Letter from a friend: a conservative speaks out for gay rights.

Letter from a Friend:

A CONSERVATIVE SPEAKS OUT FOR GAY RIGHTS

Dear Bill,

The time has come for me to share with you my theory as to why the Good Lord made human sexuality what it is, whatever that may be. You will be happy, I'm sure, to hear that my theory comes straight out of the natural-law tradition, attempting as it does to ascertain the true meaning of sex by identifying its unique purpose.

Thus the first theory we must reject is the traditional view that the purpose of sex is procreation. The birds, the bees, and the Baptists manage to reproduce themselves in vast numbers without going through all that. Second, I reject the view of the dreaded secular humanists and other subversives that the purpose of sex is simply pleasure. For this we have pot, peanut butter, and Bach and Roll. There must be other items on that list, but too much peanut butter has destroyed my short-term memory, I think.

No, the real reason God made human sexuality whatever it is clearly must be its one absolutely necessary and inescapable function, even, or especially, for celibates: Sex is a lesson in humility. It makes certain that everyone, no matter how otherwise dignified and intelligent, at least once in a lifetime, in thought, word, or deed, will make a complete fool of himself. Having read your New York Times Op-Ed piece suggesting we tattoo gay AIDS victims on the tush, and Joe Sobran's NR article "The Politics of AIDS' (May 23), I now know that in this, as in so many other ways, you have done much more than the Lord could ever have reasonably expected of you. Now it is my turn, so bear with me, if you will.

Conservatism, from Falwell to NR to Commentary, appears to have an unseemly obsession with homosexuality, totally disproportionate to its significance as either a phenomenon or a problem compared with the disastrous state of heterosexuality, i.e., divorce, teenage pregnancy, child abuse, rape, wholesale abortion, and congenital venereal diseases that affect far more children than AIDS. Someone once made a remark about getting the beam out of one's own eye before worrying about the speck in someone else's. But what did He know?

You have made major contributions in separating "mainstream conservation' from the swamp denizens, but not yet on this issue. I am particularly disturbed by what I perceive as a total lack of a sense of proportion among conservatives when dealing with with this subject. The best example of this that I have seen recently is an article in the May 10 issue of The Economist about Pat Robertson:

There is nothing frightening in the Christian message, he insists. And, indeed everything about Mr. Robertson--his intelligence, friendliness, ordinariness--is reassuring. Then, smiling, he quotes Lloyd George's view: "We might as well legalize sodomy as recognize the Bolsheviks.' Mr. Robertson is making the point that America has gone too far on both tracks: turning homosexuals into a privileged class, offering too many concessions to the Soviet Union.

A television evangelist quoting a notorious adulterer equating unauthorized orgasms with Genocide Inc. certainly gives new meaning to the word "queer.' The Economist's equation of repealing the sodomy laws with turning homosexuals into a privileged class is an interpretation that is frightening in a different way. I would not for a moment expect Robertson, or your or Joe for that matter, to change his views on sex out of wedlock in general or homosexuality in particular, but for God's sake (and that is not a figure of speech) let's have some common sense. Or should we nuke the gay bars?

I have decided that Sodom is for conservatives what South Africa is for liberals--a focal point of hypocrisy. They are determined to DO RIGHT THING, no matter who gets hurt, as long as it is someone else. Unfortunately, conservative rhetoric just about guarantees that everyone will get hurt, including the rhetoricians.

The best way of gaining the missing sense of proportion and seeing the virtues of moderation is to contemplate the actual condition of gays. Morally and politically, sexual orientation is generally not a matter of choice. Can you imagine someone from a traditional American background actually choosing to become a homosexual and thereby become a target of hatred and legal persecution? The literature of homosexuality is replete with accounts of dreaded self-recognition by adults who have never had a homosexual experience, never been "recruited.'

The gay rebellion was made inevitable by urbanization, by the vast increase in our knowledge of human sexuality (except among conservatives, who think that carnal ignorance is the cure for carnal knowledge), and by the "sexual revolution' among heterosexuals. It will necessarily continue so long as there are those who are intent on politicizing homosexuality dishonestly.

I WOULD NOT accuse you of doing so, at least not deliberately. But precisely what effect on gays and gay activists did you think your tattoo suggestion would have? Not to mention your consideration--in an earlier column --of castration as a possible way of dealing with diagnosed AIDS carriers who continue to have sex without warning their prospective partners. This sort of speculation does not engender the needed confidence in the affected community. Will someone who fears he has AIDS be more or less likely to seek testing and treatment if he has been threatened with tattooing and/or castration? A paranoid reaction? Perhaps, but we should remember that homosexuals were the target of mass extermination in our lifetime, and there are those who are advocating it today in America. (One such was invited to testify at the New York City Council meeting at which the gay-rights bill was considered.) Tattooing was a part of that previous program of extermination, too. Considering the response of your friends, is the response from those who don't know you so surprising? I think not. "I'm from NR, and I'm here to help you' will now have even less credibility among gays. Another victory for the Left.

But losing votes, or even chasing AIDS carriers away from AIDS clinics, is not the worst effect of hysterical rhetoric. The worst thing about hysterical rhetoric is that it sometimes has its intended effect: People believe it. It is possible to frighten people so badly that they will take whatever actions they believe are necessary to protect their children. "Blood libels' usually are of this nature. Jews were said to use the blood of Christian children in rituals. They were also blamed for the Black Plague and were the victims of mass murder. Blaming homosexuals for AIDS, child molesting (most of which is committed by heterosexuals), or the moral decline of the U.S.A. is a blood libel aimed at inciting hatred against gay citizens.

The persecution of homosexuals is deeply rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and in a wide variety of other cultures as well. It also seems to be a part of the human psyche: Boys beat up sissies long before they understand the mechanics of sexuality. The gay subculture, like the speakeasy, "flapper' era of Prohibition, or the so-called "counterculture' of the Sixties and early Seventies, is a culture of rebellion against such persecution. Such rebelions are often childish and self-destructive, but they are also typically American reactions to moral hypocrisy and politicized lying. The persecutors of gays bear significant responsibility for gay militancy and have no right to cite it as an excuse for more persecution.

That observation, unfortunately, brings us to the subject of Joe Sobran and what one might call the politics of homophobia. Joe seems to want AIDS to be both a threat to society and something peculiarly homosexual. But really, it can't be both. He warns (threatens?) that even monogamous homosexuals will be blamed for "spreading AIDS.' But to whom would they spread it? If it is peculiarly homosexual, then they can only spread it to other homosexuals. If it can be spread by heterosexual or nonsexual contact, then it is not peculiarly homosexual.

Of course the truth is that the overwhelming majority of the people in the world who have AIDS are not homosexual. Homosexuality does not cause AIDS, and a homosexual who practices proper sexual hygiene runs a negligible risk of contracting the disease, even if he is extremely promiscuous. Heterosexual transmission from male to female via vaginal intercourse may be less efficient than anal intercourse, but it is clearly established. But if AIDS can be spread by other means, then homosexuals were just the first victims. By indulging in hypocritical condemnation of gays as the cause, we squandered an opportunity to find a cure or vaccine or at least to educate the public before the disease's inevitable spread among heterosexuals. Instead, we are encouraged to blame homosexuals, as though the disease had been caused by them. Very dangerous nonsense.

Equally false is Joe's assertion that the "gay lifestyle' equals promiscuity. This is a variation on what I call "the view from the emergency room': If all we knew about automobiles were learned in a hospital emergency room, we would view them as the greatest menace in human history. The most visible and vocal consumers of alcohol are to be found staggering around the streets. The most visible members of almost any group are not necessarily typical, and this is probably more true of gays than of any other group (for reasons that should be obvious).

The rhetorical purpose of equating homosexuality with promiscuity should be clear: It makes it easier to blame gays for AIDS. But it should be noted that gay and straight promiscuity developed during a period in which antibiotics could cure most known sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The advent of AIDS--and herpes among heterosexuals--was a new risk factor for a population lulled into a sense of false security. The long latency period of AIDS and the recurring nature of herpes meant that by the time the danger was recognized, a large part of the population was already infected. This does not excuse either bad hygiene or bad morals, but when one is sitting in judgment on others, one should consider all the facts. At the practical level, this helps us to understand that AIDS is not the result of some gay death wish but, like most human problems, comes from a mixture of bad judgment and bad luck.

Joe says that "to be gay is to be obsessed with one's homosexuality,' but he seems instead to demonstrate that to be conservative is to be obsessed with anyone's homosexuality. Naturally the focal points of the visible gay world --apart from churches, charities, and other civic organizations, which are obviously invisible to conservatives--are bars and baths and similar places that by their nature cater to gays as gays. The problem with generalizing from this is that the same is true of the heterosexual world, if the point is their sexuality. There are singles bars, strip joints, even a few bath-type places. There are also numerous prostitution services, e.g., massage parlors, modeling services, etc. The obvious difference is that homosexuals are a minority whose sexuality is their defining mark, and who must congregate together in order to avoid a hostile environment. A heterosexual can be straight anywhere, but a homosexual can be safely gay only in a gay environment.

I was both amused and disturbed by Joe's encounter with the New York Native, wherein he discovered that homosexuals have SEX. Native publisher Charles Ortleb was probably elected the spokesman for homosexuals in the same election that made Joe the Great Straight Hope. It reminds me of McGovern v. Nixon. On this issue, even more than most, we have been stuck with the politics of howler monkeys--he who gets farthest out on a limb and makes the most noise is "spokesman.'

ORTLEB'S IDEA about the African Swine Fever-CIA connection may be farfetched, but it did not come from a desire to blame someone else for AIDS, but rather from some very serious questions about the way AIDS research is being conducted. If AIDS is important enough to justify cover stories in NR, shouldn't prominent conservatives monitor the quality of the debate and support funding for research?

As to how to combat the further spread of AIDS, many gays support closing baths and other such places. Others, not just gays, oppose closing the baths because they could be used to encourage safer sex practices. (Which position is correct is not the point. Both camps are aware of the problem and are trying to find an effective response.)

The other measures that Joe thinks would be useful, many think would be ineffective or counterproductive. The notion that enforcing the "long dormant laws against sodomy' could be a "health measure' certainly is pernicious nonsense. It would be counterproductive in every way, particularly for contact tracing, which Joe seems to support. It is not possible to regulate that which is absolutely prohibited. Similarly, advice to the anathematized is likely to fall on deaf ears.

Joe's whirlwind tour of Sodom, as seen through the personal ads placed by some especially restless Natives, seeks to create the impression that the practices of a small minority of gays, such as fisting, are not only common but "standard.' (His emphasis.) This is an ignorant or deliberate misrepresentation of human sexuality. It should be obvious that such extreme practices are quite rare. Nevertheless, I'm sure that the typical reader of NR will be misled by this. To paraphrase Joe: Sordid and desperate, such distortions make it impossible for me to idealize conservatism. Of course, I got over that a long time ago, but why would anyone idealize either heterosexuality or homosexuality? All human activity reflects human frailty, especially measuring the frailties of others.

There remains one major question: Will "gay rights' turn the world upside down?

After having terrified the readers of NR (or at least having sent them rushing out to buy stock in the makers of Preparation H), Joe announces: "Such is the behavior gay-rights legislation protects. Or rather, such is the behavior gay-rights legislation forbids normal citizens to disapprove.' This is untrue. First, these sexual activities are not affected at all by this law. In New York they were and are legal in private. Second, many of these more extreme activities, such as S&M, B&D, AT&T (phone sex) are of no interest to most homosexuals and are also engaged in by some heterosexuals. There are straight publications with advertisements for them, but this inconvenient fact will remain unknown to most NR readers. Finally, the law does not in any way forbid anyone to disapprove of such activities or to express that disapproval, except in job or housing discrimination, which rights are already sharply circumscribed in New York City. The stupidity of both the gay insistence on and the conservative objection to this law is that it will have little practical consequence.

The "non-discriminatory curricula' on homosexuality that Joe says will be mandated in public schools may or may not, in fact, be "amoral,' if they are simply a factual description of the phenomenon. They could have a strong ethical content and still be "non-discriminatory.' This does not in any way deprive parents of their right "to form their children's morals.' Parents' rights to communicate with their children at home, in their house of worship, etc. are totally unaffected by this law. Parents of children in New York City public schools have had little control over the curricula anyway. With all the school system's problems, worrying about this is more than a little silly.

The statement that "Gays gain the right to have the city proselytize on their behalf to (desirable?) children' is a blatant violation of the Eighth Commandment. First, a morally neutral description of something does not constitute proselytizing. Or are we to believe that something that we are told draws "the revulsion of the general public' will be irresistible to students if it is described in a "non-discriminatory' way? The parenthetical "desirable?' after "proselytizing' gives the impression that sex-education classes will become shopping malls for homosexual child molesters. This is really a calumny on everyone involved, not just gays.

Now, are children sexually "desirable' to homosexuals? All of the evidence is that most child molestation is heterosexual, and most homosexual child molestation is done by someone within the family, not by predatory strangers. A boy is at least as safe with a homosexual man as a girl would be with a heterosexual man, all other things being equal. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals disapprove prove of pedophilia, and there are frequent letters in the Native expressing that point in very strong terms.

The real problems with "gay rights' are very simple. Freedom of association by definition must include the right to be wrong. Even if one believes that it is immoral to discriminate against people for reasons not relevant to the matter at hand, it is also, barring a compelling public purpose, immoral to use force to prohibit that. And state immorality is much more dangerous than personal immorality. Obviously, the same line of reasoning applies to the sodomy laws--hence the desperate attempt to make AIDS uniquely gay. Most importantly, both gay-rights and sodomy laws are counterproductive. The former produce outbursts such as Joe's; the latter produce massive distortions of human sexual behavior.

BUT THOUGH the argument against gay-rights laws is fairly clear, the campaign for them is not mere ideological Mau-Mauing. Gays have legitimate reason to believe they need such laws. Having read Quentin Crisp's The Naked Civil Servant, I have concluded that it really takes a lot of courage for effeminate men just to get through life. And I also mean physical courage, since "sissies' are always the targets of bullies of all ages and editorial statuses.

Moreover, the principled argument against gay-rights laws sounds a lot less principled once you ask conservatives if, by the same libertarian logic, they would fight--I mean fight--to get sodomy laws repealed. I am not aware of any conservative leaders who have unequivocally called for their repeal. Old friend, from whom I have learned so much about the place of principle in politics, have you ever done so? When even the most principled conservative leaders are uninterested in protecting gays from state harassment, how can conservatives be surprised that some radicalized gays are demanding the same legal privileges that other persecuted groups have attained?

Given our history of racism and our commitment to a multiracial society, we may have no choice, sadly, but to place some restrictions on exercises of freedom of association that would adversely affect members of previously persecuted ethnic groups. It is also sadly true that this has gone much too far with busing and quotas and other forms of "reverse discrimination,' all of which understandably cause conservatives to fear that "gay rights' might ultimately lead to busing Hassidic rabbis to Greenwich Village leather bars--such are the inanities of liberalism.

Well, we can't keep the liberals from being inane, and it's a little late to stop the gays from being militant. The question then becomes: What are conservatives willing to do to make gay-rights laws unnecessary? Would television evangelists give up fag-baiting, their favorite fundraising technique? Would Joe forgo the strategy of implying that to tolerate homosexuality is to tolerate anything?

But perhaps giving up a treasured demonology is too much to ask of any person or group that lives its life in the polemical trenches. Here's something easier, then:

While conservatives bloviate about protecting boys from gays, but seldom about protecting girls from straights, it might be appropriate to think about protecting gay kids from the hostile straight world. An effeminate adolescent male from a poor family is often thrown out by his parents, beaten up by his peers, harassed by the law, damned by his church, flunked by his school, raped by the street gangs, mocked by the public, and ignored by conservatives, until the City of New York sets up a special school for his kind. Then, noting the name of an organization for the Protection of Gay Youth, NR sarcastically asks, "Protect from whom?' From those who think that, since there is nothing worse than homosexuality, their violence is the wrath of God. Ideas do have consequences.

To end on a more cheerful note, I seem to remember an Animal Crackers cartoon in which an elephant was stomping on flowers. "I just don't like pansies,' he explained. If NR had been equally candid and brief, we would all be better off.

As always, "John Woolman'