Essay #1

There exists in our culture a cult of the collective. Combine this with the near-universal phenomenon of sexual or religious social identification, and the result is the ubiquitous subcultures and exclusive clubs which deny individuals the true personal and social freedoms they deserve.

The gay population of most of the industrial world is among the worst offenders in this area. In the dubious quest for power and "acceptance," homosexuals have adopted, perpetuated, and promoted the very social ills and stereotypical behaviors that demean and constrain them. Rather than helping to contribute to the sexual liberation of our society, most homosexuals eagerly adopt the very philosophical preambles that have resulted in decades - if not centuries - of self-righteous repression by religious, political and educational authorities.

The roots of these offenses go much deeper than politics, "community," or sex alone can explain. Rather they are based upon inherent personal shame and lack of identity, the roots of which lie in the philosophical points-of-view held by such perpetrators in regard to the role of sex in human biology and psychology, the concept of sexuality in its social context, the influence of collectivism, and a desire - despite pleas to the contrary - be seen as "normal" and to "fit in" in the eyes of peers and elders.

Sex and Man

For human beings, sexuality plays a distinctly different role than in any other animal or organism. Over millenia, man has developed the ability to regulate his procreation and to overcome the natural obstacles to sexual and social bonding. As the need to engage in sexual activity purely on reproductive grounds has diminished, its importance in a social context has increased.

Rather than having seasonal reproductive cycles in which polygamous males compete for maximum fertility with numerous females, humans have grown capable of engaging in sexual activity at any time of the year, at any time of day, from sexual maturity to death. Thus, in man, sex the act - as well as the associated social preconditions for sex - are removed from biology.

Man engages in sex for social and emotional purposes. This applies to every human activity. Man's biological needs are fulfilled with relatively small portions of the effort he expends throughout his life. The remaining effort is based not on biological need, but on the quest for emotional fulfillment.

Animals engage in all activities based strictly on genetic determinism (with the exception of a certain few activities in the higher primates and marine mammals). Because his rational faculty has allowed man to overcome his genetically predetermined fate, man engages n all activity with his ego - not his nature - as the driving force.

Just like our need for sex, our need for food could be taken care of with relatively minimal effort in comparison to the effort every man actually invests in the pursuit thereof. If any random lump of food were adequate to any man, the entire phenomenon of food service, candle-lit dinners, and favorite foods would be unnecessary and impossible - for, without any emotional accessory to the biological need for food, minimal nutritional requirements are all that apply. The latter, however, is not the case. Man engages in culinary discrimination for the same reason, and to the same effect, that he engages in personal discrimination when evaluating the compatability or desireability of friends or sexual partners.

Regardless of whether sexuality is one day discovered to be based upon genetic, psychological or philosophical factors, the fact that man's rational faculty allows him to modify his actions to suit his needs and desires cannot be discredited. Because he is seeking emotional, rather than biological, fulfillment through sex, he is not being played by his genes like a deterministic puppet when he chooses a partner or partners. The argument that sexuality is predetermines and unchangeable is insulting and destructive, as it eliminates the possibility for free will or personal discrimination, and demotes a part of one's life as important as love, romance and sexuality to the level of non-value and non-choice equal to the development of inherited heart disease, thus destroying even the possibility of obtaining any fulfillment from the activity. How can one be emotionally or even physically fulfilled by the crack of a slave-driver's whip?

Flaws in Attitudes Toward Sex

Just as need is transformed to desire in the context of the rational animal, so sex cannot be separated from interpersonal relationships without a deliberate evasion of one's mental awareness (mental amputation, if you will). Even if only encountering anonymous genitals through a hole in the wall, one is reacting emotionally to the activity in which one is engaging, so long as one is still a human, and still alive - rather than just participating as a detached automaton, such as an animal or vegetable, with no choice or ability to resist. Such, admittedly, is the mental state of many humans, even when engaging in activities as important as sex.

Because man's mind - his rational ability - is his basic means of functioning on Earth (rather than merely his physical abilities, as in animals), he must integrate his mind with the tools that that mind was given as its connection to reality - his body - if he wishes to maintain his mind or his life. A mind without a body is, like a body without a mind, completely useless to a human being. If he is incapable of manipulating the material world, a man cannot maintain his life. If there is no governing and volitional force behind the muscles in his body, man will be incapable of reacting appropriately to the world in which me must live. This mind-body integration must be maintained 24-hours per day, and all the way down, otherwise one becomes an evader of reality, believing oneself capable of turning reality on and off at whim, without consequence - by severing the link between the mind and the environment in which it exists. A mind without an anchor in reality will inevitably perish, for in any disagreement between the thoughts of a mind and the truth of reality, reality is the final arbiter. Men who engage in such wholesale evasion only survive by the charity of a provider who refuses to evade reality - something which our society, unfortunately, is all too eager to provide in most cases, destroying any incentive to integrate as is necessary to survive.

Similarly, the ability to see sex as "meaningless" or detached from psychology is possible only for one who is a wholesale evader. Regardless of the limited investment one takes in a particular sexual act or encounter, or the minimal effort one expends to achieve sexual satisfaction, there is an emotional and rational need being fulfilled. As demonstrated before, the only biological need fulfilled by sexuality is reproduction; something in which humans only engage in a tiny fraction of their sexual encounters. Sex, in humans, is a rational and quality-based need. This concept differs widely from the common view by the "gay community," that sex is an animalistic, biologically predetermined need. Such is the theory expounded by those who supposedly seek "sexual liberation." Liberation from what, one may ask? From thinking, of course.

Like the religious oppressors who stifle them, the sexual minorities of the modern world believe that the only answer to inescapable moral dilemmas is to remove said action from the realm of volition. This is not only dangerous, but counter-productive. Sex, being a rational desire - is entirely moral, regardless of who the partner(s) involved may be.

The moral realm is not, as most religious doctrines espouse, the realm of action alone - but rather the realm of motive. Just as it is moral to take a life in defense of one's own life, but immoral to take a life arbitrarily, thus one's motives are what must truly be material for moral scrutiny.

Like the use of drugs - which, in the case of pharmeceuticals, primarily - are widely regarded as a virtue when the motive is to assist the eradication of pain, disease or suffering, so the use of sex is subject to equal moral evaluation. The moral basis of one's view of sex, if based on a rational morality, is not based on naked and shallow concretes, such as numbers of partners or specific sexual activities engaged in. Is one using sex, like drugs, to enhance the ability of one to enjoy life in reality? Or is one using sex, also like many drugs, to numb and escape life and reality? In the latter case, sexuality is subject to a negative moral judgement. If one is engaging in sex without regard to one's emotional needs or consequences, one is behaving immorally - in a way detrimental to one's own life and happiness.

The issue of moral pretext and personal rational fulfillment, however, are seldom addressed by those in the "gay community" who endeavor to defend their actions against religious or philosophical attacks. Rather, they reflexively ooze the biological determinist argument, exclaiming "we can't help it!" "it's not our fault!" - consequently admitting a degree of moral vice from all sides - from the determinist camp, who see them as genetic inferiors; and from the rationalist camp, who recognize them as evaders. Evasion is in fact the last resort to escape the shame of one's own private feelings of inferiority.

On a similar level, this same reflexive evasion is a means nearly all sexual minorities use to evade the shame of moral judgement by their peers. Rather than question the intrinsicist morality of the Catholic Chruch, they demand that homosexuals and women be included in Church infrastructure. Rather than insist that they enjoy their partner(s) and do not care to live against their rational desires, they insist that their desires are so irrational that they are incapable of choice.

Vice, Corruption & Evil

Today's sexual minority community is, by and large, extremely immoral. They refuse to question the institutions which discriminate and war against them, but demand that those institutions stop the discrimination and end the war. What they fail to recognize is that the institutions and the discrimination are one and the same, and that their own lemming-like stampede to join such institutions is the most immoral attack they can make on their own life and happiness: sleeping with the enemy.

Religion, by its nature, is primitive. Unlike modern, rational philosophy and psychology, religion insists that mankind has no free will or volition, and that his purpose in life is - in a word - death. Rather than existing on Earth for personal fulfillment and individual growth, all religions insist that Earth is a temporary and undesirable state which each man must reluctantly pass through on the road to something "better." Thus religion depicts the physical and material universe as a malevolent place to be despised and escaped.

What, then, is the point of desire? What the point of life? Of personal needs or the pursuit of one's own happiness? This is the way religion condemns the rational man - and exactly why the rational man must condemn religion. By allowing some intrinsic, unquestionable doctrine or dogma to rule his behavior and capacity for happiness, man is resigning himself, like any animal, to a life of mind-numb slavery to nature or any random demigogue. Thus religion, like biological determinism, denies man free will, and this I why it can only be seen as the most primitive of human mental processes.

Any group that endorses religion is endorsing their slavery and demise. The same is true of those who endorse the doctrine of bilogical determinism when it is applied to human desire and action. Man is a creature of free will (or volitional consciousness), and that will is determined by choice and reason, not genes. Genetics may determine a basic quality or type of tool a man is given in his physical capacities; but so long as the is a man, he is rational, and capable of overcoming any natural constraints on his life or desires.

Most gays call it "pride." The use of such a term to describe one's personal view of one's own sexuality - merely as an existent - is not only dubious; it completely destroys the meaning of the word "pride," and annihilates the concept of language in the process. Pride is a term denoting a personal emotional satisfaction in an accomplishment, achievement, or ability - physical or psychological. How can pride exist for a personal trait or mere desire? One can be proud of one's specific choice(s) of partner(s), or of particular sexual or romantic conquests, but not of the static quality of one's sexuality alone.

Like all its other traits, the "pride" expressed by the majority among the "gay community" is a meaningless collective trait, devoid of substance and incapable of aiding the liberation of sexual minorities from the social institutions which pronounce their choices and desires as depraved and incorrect.

The "gay community," in its desperate quest for power and "tolerance," has become a collective monoculture, which substitutes learned behaviors, linguistic cues, universal social dialect and "pride" for identity or personality. Like all collectives, it destroys differentiation as a means of initiation, resulting in a universally recognisable subculture which lacks any cohesion other than loathed surfacial traits like the undifferentiated techno music, short shorts, hairless bodies and Madonna mimicry of gay men or the overweight, crewcut, drag king butchery of gay women.

Of course, there are exceptions to this sexual monoculture, but it is usually itself a collective subculture which is merely reacting to the "gay community" at large. In either case, the concept if individual identity is lost in a sea of conformity and group-think. Dissention from the ranks is only acceptable if it does not disturb the agenda of further collective integration of gays into a faceless pressure group within the society they hate.Disapproval in any form of the group-think majority is "closed mindedness" or "intolerance."

Thus homosexuals - and for that matter, feminists and most other sexual minorities - have become the new sexists, espousing the newest and most oppressive sexism. Rather than discriminate for inclusion, they discriminate for exclusion - creating an exclusive club with an agenda that, severed from its deviant fa­ade, differs very little from the agenda of Jerry Falwell and his own fundamentalist, anti-secularist minority.

. . .

Like all forms of exclusion and discrimination, today's gay fascism is a social disease which denies individual freedom. Those who identify, because of their personal choices and freely chosen actions, as "gay" are in turn prescribed a specific set of behaviors - to which they must conform if they wish to participate in social interaction.

Perhaps an individual - if he wants to live on Earth and as a human being - should question the collective as a concept, rather than merely seeking one in which they wish to belong.