The Homosexual Question

By John "Birdman" Bryant


What we call 'the Movement' -- the effort to save the white race and its great achievement, Western civilization -- is suffering from schizophrenia over a lot of issues, primarily those having to do with sex and religion. The most prominent religious issues are those of the conflict of faith verses secularity, and primarily include abortion, the acceptance of science, church-state separation, and Judaism; while the most prominent sex issues are those of sexual openness, and primarily involve promiscuity, pornography and sexual deviance, especially homosexuality. The present essay springs from reflections on the latter issue, but has been composed as a collection of independent thoughts on topics both tangential and directly relevant to this issue. Contrary to what the chattering classes may think, this is not an effort to begin a style nouvelle of essay, but only to treat a complex nexus of problems by a sort of literary reductionism which favors today's TV generation with its short attention span. In a sense it is Joycean by treating topics as they come to mind; but it is certainly not Joycean in that it seeks to make good sense, and trades on factuality and logic rather than some highly personal wellpit of trodden and sodden literary ejaculum.


The Left's problem is that they love everybody, no matter how repulsive or depraved -- except, of course, those on the Right. The Right's problem is that they hate everybody, no matter how admirable or worthy, especially those on the Left. There is a time for love and a time for hate, but at least half the time, neither of these groups has a clue.

The Right doesn't just have a hate thing -- it also has a sex thing. To a rightist, sex is something basically dirty, and is never to be spoken of in mixed company, or indeed in any company at all save that of the police or courts, or of scholars inhabiting the distal academic regions. This is why rightists are the biggest perverts: Because normal healthy sex is forbidden them, their sexual impulses come seeping, creeping, boiling and roiling out of unexpected holes and fissures, just as does steam in a steam engine whose safety valve is blocked. The Jimmy Swaggarts, the Jim Bakkers, the Billie Sol Esteses and the unending train of pedophile priests are not the exceptions, but the rule.

I am a libertarian, and therefore I do not consider it my business or that of the State to tell people what to do with their weenies and buns. But I do object when weenie-men and bun-boys unite in order to influence society to go in a direction that the vast majority would consider repellent.

We can argue that homosexuality is a perversion in the same sense that preference for withered fruit is a perversion: The woman is a scaffold upon which are hung her fruit-ripe swellings -- breasts, buttocks, face, lips, and legs -- while even a well-hung man possesses but a single swollen holothurian, and one which is generally out of service the better part of the night. But we dare not argue too strongly that attraction to men is a perversion; for if we do, we are perilously close to saying that a woman's love of man is also a perversion.

It might help those who denounce homosexuality or are repelled by it to consider the fact that homo- and heterosexuality may be considered to shade into one another by rather fine degrees, and that where one draws the line between them is arbitrary and idiosyncratic. For example, most men like looking at pornography which depicts men and women interacting; yet the very fact that the male viewer gets a charge (and maybe a discharge) out of this means that other men -- at least in this context -- turn him on. As another example, consider anal intercourse, one of the two primary gay sex acts: Altho this is often denounced as 'fudge-packing' and 'filthiness', it remains the case that anal intercourse is popular as a variant pleasure among heterosexuals, and that little or no opprobrium attaches to it. As a third example, consider the fact that many men enjoy watching transsexuals, and that most such men -- other things being equal -- would be eager for sexual contact with such a being; and yet an encounter of this sort is no more than a stone's throw distant from a homosexual one, particularly if the man accepts the passive role whenever his partner demands, as her equipment will likely lead her to do. Thus we can only say to the denouncers of gaydom, 'If this be heterosexuality, make the most of it.'

Love and hate are not so much opposites as they are mirror images. The people who hate one another are often intimately connected if not actually in a formerly-loving relationship, as we can see in the case of Jews and Christians, Jews and muslims, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, and parents and children. Beyond this, an expression of hate is often actually a covert expression of love, as we see in preachers who make a career of denouncing sin as a way of keeping themselves from falling into it. This is especially true among the prudish, and particularly those who denounce homosexuality: They are desperately seeking to keep temptation away so they will not succumb to it. And as we know from more than a few public examples, their ploy often fails miserably.

We may think that homosexuality is non-adaptive from an evolutionary viewpoint because it is non-reproductive, but in fact homosexuality has been with humanity since the dawn of history, which strongly suggests that it has an adaptive role in society, even if not an obvious one. Why could it not, for example, be the outlet which Nature in her wisdom has chosen for warriors and explorers, whose professions forgo most contact with women? Certainly homosexuality was celebrated in ancient Greece, whose renown for warriorhood (history still reveres Leonidas and his Spartans at Thermoplyae) was coupled with an encouragement to homosexuality in which an older warrior would mentor a youth in a relationship which was sexual: It is said that the bond so produced would create a pair who would fight with the fury of a slighted god because of the effort of each to keep from being shamed in the eyes of the other. In view of this it is ironic that the upholders of Western civilization are often the ones to denounce homosexuality; for as we have just noted, homosexuality was nurtured in the very cradle of that civilization.

It is so obvious as to be a commonplace that there is no argument about taste, and yet differences in taste continue to bring forth the most acerbic comments and the most furious denunciations quite as if the human mind were impervious to learning even so much as the wisdom of its own proverbs. Certainly one of the most fractiously argued matters of taste in the present day is homosexuality: Because normal men can see nothing attractive to themselves in the male body, they virulently denounce homosexuals as perverted. We can only wonder whether, if they didn't have homosexuals to kick around, would they heap their scorn on the lovers of turnips or chitlins?

While there are no lack of people who will express a belief in freedom, there are many fewer who realize that the more freedom I have, the less freedom YOU have, so that freedom in any reasonable political sense must mean a balance of individual freedoms against one another, and a balance of individual freedom as a whole against the freedom of the State.

The difficulty over the question of individual freedom vs the freedom of the State is nowhere better illustrated than in the War on Drugs: If it is true, as the Drug warriors say, that drugs will ruin society, then this is a seemingly good reason to make drugs illegal in spite of individual desires to the contrary. That is, given the assumed conditions, if society is to preserve itself, then individual freedom must yield, from which it follows that no society will survive if it does not take the route of forbidding drugs. My own belief is that the drug warriors are wrong, however: Dutch tolerance for drugs, along with many historical facts, has shown that there need be no fear of drugs, as Western people will generally use them responsibly.

If it is true, as some say, that sexual freedom will cause significant harm to society, then society is obviously warranted in blocking such freedom. As it happens, however, the question of harm which sexual freedom may do is a tricky one which can perhaps never be answered adequately. One might argue, for example, that even if no harm can be shown from pornography, legal prostitution, nude beaches, suggestive clothing, open homosexuality, gay marriage or other specific types of sexual freedom, it may still be the case that sexual openness encourages promiscuity, and promiscuity undermines marriage and the family -- something which harms society by harming its most fundamental institution.
But what is it about promiscuity that undermines marriage? The answer is basically that an intimate relationship cannot be shared with more than one other person unless either some of the persons in the relationship accept an inferior status, or else the relationship is not fully intimate. (As JBR Yant might say, you can't thrill two birds with one bone, or at least not when one of the birds knows about the other.) For example, if a man has two wives and spends half his time with each, then this means that the wives are of lower status because, while the husband has two wives, each of the wives has only 'half a husband'. The open marriage advocates think they have this problem solved by saying that everyone should be free to take as many lovers as they wish; but this is merely an imperfect effort to fill in the missing 'half a husband', and carries with it the disadvantage of attempting to curry an intimate relationship with several people when it is difficult enuf to be intimate with just one. More to the point, what the advocates of 'open marriage' just don't get is that marriage -- or at least a good marriage -- is far more than just a sexual relationship, but is instead an act of people sharing life with one another; so to ask someone to voluntarily assume an inferior status in such a relationship is not merely crass and uncaring, but undermines the specialness -- and hence the intimacy -- of that relationship because of the presence of third parties.
The point I am driving at here is that, while sexual freedom may condone promiscuity, the only way most people can find true happiness is in a monogamous relationship. Happily, sexual freedom usually allows people to discover this; but unhappily, it often takes a lifetime for that discovery to take place. The basic problem with promiscuity, then, is that it tempts people to enter into one-shot dead-end relationships. Accordingly, reasonable people -- or at least those who have the benefit of experience and are not affected with priapism -- will keep their sexuality to themselves, or at least to the people they are married to, irrespective of temptation (well, mostly). Society's problem, however, is not with the reasonable people, but rather with all those who do not belong to this elite clan, and who need social forces to keep them on the straight and narrow so they do not lose their way and end up sinking their personal ship of state on a rocky marriage before they learn the secrets that it takes some a lifetime to learn. That's why we have the institution of marriage, with its till-death-do-us-part message -- the naifs need to be impressed to stay together, and when Pa puts up a bundle of boodle for what is otherwise an extremely boring celebration, it is supposed to impress them enuf to at least make them remember the damned vows. Of course marriage is not just for the couple: It is also -- and perhaps especially -- for the children, who are less likely to be good members of the community if they are raised in single-family households or orphanages, since their emotional well- being, and thus their outlook on life, will be profoundly affected by whether or not they are reared in a stable and loving family environment.
My own view of sexual freedom -- and indeed, of freedom of every type -- is that unless there is a clear and present danger to society, freedom should serve as the default. Beyond this, while I recognize that freedom can be extremely destructive for some people, I think freedom is an important test of maturity in which those of weak character who cannot handle freedom are, after a fashion, 'culled from the herd'. I hasten to point out, however, that society develops means of passing on its accumulated wisdom on marriage, including institutions and traditions which establish marriage as the gold standard of relationships, and counselors and books which help people to repair troubled relationships. Thus in the choice between force and freedom, it is clear that, where perception and persuasion will do the job, laws are hardly necessary.

One of the reasons why homosexuality alarms sexual traditionalists is that homosexuals are promiscuous, a fact which threatens tradition by proposing a serious alternative to sexual fealty in a monogamous relationship. As we have argued elsewhere, however, while promiscuity may be an alternative that proposes 'a way to break the monogamy', it is not a happy one, and this important bit of social wisdom is reflected in the traditions and institutions of Western culture which support marriage and celebrate it as the only serious sexual alternative. It is not to be assumed, however, that the recent rush on the part of gays to achieve legal status for homosexual 'marriages' is a recognition of this fact or a sotto voce promise to abandon promiscuity; rather it is an attempt on the part of gaydom to achieve the same social legitimacy as is currently held by heterosexuals. But even if legitimacy is achieved, it will not change the fact that homosexuality is essentially promiscuous; for while buggery may leave the active partner satisfied, it leaves the passive partner ready to bugger some third party, and thus continue the sexual connection thru every room of the bathhouse, down the street, and all the way to San Francisco and beyond. It may of course be asked why the passive partner in a heterosexual union can feel relatively satisfied without orgasm, but this seems answered by the female's much lower sexual drive in which pleasure can be taken in a non-orgasmic sexual connection without leaving her with a feeling of unsatisfaction that would plague a normal male in the passive role. Accordingly, no matter how much gays seek to be like straights, they will only in the end be like themselves, and that is a very different breed of cat.

I am in favor of homosexual marriage -- sort of. Or to put it more clearly, I am not in favor of GOVERNMENT marriage at all, but rather I favor the right of any couple or triple or whatever to write whatever contract they wish for whatever reason they wish, including covering the ins, outs and exigencies of living together. If a relationship is good, of course, there is usually no need for a contract; it is rather when sweetness goes sour that there needs to be an agreement about the two big deals of a relationship, STUFF and KIDS. As many of us have found out to our horror, marriage as a legal nexus is a can of worms: As JBR Yant says, it is a contract whose provisions are unknown until the time of divorce. What I want to do is to enlighten divorce (and lighten the divorcers' burden) by having an agreement in advance of who gets what. Gays need that; straights need that; in fact, EVERYBODY needs to know just exactly what kind of a Gordian knot they are tying before it strangles love, cuts off circulation, and requires hacking apart by an expensive laborer who charges $200 per hour. Gays screw each other in the ass, so there is no need to have a lawyer do it for them.

Society is at an interregnum between the ages of traditional religion and science. This has played havoc with Western society, because morality can no longer be based on the stone tablets of bewhiskered mountain men or the mutterings of bastard crucified suiciders. But while Western man struggles to find the real basis of morality, along with a workable political system based on that morality, there are those who seek to use the interregnum to collapse the entire edifice of Western civilization, with the intent of replacing it with a New World Order studded with the Hebraic constellation and their minions and gofers. These New World Orderlies, as I call them, have hatched their plan from the various cracks they see in the golden egg of Western civilization, ie, the vulnerabilities and weak points they perceive as appropriate for chipping away at Western institutions -- institutions which have been useful in the dark world of the superstitious past, but which can now be seen as inadequate in the blazing enlightenment of science. Beyond these vulnerabilities, however, the Hebraic set has used its money power to capture the mass media, and with that the minds of the hoi polloi. Thus while Western man might have made it out of the Platonic cave under his own power, the media have blinded the Samson from whom their possessors have benefitted time without number, and who now smugly wait to assume kingship of a temple whose pillars will soon collapse because their enthralled Samson will bring them down as he dies.

The hottest political issue concerning homosexuality is whether gays should be allowed access to young people in the role of teachers, Scoutmasters and the like. The issue is illusory, however, because what people are arguing against is that government permission should be given for such contact, whereas the real issue is to remove government control from the schools, the Scouts and similar points of possible contact. If this is done, the free market would provide what consumers demand, and since consumers overwhelmingly demand that gays keep seven leagues and a country mile away from their brats, the only place gays are likely to make any headway is in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts.

Are gays born, or are they made? To the ordinary male the answer is clear: Since no real man could possibly be attracted to another man, the problem has to be some kind of inborn miswire. But most ordinary males this day in time have not found themselves without female companionship for extended periods; for if they had, they might agree with an old friend of mine who had gotten himself in that unfortunate position, and who declared to me as a result that he was 'ready to fuck anything that walks'. I did not, of course, take him up on his offer.

Western society is wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of the futurists of even a century ago, and for this reason I say that the West has indeed entered a New Age: It has left the Age of Scarcity and entered the Age of Abundance. But if concern for physical survival has largely faded, it has nevertheless been replaced with a concern for STATUS, and it is this concern which fuels many of the controversies on the contemporary Western scene. Indeed, so-called 'oppressed' groups are not oppressed in any traditional sense; rather they simply lack the status of the status quo. This, in particular, is the case with gays: They seek status for themselves and their sexual behavior which is equal to the status of 'breeders'; and it is for this reason that gaydom is perpetually 'in the face' of every Tom, Dick and Harry (to say nothing of every Tom's hairy dick). They know, of course, that they will continue to be repellent to the majority, but they also know, as liberal activists for other 'oppressed people' have demonstrated, that they can at least win the status of being feared by their critics, and this is what the in-your-facials are really all about.

Pedophilia is often considered a dreadful crime, and yet there is good reason to believe that it is nothing much more than precocious promiscuity. We may begin with sexologist Rene Guyon's claim of "Sex before eight, or else it's too late." To this we may add the long and well-documented tradition of adult-child sexual interaction in India, the Great Mother (to use Ramchandra's words) of the Aryan race. Not irrelevant here is my own personal experience: I had many sexual encounters before the age of 6 with a variety of girls my age, and while these encounters did not involve anything more than looking and touching, I would certainly have done more had I known how. If, then, an older person should have become involved with me in one of these encounters, there is no reason to think it would have left some kind of emotional scar. But I am only one man, and there are now plenty of instances on the record of precocious sexuality involving actual coition, particularly from the lower classes and especially from the ghetto set, where sexuality is far more open and kids get street-wise with their mud pies. The elites and the Jeezez freaks may save their virginity for penetrating that useless little tissue on the marriage night -- and probably often fail because they are so uptight about sex that they can't even get it up -- but the Horny-Penised Sons of the Soiled have known how to fuck from the get-go, and they know it is no big deal.


This week's Hell's Lettres: The Man of Steele reacts to Birdman's essay,  which was occasioned by the MOS's recent series of essays on the same  subject: 

Thanks. Interesting discussion. I can only imagine the firestorm you might create with this, given what resulted when I endorsed what, essentially, was the hard-right party line, albeit couched in majoritarian terms.

I used to be Libertarian. Even now, I occasionally describe myself as being socially Libertarian and fiscally isolationistic, but the socially Libertarian part of me is giving way to bitter experience, as did the fiscal Libertarian so long ago, then the fiscal conservative, as well.

Though there is a gulf between your point of view and mine, I still believe you have an absolute right to yours, thereby revealing the true Libertarian underlay to my philosophy, I suppose.

Perhaps the most redeeming and reassuring thing to me has been the very dialogue (or outcry, depending on your point of view) that has erupted over the past ten days as a result of my Homophobia series. Lots of people in lots of venues talking about it. Talk is healthy. Talk precedes thought, unfortunately, but the good news is that now thinking is taking place in yet another forbidden area of discussion. After thought comes opinion. Insofar as a dollop of logic is added to the process, the resulting opinions should be advanced somewhat beyond their forebears. In that sense, you and I (and others) provide a service.

Thanks for the advance peek. I appreciated it.




Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *