This revised on 25 June, below

Thoughts  about same-sex marriage, certainly a current phenomenon flowering in our culture, stir my earliest memories from ashes I thought long cold.

A preschooler during the Great Depression in the then-declining fortunes of Bergland, MI (UP), I sat on the back steps of our house in the field north of town  to watch and wonder at a pack of some dozen nondescript dogs snapping at each other while swarming across the open field between our company house and the High School behind another dog, patently ignoring its followers, of whom mother, sitting beside me, said, “She’s in heat.”; another day, same steps,the cows of our town in that same field grazing calmly except for one who kept mounting her munching mates from behind for a few seconds each, the under beast hastening clear, of which my mother said, “She wants a bull”; and finally, the two of us again on  the back steps , the swaggering nephew of the town’s founder and mill-owner crossing in front of the row of homes just left of the High School to enter the home of a woman with children though a  husband was never evident  nor even named.

Of which no comment by my mother but a bit of a smile and a flashing in her eyes–the nephew was of enviable height, strength and ruggedly handsome, then in his early forties.

For the preschooler,not  yet knowledgeable, comments and response seemingly acceptable, but to a preschooler, , the occasion of vague wondering none the less.

Now, an octogenarian, long ago grasping the whole of the comments and response, and aware of same-sex marriage and the demands for standing equal to that accorded he-she marriages, observant as was the preschooler, wondering a bit, but, now certainly adult, to learn what there is to learn about attraction for one’s own gender, I went to a site called Front Line on my HP PC to read and ponder an essay in a medical journal  The Lancet by its editor, Robert Horton, titled ‘Is Homosexuality Inherited?’.

You will note that in the title there seems to be no judgment either stated or implied.

Not so in the wide spectrum of our culture this writer and likely many readers have observed. In my years of playing varsity basketball and football, the twenty-five years of active duty with my well-testosteroned Semper Fi fellows, those who shunned female companionship were  called various names loaded more or less with scorn: Fairy, fag, are among the less crude. I recall one event of a beer-bust out by Lake Moraine when one Marine told his long-time constant companion as they rejoined our hoisting group:”Stay away from me, Tom,”–Tom to common knowledge being quiet, a bit pudgier than the rest of us, and soft- spoken, quite free of male swagger, male boastfulness.

No further explication needed, I hope.

More serious, with explosive possibilities: While sea-going, the carrier jet propulsion officer, his primary responsibility the maintenance and functioning of the steam catapult to bring planes launched from zero to flight speed at leaving the ship’s bow over water, his additional duty that of ship’s legal officer, notified me that I was his replacement in that office, and, further, that the Gun Boss was under investigation for homosexual acts with his office yeoman, and my first job was to complete the investigation and bring charges as demanded by the UCMJ.

The military position on the practice of same-gender sex was, upon conviction: loss of rank, imprisonment, dishonorable discharge, because one could be bludgeoned into disclosure of military secrets by those desiring to acquire military secrets by threatening disclosure of the homosexual activity. While that experience does not qualify me to comment on lesbian acts, the evidence in writing against the Gun Boss (a Lieutenant Commander)yielded evidence of repugnant details in the most disgusting sense imaginable. For those craving relief at this, I commend to you a poem by A.E. Housman, published in More Poems, beginning

Because I liked you better

Than suits a man to say,

which demonstrates honor found in a man amidst what was then despised.

To return to ‘Is Homosexuality Inherited’: While I postulated earlier that in that title lay no hint of an ‘attitude’, it does express an attitude once common among apologists for alcoholism: That it was a disease or a genetic ‘fault’, not a willful choice warranting verbal or physical or any other kind of abuse.

“The notion of the homosexual as a deeply disturbed deviant in need of treatment was the orthodoxy until only recently,” Horton writes early on. Then in sequence he examines the findings of others who cite the incidence of homosexual activity in fruit flies, activated by a gene called ‘w’ for ‘white” or the lack of serotonin in the brain, or ‘…the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH)3; or in women “…with congenital adrenal hyperplasia”; or as the title suggests, homosexuality if inherited is “…passed from generation to generation through women.”

Horton concludes that all of these studies lack standing because the sample was too small, the conclusions are not supported by other investigations, and so forth. It does seem that at least one of the reasons for each and every such study is to find a reason for homosexuality and its practice other than a willful choice deserving condemnation by a civilized society for a variety of reasons such as religious beliefs condemning the practice, a destruction of civilization’s apparent core: marriage of he-she, family life, and children to maintain that culture after parents are dead and buried.

After citing “The cultural historian Jonathan Katz has recently attacked the naive partitioning of sexual orientation by tracing the dominance of the norm–heterosexuality–throughout history …as an invented tradition.”, Horton states his own conclusion: “…the heterosexual/homosexual  binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable. . . . what does it mean to be gay or straight?–offers the possibility of eliminating what can be the most oppressive of cultural forces, the prejudiced social norm.”

So that was the aim: To rid society of “. . . the prejudiced social norm.”

We can all agree that throughout history those who felt oppressed often if not always banded together and moved to somewhere else, a place more or less hospitable to human life and even happiness. The Boers did that, the Pilgrims did that, those who it is hypothesized crossed over to America on the Bering Strait ridge did that. Israel  exists because enough Jews  did that. One of the most widespread of religions posits a River Jordan over which its believers can reach their promised land. One of the latest theories about the expansion of early homo sapiens was that from Africa some went north long enough to assimilate traits common to the Neanderthals, then returned to Africa so that their descendants exhibit, in the skeletons found there, traits found also among the Neanderthal bones.

Ah, you may respond, now  there are nowhere any places habitable for deviants, whether it become the ‘heterosexual’ who are the deviants, or the ‘homosexuals’, whatever are the differences between the two, or if all differences are seen as merely minor or ‘here and gone’. All of us are the same (how difficult it is to write that!) basically in the modern attitude toward sexuality, it seems, with only unimportant minor variations. In musical terms, we are all in the same scale, just in varying keys, by some technological sleight of hand able to harmonize suitably.

So I yield on the ‘move’ solution. My attempt at rationality in the issue of same-sex marriage forces me to consider its stature, though Horton claimed its root–homosexuality–the MOST oppressive of cultural forces. Without getting into ranking it with or against other oppressive cultural forces, there are some that deserve consideration as well. One of them now in midsummer America, specifically the United States (though the adjective grows less and less suitable nowadays!) is immigration. Aside from the distaste of some weight simply because ‘Messicans’ seem of lower caste, especially to the southern states folks, it is the sheer numbers apparently without citizenship (read non-taxpaying) who take the ‘stoop labor’ jobs while legal citizens swell the jobless numbers which in  turn swell the benefits which swell the already monstrous national debt, thus driving the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive demand for more taxes. That drive contributes to the growing dimness of ‘United’ and the stretching of the Constitution.

Which oppression is linked to the dollar’s inflation, an attempt by the Federal Reserve to print  more ‘fiat’ money with all of our gold in Fort Knox well above the number of new dollars to replace worn-out (in the material sense) dollars. It has been claimed that the USD is now one thousand percent inflated since 1900. A common subject for who, say, are in the waiting room  until the dermatologists can decide if the temple rash is a squamous one or not, to recite such catechisms as “When I bought my first car, I did it while making thirty-five cents an hour in the lumber yard. I’d pull up the pump at Piper’s Gas Station & Garage at the junction of M28 and M64, Bill would come out, work the back-and-forth lever until the upper glass cylinder was full, and then hold the spigot in the gas tank opening for five gallons–a dollar’s worth of gas.” In a different context, JFK, as president, stated, “A rising tide floats all ships” and all of us here in the States (I omit the adjective) are in need of Mae Wests!

Some other cultural oppressions exist in fiats meant to be kindly. Or are at onset so dressed to appear so before a complaisant citizenry. There is,  though, what might be called ‘collateral damage’ or ‘unintended consequences’ in these days of robots flying overhead.

First historically was the graduated income tax, which does what its name implies except to the some forty-plus percent of our citizens who don’t pay any. Instead, their income is a monthly ‘unearned income rebate’ from the Federal vote-buyers to supplement what a special credit card lately changing its name to an EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer!!) provides. Second was a program called Social Security designed to cushion the days and nights of those who became too old to work. . The law as stated directed the Treasury Secretary to take the moieties deducted from workers’ pay each month, and, when some left over existed after paying those eligible (estimated to top off at eighty dollars a month) it was to be invested at not less than three percent to grow the fund, as that money was called.

Which never happened. It is  said that in Fort Knox, where all national gold is, after yielded up by FDR’s order, kept now are little slips of paper with ‘IOU’ inscribed thereupon.

What I am building up to is a cultural oppression making same-sex marriage as faded and ghostly as that word before ‘States’.

After Social Security came Medicare, designed to lighten the burden of rising medical expenses (one of the hurricanes raising the figurative tide cited above from JFK) which will double its cost in  the latest Obama Care health fiat. Ironically, taking care of its citizens’ health keeps them alive longer, thus swelling the sums needed for Social Security; both programs  are threatened with engulfment because the Federal chains of business regulation, and futile spending on ‘green’ energy, drives businesses overseas and chokes the revenue flow. Add to these wastes of expenditures the fruitless wars to bring freedom to countries, especially those at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, who recede to their former dictatorships, usually of Muslim imams and Caliph Khomeini, within a year or two of our forces departure.

Taxpayers are drowning.

Finally then, for a stance of rationality on the  same-sex marriage issue. Hereby, intending practical rationality, I leave myself open to the charge of cynicism.  I believe all of the issues  of cultural oppression I list can be subsumed under the general heading of OVERPOPULATION. I model my solution on that adopted by Swift in his A Modest Proposal. When published it was a novel stance on the state of Irish poverty at least in families because of too many children, and, as is the saying about the old woman who lived in the shoe, the Irish didn’t know what to do with all of those children

“[10] I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand Children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for Breed, whereof only one fourth part to be Males, which is more than we allow to Sheepblack Cattle, or Swine, and my reason is, that these Children are seldom the Fruits of Marriage, a Circumstance not much regarded by our Savages, therefore, one Male will be sufficient to serve four Females. That the remaining hundred thousand may at a year Old be offered in Sale to the persons of Quality, 13  and Fortune, through the Kingdom, always advising the Mother to let them Suck plentifully in the last Month, so as to render them Plump, and Fat for a good Table. A Child will make two Dishes at an Entertainment for Friends, and when the Family dines alone, the fore or hind Quarter will make a reasonable Dish, and seasoned with a little Pepper or Salt will be very good Boiled on the fourth Day, especially in Winter.”
In terms of the achievable harmony alluded to earlier here is the theme for this my symphony:
From neither is there addition to the population.And eventually, be the overall pace adagio or allegro, the remainder population will provide for itself, so that redistribution of wealth will cease. For which those in barren jointure may well find the prejudice reversed to accolade as trend-setters.

About aslak122

writing novels, 7 so far; golf (again, with a titanium left shoulder) Jean, still really lovely a wife, cooks our(mostly my) noon meal, we forage separately for breakfast and evening snack. I rotate from cereal with extra raisins, banana slices, honey to 2 soft-boiled eggs (70 seconds boil over low gas) and a bagel (whole wheat). Oh, and with the cold cereal a precursor of yogurt--cherry or blueberry., and a cup or two of green tea, Lipton's if you please! And several ounces of red wine with the noon meal, opening with one of Jean's absolutely best salads. Takes a while to tell about good food, right?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to EXOBOX THINKING

  1. Candy says:

    I blog frequently and I seriously thank you for your information. The article has really peaked my interest.
    I will take a note of your website and keep checking for new information about once per week.
    I subscribed to your Feed as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s