Mon Jul 12, 2004 (Politics) Comments

[A colleague sends me one of those futile Internet petitions regarding a controversial topic.]

Dear MoveOn member,

In less than 48 hours, Congress will vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would permanently deny marriage equality to same-sex couples. This is unprecedented. Never before has our Constitution been amended to take away anyone's rights. We've got to fight back.

Please sign on to our emergency petition to Congress to stop this divisive amendment at http://www.moveon.org/unitednotdivided.

[I decide to address the topic if not the lame petition. Partially as a means to deter further thoughtless agitation. Partially as an exercise to express my thoughts in writing.]

I don't understand this vehement opposition. How does it lesson one's own marriage? Or maybe I do understand it.

I'll tell you what this is in my view, if you're willing to hear some frank opinion. Some of it is outright ignorance or hate. But most of it is simple insecurity. I think the opposition to gay rights comes from a lack of self confidence of one's own social standing. That's male insecurity mind you- clearly homophobia was born of male competition over women. These men see gays as a threat to their own chances with women. If society allows homosexuals to coexist openly among heterosexuals, then these homosexuals may begin to influence women's opinions of what traits are desirable in men. Rather than controlling themselves, confident in their choice of lifestyle, interests, opinions, and how appealing they are in the eyes of women, these men panic, and demand absolute control over the rules of the game. They insist very publicly that everyone must hold the same opinions and respect the same rules. This is absurd in my mind.

Though nothing new, of course. It's simple Darwinian competition, and has been in play for millions of years. This political issue illustrates two very different approaches to life: One values working hard to make oneself a strong competitor in a game with ever-evolving rules. The other pretends the rules- and only such rules as benefit oneself- are static and absolute, then forces these fictitious rules upon all of society and punishes any skeptics or non-conformists.

Both approaches to life raise one's stock in the Darwinian game. It is undeniable that bigotry is effective. It achieves its aims. But which approach is stronger, that is, which approach ultimately will succeed in the long run? Before you answer, ask yourself one more question: Which approach is more adaptable? Well, you can see where I'm going with this. In a game of Darwinian competition the more adaptable strategy ultimately wins. So long as man remains civilized, the liberal belief wins out. It requires less energy. One manages oneself, not everyone else.

Civilization produces homosexuality. That's an uncomfortable fact to many men, but that's in our genetic makeup. Let's ask ourselves why homosexuality is more prevalent in cities. Why? Because of the reasons given above. In a city one learns very quickly that one cannot possibly manage everyone's beliefs. In rural settings, however, it is possible. People who live in rural settings are no different than their urban neighbors, it's just that one Darwinian strategy- the conservative one- plays out more favorably. Why is homosexuality more accepted in Europe? Older cities.

I believe my analysis applies to many other issues, not just the issue of gay rights. I see this political issue as one of many social conflicts that at their most basic become a struggle of the self versus the group, the individual versus the collective. Nothing new, Freud called it Civilization and its Discontents. Who you side with depends on your self-confidence regarding the Darwinian competition at stake. Do you gain more by siding with the group, or do you gain more by setting out on your own?

I have a contrarian personality, so I tend to fight the group because I rarely see it as benefiting myself. I see it as constraining me; constraining talent and ingenuity in return for familiarity and predictability. No doubt the world is a much cozier and safer place if everyone holds the same opinions, respects the same rules, and refrains from questioning Official Wisdom. It is also a much more boring place.

To quote Jim Morrison,

"How many of you are alive? How many of you people know you're really alive? You're all plastic soldiers in a miniature dirt war. I am the lizard king. I can do anything!"

A little out there, but essentially correct in my book.