The pro-breeding Shakespeare: He broke our hearts when Juliet couldn’t have little Romeos.

Reading the daily vitriol of hate (vitriol of hate, I like that) spewing from my educated friends on Facebook, the taunting and name-calling from otherwise civilized folk, I recall the old saying, ‘If you get angry, you lose the argument.’

Why do political opinions make people so angry?  And worse than angry: it turns them into bullies and bigots.  My friends!  My educated, open-minded, progressive friends!  What in the hell is going on?

The vast majority of bigots are only bigots when they are joking, when they have a smirk on their face, and the cowardice of the bigot may just be what the mind settles into as a defensive response to the far more debilitating state of anger.  Fury needs to be avoided at all cost, for fury will lose you your job, your wife, and land you in jail.  Prejudice is the civilized response, the ‘flight’ to the  more primitive and brutal ‘fight,’ which, in its brutality, can’t even be characterized as prejudice, since prejudice requires a little thinking (that dangerous thing) and the ‘fight’ response is instinctive and primal.

Often, however, it is anger which drives us to fight injustice.  Rather than cynicism, indifference, and mild forms of biotry as paths away from an anger which would get our coward into far more trouble, whipping oneself into a frenzy in order to do something about the wrongs in the world—and thus traveling towards anger can be a noble action.

I don’t want to fan the already raging partisan fires by exaggerating the importance of anger in our lives—how we’re all a moment away from fury at all times, how, like fire it’s sometimes useful, but always dangerous.  Like most of us, I’m tired of this red state/blue state divide which is eating away at our social fabric—to use a really mundane cliche—so mundane that it shows I’m not angry, but troubled in a rather dull way.   But to continue: the estrangement of family, friends, and co-workers over mere differences of opinion is a sad thing to see.  Should your Democrat or Republican neighbor be your enemy?  Can’t we be bigger than that?

The folly of our current situation is this: we would rather humiliate our opponents than reason with them. Intellectually, that’s how bad it’s got. Debating in a sneaky, sneering manner has replaced, “Here’s how I see the facts.”  Debating has been replaced by masturbating.

There’s a large element of the population—who presumably don’t know very much—which both sides are pandering to, in an ever-increasing downward cycle of dumb.  This dumb portion of the population must be reached, at all costs, to swing the election.  But to reach this large part of the electorate, reasoning has no effect.  Bush, for instance, won in 2000, only because Bush was a familiar presidential name, and yet that Bush wasn’t dumb; that Bush was CIA, the very opposite of someone going into a voting booth, and knowing so little, that picking a familiar name is all they’ve got, or all they care about, in matters political.

But here’s why I think educated people are getting especially testy.  Underlying elements which contribute to making a certain political position Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, progressive, or reactionary, are shifting and treacherous—compared to the certainty of our own educated thinking.  Fearful ignorance isn’t just in them; it’s in you, too.  That’s right, smarty-pants. You.

This has always been the case, and it’s the reason why political affiliations continually evolve, over a single generation.  Soviet-Nazi Pact, anyone?

You might have someone who conservatively sticks to their radical position, ignoring radical changes happening all around them.

You might have someone who radically moves towards a conservative position, frantically reacting to superficial events.

You might have a religion-hater who holds onto their own beliefs with a monomaniacal, religious frenzy.

You might have a deeply religious person who holds deep beliefs in a highly superficial manner.

Hot-button issues are hot because they feature believers who are conflicted about what they actually believe, and they are highly defensive, as a result.  It isn’t the issues that are hot, but the deeply conflicted individuals who are hot.

Another source of tremendous enmity springs from the deep philosophical divide of two eternal practical strategies: tough love and tolerance.  The issue itself, whether it’s obesity or the debt, and the facts relating to that particular issue, are overwhelmed by a tough love v. tolerance debate which plays itself out in the minds of those eager to hold political positions which they think ought to define them.

The problem is not in our politics, but in ourselves.

Finally, we come to the fallacy which defines 99% of all political talk: No True Scotsman.  No true Republican would ever raise taxes, but president Reagan did. No true Democrat would ever lower taxes, but president Kennedy did.  And these are not arguments in favor, or against, your party.  This is merely the No True Scotsman fallacy. The Republicans, years ago, sent soldiers to the South to make sure black people voted.  Not long before that, Indians owned slaves.  Republicans, a few generations ago, stood for conservation, the Democrats for jobs and labor. Today, however, green defines the liberal.

Is Same-Sex Marriage, for example, a radical or conservative, belief?  The only reason Same-Sex Marriage is an issue at all is not because of the issue itself, but because there are enough confused, highly defensive, people—who consider themselves  liberal or conservative—to kick up a fuss.

There are two poles to the Same-Sex Marriage issue: On one side, we have the heterosexual, created by nature to breed, and further created by society to celebrate and encourage all that breeding entails, and the heterosexual through history, whether trapped in it, or reveling in it, identifies with it in all sorts of deeply primal and deeply conditioned, ways—psychologically, socially, religiously, and in every sort of way one could imagine, or not imagine.  This, we might say, is the ultimate conservative pole of ‘the issue.’  Whatever opposes this pole, especially in a public manner, is going to feel some push-back: how could it be otherwise?  We see in nature (and in those beautifully-filmed nature shows on TV) how much opposition drives socialization and sexuality in wildlife: fighting for turf is a law among all the animals.  As much as we ‘civilize’ ourselves, we will always be animals, and people who choose religion, or choose to become monks, do so to escape the laws, or the more violent laws, of the jungle, of the animal world, of nature.  Most of us do this to some degree, and we can all relate to it, and we can all see that nature is both radical (sex at all costs!) and conservative (preserve the tribe!), and that the impulse to be religious is also both radical—because it goes against nature—and conservative—because it adds laws in its attempt to go against nature.

So here is one pole: heterosexuality—species in the wild going to extreme lengths to safely breed, and humans in society setting up reverential units and making iconic fictions to safely breed, too.  The other pole: what is it?  Homosexuality merely inhibits the prime directive of breeding, so it’s not really a legitimate other pole; homosexuality would merely be a sub-category to the asexual nanny, or facilitator, of the breeding process. The pacified breeder who, temporarily, or permanently, stripped of his or her breeding nature, and who vigilantly and placidly tends to the upbringing of the offspring, could be homosexual, but more important is their placid, asexual nature.  The asexual—or the homosexual—can participate in the heterosexual quest of breeding by helping to raise children.

But we are looking for the legitimate other pole to this entire breeding process, which includes both natural and civilized aspects.  If homosexuals raise children, even indirectly, they are a part of this breeding process, and in no way opposed to it.

The other pole, it seems to me, is freedom from this entire breeding-and-raising-children-safely agenda.  The other pole is: I will love whomever and whatever I please; I am not in this world to reproduce myself, or share in reproducing the species; I don’t care about the safe upbringing of children, or religion, or icons, or marriage, or any of those ‘breeding’ trappings; I want to be free of nature and all laws, and I want to enjoy myself.

If Same-Sex Marriage belongs to the first pole—and my feeling is that it does, then it is a highly conservative impulse, and it is only a hot button issue because of a confusion regarding the nature of radicalism and conservatism in certain individuals’ minds.

And if Same-Sex Marriage belongs to the second pole, that marriage doesn’t have a chance.



  1. noochinator said,

    July 30, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    On politics, the great Pat Paulsen
    Said it best in days gone by:
    “Without a left wing and a right wing,
    The aeroplane won’t fly.”

  2. noochinator said,

    July 30, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    Left, right, gay, straight,
    Sober, pissed —
    Maybe we can all (or most of us)
    Agree on this:

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: