Against Nature

 There has been a flurry of stories about homosexuality recently. The US military are fighting a rearguard action against openly gay troops,  Tyler Clementi, 18, a student at Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA, committed suicide after a video of him having sex with another man was posted on  the internet, the Serb capital Belgrade saw violent protests against a Gay Pride march and  the BBC recently made public research they had commissioned that found one in four of those questioned was ‘uncomfortable with gays on TV’, nearly half said that they would rather not see two men kiss and  21 per cent of viewers were  uncomfortable seeing two men as much as hold hands on television.   In addition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (a British public body) report  found that:

“Our groundbreaking new research shows that in 21st century Britain, despite legal advances, homophobia still has an unacceptable everyday impact on the lives of LGB [Lesbian and Gay]  people. Attitudes have undergone a sea change over the last few decades, with much greater understanding and tolerance. However, the fact that LGB people feel that they can’t be open about their sexual orientation in their local neighbourhood, that LGB students still experience unacceptably high levels of bullying, and that LGB people would not even consider certain jobs for fear of other people’s reaction, is a worrying sign that prejudice and discrimination still limit people’s choices and chances in life.” http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/beyond_tolerance.pdf

This did not surprise me because I  sincerely doubt whether any heterosexual man is entirely comfortable with  the idea of  homosexuality, vide, the normal hostile reaction of a heterosexual man when it is suggested that they are homosexual. I  put the  short questionnaire below out on several usenet newsgroups  to test the feelings of  heterosexual men.  The overwhelming majority  who replied gave answers which showed them to be uncomfortable with homosexuality.

1. Would you be comfortable if you were taken for gay?

2. Would you be comfortable if a gay man made sexual advances to you?

3. If a gay man had expressed sexual feelings for you, would you be  comfortable working or socialising with that person?

4. If you live in circumstances where there was communal living, for example in  the services, would you be comfortable sleeping in the same  room as men you knew were gay?

5. Would you be comfortable appearing naked in front of a gay man, for  example, where there are communal showers?

6. Would you  be comfortable  being in the same place as a gay couple  engaged in heavy petting?

7. Would you be comfortable in the company of a gay couple who were  holding hands?

8. Would you be concerned that any gay man might be HIV positive or have  Aids?

9. You go on a business trip with a gay man. The only accommodation you  can get is a room with a double bed. Where do you sleep?

10.  A gay man is making persistent sexual advances to you despite your  rejection of them. What do you do?

11. You have two children, both sons. They both announce they are gay.  Your natural ambition  for grandchildren vanishes. How do you respond?

12. Your gay son brings his partner home with him to stay for the night.  Do you let the two of them share a bed ?

Despite  worldwide  evidence, both present and historical,  of unease at best and outright hostility at worst  towards homosexuals,    liberals would have us believe that such feelings and behaviour is  unreservedly irrational, merely a matter of social conditioning.  There is an obvious difficulty with  that assertion, namely, if a behaviour is dysfunctional, how is it that evolution would favour it so universally and frequently?   The same objection can be made about the core tenets of political correctness  which hold that homo sapiens is a single entity; that race is simply a social construct; that there is no innate mentality or behavioural difference between men and women and that discrimination on any ground is both irrational and morally wrong.

Natural selection is blind. It shapes organisms and behaviour in response to the chance of genetic  variation and physical environment. If human beings in many different places and times display a  behaviour  then the logical conclusion is that it is of evolutionary benefit. Hence, if homosexuals are viewed as abnormal, woman are seen as having a special role to play in childcare and men and women maintain racial and ethnic separateness by overwhelmingly opting to mate with those from their own race and ethnicity,  such behaviours are  not to be casually discarded as being vicious relics of a primitive past but seen as indicators of the innate nature of human beings, both as individuals and as social actors.  

What political correctness does is stand reality on its head.  It asks humans to behave in ways which are profoundly unnatural to them, to ignore their  evolved behaviours .  In that lies danger.  The groups who are protected by political correctness in the West  – ethnic and racial minorities, gays and women – have been given a de facto hierarchical  superiority which is a manufactured l superiority , while those who  have always had a natural superiority in the West – native whites, heterosexuals and men – in public terms at least,  have been relegated to an unnatural inferiority.  This is an unsustainable situation because that which asks men to call black white can only survive as long as the elite can sustain the ideology. History tells us that is not very long – even the Soviet Union lasted little more than 70 years.