters already...
>
> >Robert, apart from there being only one of Jeanane Garafalo in it
>
> What is it about her that makes her so attractive to gay men?
Her ball-handling skills?
> (I think it's her attitude)
>
> --
> aj...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast"
>
> '76 Ford Thunderbird - '87 Mazda RX7 GXL - '72 Ford Thunderbird
> '85-1/2 Isuzu Impulse Turbo - '88 Subaru GL Wagon dual-range 4WD
a.
Leroy Dominique
> Amanda Walker:
> >Robert Cumming:
> >>Anyway, nice to see you back. How did the move go?
> > Pretty well. The Bell Atlantic adventures are continuing
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You, too?
They disconnected my old line rather swiftly[1]. Getting the
new one connected was troublesome. Actually, getting into
the new place was troublesome.
Leroy, yeah you weren't talking to me but...
John Whiteside
<robe...@bahnhof.se> wrote:
> You housemovers in DC (and that would be, like, all the DC motssisi
> except John W, no?) are an impossibly shy bunch.
Me?
---
John Whiteside
white...@yahoo.com OR johnwh...@mindspring.com
Brian Kane
>Robert Cumming on Leroy's move:
>>You housemovers in DC (and that would be, like, all the DC motssisi
>>except John W, no?) are an impossibly shy bunch.
>Me?
Nor me. :^)