I abandoned the left, and social liberalism in general, about a year ago. Hardly any of my left-wing beliefs carried over when I became right-wing. Almost none of them. And the only thing that did carry over, that I can think of (off the top of my head), is the subject of homosexuality. Not only has my view on this subject not changed from my Left days, but it has actually been strengthened, since my right-wing views are based in natural law.
I grew up hearing from right-wingers that homosexuality is always a choice, that it’s the cause of AIDS, that it ruins heterosexual relationships… Everything I heard, either I discovered wasn’t true, or I already didn’t buy it because it didn’t make sense, such as the AIDS thing.
I’m still not sure why the Right ever, literally ever, condemned homosexuality. Yes, it’s a religious thing, but religions were all invented by humans, and so the humans who invented them had an issue with gays. So, back to square one, I just don’t understand why being gay was ever condemned. In the Middle East, being gay is still punishable by being thrown off a rooftop.
Homosexuality is natural. In fact, the homo-to-hetero ratio is about the same regardless of the type of animal, including humans. It’s pretty much the same across the board. Now, as a right-winger, who bases many beliefs in natural law, the obvious fact that homosexuality is natural is my source of confusion here.
Now, I have heard the argument, “Because gays can’t reproduce.” And at first, that could make sense, if for example, you’re thinking about Biblical times, when the world’s population was still tiny. But even back then, it’s not like humanity was on the brink of extinction, for reproduction to be that crucial.
Besides, it’s BECAUSE homosexuals can’t reproduce that they are homosexual to begin with. There is a reason nature made homosexuality a thing.
Did you know that younger siblings are more likely to be gay than older siblings? This is one of the core reasons Mother Nature invented homosexuality. Younger siblings are usually born toward the end of their mother’s fertile years. When mothers have kids close to the end of their fertile years, that means they are going to still be raising a kid or two when they are … not so young. That means, Mommy’s going to need help. She’s still taking care of her other kids, even when they’re older. It’s part of the reason women live longer in general – they have a biological reason for living decades past their reproductive years.
Now, when I say ‘help,’ it does not entirely relate to the modern day, with all our technology and services. It goes back to our hunter-gatherer days, when women also took care of other kids, not just their own. If your mother had you close to menopause, thousands of years ago, she needs help in taking care of herself, and the other kids, and her own family.
Being homosexual keeps you from reproducing, and thus focusing on a child, which in turn would also make you have your own family to worry about. Being homosexual keeps you near the family you were born into, by keeping you from making your own. Again, this is all in hunter-gatherer context.
So, why didn’t Mother Nature just make asexuals in place of homosexuals? I think it’s because being sexual is an irreplaceable source of happiness that bonds people together. Sexuality is not strictly about making babies. Mostly, but not strictly. Being homosexual, instead of being asexual, keeps you in tune with human bonding and connection, while not making babies.
That’s just my guess though, concerning the asexual question.
It always surprises people when they see how openly right-wing I am, and how blunt I am in general, caring nothing about if people don’t like my beliefs …, and yet I am very pro-gay rights. I have no love for pride parades – those are a true disgrace, in my opinion – but I don’t believe being gay, itself, should be treated any differently than being straight. It is natural, and therefore should always have been treated as normal, even thousands of years ago.
When I get in religious debates with my best friend (he’s a Christian, I’m an atheist), I sometimes like to bring up this subject. He believes homosexuality is a choice, made by people who reject God to live in sin. My retort is always: “But I don’t believe in God, or follow the Bible, and I’ve never chosen to hook up with another guy…” My best friend never has a comeback for that. Not a good one, anyway.