Brain Fertilizer

Lest anyone think my earlier post about correlations of unfortunate consequences is some sort of homophobic witch hunt, let me assure you that my main purpose in life (and this blog) is to try to help bring about the maturation of our society.

I think it is always best to aim for the long-term good. If you only care about what you want or what you think is good for you now, then you often encounter disaster. It's like trying to drive by not looking more than 10 feet beyond the grill of your car.

(Granted, you can't just ignore your short-term interest in favor of long-term, or you might have a pretty lousy life that ends just before you start feeling the benefit...)

But I'd like to get away from discussing homosexuality, both because it is a very emotionally charged issue, and because the specific subject is immaterial. The same thought process can be applied to several issues. I'm going to approach this by looking at two concepts not covered in the Bible: smoking and pornography. At the end, I'll try to tie it back in to homosexuality to make my viewpoint clear.

Is smoking a sin? Is pornography a sin? Some people might say that there's no way Jesus could have known about these things because he was fully man. Therefore, it's open territory; you can decide for yourself. Other people might say that Jesus was fully God, and so if he didn't want us to enjoy those pursuits, he could have made it clear in his laws and guidelines. Still other people would use logical transformation and say that your body is a temple, and smoking is bad for it, so smoking is a sin, and pornography is like cheating on your spouse or like premarital sex, so it, too, is a sin.

Some people seem to be natural smokers. From the first puff they enjoy it, and even the patch and nicorette gum and hypnosis can't get them to quit. Others are never tempted. There are many in between, including those who can only quit if someone they love is endangered by it, like a spouse with emphysema or getting pregnant.

Some people aren't tempted at all by pornography. Or, having looked at it in their teens, never look again after marriage. For other people, it's like an addiction, and they risk relationships to look at a photo of a naked person.

These ranges are hard to explain. Maybe there's a genetic component...? Maybe there isn't. Does the natural smoker really have a choice as to whether he wants it? Does he have the choice to not strike the match, to not buy the cigarettes, to not put the cigarette in his mouth? Does the porn-addicted individual have the choice to not turn on the computer, not go to the site?

Obviously, you have the choice over what you do. There are few irrestistable urges, and I would argue those are only found in the insane. Is anyone trying to say porn addicts or smokers are insane? Of course not!

But smoking has been found to have very strong correlations with all sorts of deadly diseases. Not a causation, no... You can't say, "smoke 3,463 cigarettes and you are safe, and on number 3,464 you will contract cancer". Nearly everyone has an uncle who smoked 2 packs a day for 60 years without a problem, right? But I don't think anyone can argue that such a best-case scenario is much use in discussing the dangers of smoking.

Smoking also costs society greatly in terms of increasing health care costs. So much so that states are successfully suing tobacco companies. And tobacco companies, because it was not in their interest to admit the dangers and damage of smoking, did everything they could to obscure and deny any attempt to definitely link smoking and disease. If you showed one study that showed smoking was definitely linked to cancer, they had two that proved it didn't.

Now we know more. It took several generations before we managed to overcome the propaganda efforts of Big Tobacco to the point that we could educate people to not smoke. We didn't have to pass a single law to get smoking down from over 50% of the population down to less than 25%. Interestingly, the anti-smoking ordnances pretty much all came after smoking was reduced, and cannot be said to have had much effect on smoking rates. It was the education that made the difference.

Pornography is a victimless activity, isn't it? I mean, who gets hurt by someone looking at a picture or watching a movie? Heck, some of the stars make lots of money.

Let's ignore, if you will, the connection between being a subject of pornography and substance abuse and suicide. Let's not look at the toll it takes on a small minority of the porn stars. Let's just look at the effect it has on the person.

Looking at pornography changes your attitudes. It places a premium on titillation and gratification. It conditions the viewer to unreal standards, since a photograph can be perfect forever, but a person doesn't always look wonderful and hold a pose for you. Humans are human because of imperfections, but porn sidesteps that. It teaches an attitude of objectification and ownership and exploitation. I've seen a study that indicated viewers of pornography are less likely to view rape as an atrocity. Looking at pornography has a high correlation with rape, sexual abuse of minors, infidelity, and experimentation with bisexuality and homosexuality. Part of that is because it conditions one to a sort of fetishism, in which pleasure is enhanced by extreme arousal by doing something "forbidden" or unusual...and it then takes more and more arousal to achieve the same level of sensation, which leads to a sort of sexual thrill-seeking.

I know all this, and yet I still struggle (and often fail) against the allure of pornography.

Oh, and I don't smoke.

I don't like pornography, really. I don't like smoking. But I don't really approve of smoking bans....at the very least a bar or restaurant should be able to opt out of the ban so smokers have somewhere to go. But I don't think I coudl support the criminalization of pornography or smoking, because people do have the right to make bad choices.

On the other hand, people do deserve to have the best information possible to make their choices. And then all people should be allowed to pay the price for their choices, because you are not well-served by being allowed to avoid normal consequences. And those who suffer from their choices would then be an example for others facing similar situations.

For instance, bankruptcy used to be a bad thing. It was a stigma that followed you forever. That may have been too harsh. But now it is so gutted that people can buy cars and houses just two years after filing for bankruptcy. They are allowed to avoid the normal repercussions of their choices. This is a bad thing, because when too many people declare bankruptcy, creditors lose money and then have to charge everyone else more to make up for it....it's a drag on the economy as sure as taxes.

I should think that the parallels between smoking, pornography, bankruptcy, and homosexuality should be pretty clear. Just in case, though, I'll spell it out.

No one knows if homosexuality is genetic destiny or not. Anyone who says they do is lying or fooling themselves. You can't really take homosexuals word for it, because they have a vested interest in denying their own responsibility. My own investigations seem to indicate that there may be a genetic component that leads to a predisposition, but it takes certain circumstances to bring it into completion, and even then, the person can always go straight. It wouldn't be easy, and would probably take a few years of rigorous behavior modification techniques, and sexual pleasure might never be as great, but it is possible. The number of people who have successfully made the choice to go straight indicates that. The studies claiming to show a genetic indicator of homosexuality have all been flawed, usually in the area of self-election of control groups.
All that being said, there is nothing exceptionally evil or depraved about homosexuality. It is one way people try to find happiness in this world of pain, this vale of tears. Unfortunately, it is a path that usually leads to greater pain, but they are too busy trying to insist they are happy while blaming society for their problems that they don't really see it until it is too late, if ever. In that, it is no different than any other sinful choice, like living for money or being heterosexually promiscuous or being addicted to pornography or always lying your way out of trouble or lusting after everything your neighbor has.

So what I would like is more research into the nature of homosexuality. It may be impossible to get unbiased research (remember Big Tobacco?), but it would be helpful to understand more completely the causes of suicide (strangely, derision from other homosexuals for femininistic traits is the main cause for the suicide rate currently being higher than in the days of outright persecution back in the 50s) and rates of substance abuse among homosexuals. It would be good to know why so many male homosexuals forgo safe sex when the dangers of HIV are so well documented. It would be really great if we could drop Politically Correct requirements to canonize minority groups so we could ascertain exactly what the problems and costs of homosexual behavior are. Once those are determined, it would be nice if the screaming nutsos could be quiet long enough for that to be disseminated throughout society in an education campaign.
No laws against homosexuality should be passed. I would be the first to protest such laws, because people should be allowed to make bad choices, remember? But they should also be allowed to pay for them.
If HIV drug costs are too high and insurance companies do a cost/risk analysis and determine it is too expensive to include them in health coverages...well, tough. That's the result of choices. On the other hand, if enough people get HIV that the demand for anti-retro-viral drugs allows economy-of-scale price reductions (as it has), great! I have to admit, my suspicion that the SSM push was mostly a cover to get boyfriends onto your employers health plan before the onset of AIDS was allayed significantly when I found out that the "AIDS Cocktail" is now down to only a few thousand dollars a year.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised to find out something no one expected: that some percentage of homosexuals truly cannot ever change, but another significant percentage can change to straight with a minimum of non-invasive adjustment and that it's the ones who can change who are the most vocal about "not being a choice" because they are trying to live according to the ideal of someone they admire who really didn't have a choice. Or something like that. Wouldn't it be nice to know, rather than having to scream opinions at each other that are mired in half-truth and poorly understood situations?

What I'm really most upset about is that we can't investigate the issue anymore, nor can we even talk about it. I'm sure that since I dared to say something negative about homosexuality, I will be called a homophobe. I'm sure that I will be delinked by someone because I dared to compare homosexuality to smoking. I'm sure someone out there now absolutely hates me because I voiced the opinion that I'd like for society to discourage homosexual behavior.

[shakes head]

And that's exactly the problem. I don't consider myself above homosexuals, I consider them merely a self-identified group with a specific sin, just like I have my specific sins. Maybe the difference is I repent of my sins and try to change and improve....but every time I fail, I recognize no one is better than anyone else, no one is more perfect than anyone else. We are all just trying to find some sort of lasting happiness. But if someone I cared about was doing something I thought was a bad/harmful choice, you bet I wouldn't stay silent. In the end, I'd stand aside and let 'em do it, because they have the right...

Just having a right doesn't mean it is a good idea. Likewise, being tolerant doesn't mean being credulous. You can quote me, if you wish.