About Alternates
An Issue Essay
I am going to make the assumption, with regard to the issue of alternative homosexual life styles, that some readers are not aware of the basis upon which modern intolerance is justified by so-called straight people. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a lack of knowledge is quite prevalent, that views are more or less permanently fixed, but founded upon an insubstantial moral code that no longer applies. Unfortunately, there are also side-issues like the Aids crisis, responsible for ending at least 20 million souls so far, that have been attributed scientifically to alternative choice making. If only we could let the diseases run their course and disappear, things would not seem so bad. It would be wonderful if nature cooperated that way instead of springing new and worse viruses on us every couple of years.
It is an ancient prejudice and stems from a time when kangaroos outnumbered people. Sorry, Australia, that is your problem. Back then, somebody--the Almighty, a lonely shepherd, an unrequited lady of leisure--said, "Be fruitful and multiply." It made a whole lot of sense to nomads, guys who hadn't seen a female in 47,000 sand dunes, frustrated
women who waited at the wells for a flood. But every generation has its sexual proclivities and worries. Abraham's difficulty was rape--Pharoah wanted Sarah--Lot's was incest--his daughters--and every documented generation thereafter, made all that more complex with the Patriarchs because men permitted themselves a multitude of partners without any
recorded complaints from the ladies. (There had to be some.)
But, if we are supposed to inherit the earth and dominate all other species, then there needed to be a lot of us, right? Ergo, the tending of sexual orchards was bound to be popular, and established as the norm. And there it is, the root of today's dilemma.
There were "odd" people out there then, just like today, who were more interested in personal bippy bopping than propagating the species. Definitely not the norm. Clearly, the first Patriarch took a dim view of such things at Sodom, though he did try to get the Almighty to spare some of them. Propagation was big when tribes were small. Now, when tribes are big, over-propagation is the issue, so the "pleasure" people cannot be a real problem other than the disease thing. In fact, their choices may be a solution, at least to some.
There is, of course, the problem of those who wonder about their "orientation," whether or not they were meant for alternation or a different choice altogether. "I love Mary/Bob, but I wonder how things might be with Paul/Alice." This confusion is the cause of most of today's problems. Not only does it plague husbands, wives and unmarried couples, it reaches into the psyche of those foresworn to guide the morality of others,
making things like vows an archaic and largely ignored term. That, in my humble opinion, is the real crisis, deciding what you are so that one's active pursuits do not decide the fate of innocents. That means, make up your mind at a time when it will make a good difference, not a bad one. Too bad we do not indoctrinate youngsters in the parameters of making this decision. If we did, it would save a tremendous amount of grief.
Unfortunately, with six millennia of established prejudice ingrained, its difficult for those "trained" to despise anything not like themselves, to give up their favorite bashing targets. You have to admit, there are plenty of other bash possibilities for the irate. Why pick on one of the oldest candidates when there are so many others? You might as well try to eliminate prostitution, and you know that will never happen.
Think about it. The next time you meet a friendly alternate, consider all the natural resources he/she is preserving by not creating more consumers, rivals and business competitors. By not being hetero, they contribute more to sustaining the natural environment than you ever will. Your children will continue to exhaust the environment.They will have none. Maybe its time to give them a break.
And as for the current legal question, since when can a law address a feeling? Justice has nothing whatsoever to do with emotions. It may regulate the abortion issue, for example, but it will never stop them from happening if that is the woman's choice. It never worked in the past. It will not work today no matter how legal or illegal our courts make it. Likewise, if two people wish to live together, of what impact is a piece of paper saying it is endorsed by the state? Only the moral institutions are affected, and even they will not be taken into consideration once people make up their minds about what they want. So the whole thing boils down to desire.
What is yours?
W. A. Rieser
