[REPLAY: Re-published for addition of Freudian input,…by Freud!]
From Civilization and Its Discontents, pages 59 and 60:
The tendency on the part of civilization to restrict sexual life is no less clear than its other tendency to expand the cultural unit. Its first, totemic, phase already brings with it the prohibition against an incestuous choice of object, and this is perhaps the most drastic mutilation which man’s erotic life has in all time experienced. Taboos, laws and customs impose further restrictions, which affect both men and women. Not all civilizations go equally far in this; and the economic structure of the society also influences the amount of sexual freedom that remains. Here, as we already know, civilization is obeying the laws of economic necessity, since a large amount of the psychical energy which it uses for its own purposes has to be withdrawn from sexuality. In this respect civilization behaves towards sexuality as people or a stratum of its population does which has subjected another one to its exploitation. Fear of a revolt by the suppressed elements drives it to stricter precautionary measures. A high-water mark in such a development has been reached in out Western European civilization. A cultural community is perfectly justified, psychologically, in starting by proscribing manifestations of the sexual life of children, for there would be no prospect of curbing the sexual lusts of adults if the ground had not been prepared for it in childhood. But such a community cannot in any way be justified in going to the length of actually disavowing such easily demonstrable, and, indeed striking phenomena. As regards the sexually mature individual, the choice of an object is restricted to the opposite sex, and most extra-gential satisfactions are forbidden as perversions. The requirement, demonstrated in these prohibitions, that there shall be a single kind of sexual life for everyone, disregards the dissimilarities, whether innate or acquired, in the sexual constitution of human beings; it cuts off a fair number of them from sexual enjoyment, and so becomes the source of serious injustice. The result of such restrictive measures might be that in people who are normal–who are not prevented by their constitution–the whole of their sexual interests would flow without loss into the channels that are left open. But heterosexual genital love, which has remained exempt from outlawry, is itself restricted by further limitations, in the shape of insistence upon legitimacy and monogamy. Present-day civilization makes it plain that it will only permit sexual relationships on the basis of a solitary, indissoluble bond between one man and one woman, an that it does not like sexuality as a source of pleasure in its own right and is only prepared to tolerate it because there is so far no substitute for it as a means of propagating the human race.
—————-Start of original post————–
I’m always amused slightly when I hear that more “reasoned” debate is what we need and what is desired.
Well, the truth is that it’s only been a few years since this became an “always.” It is now “always.”
I’m reminded of this amusement after reading, yet again, of the specter of that thing, the putative thing called the “gay gene”.
What follows is my personal analysis of applying “reason” and, thereby, enjoying the resultant judgement, “reasonable”, to the idea of “gay gene”, that is, an inheritable characteristic which we call homosexuality. (You will discover the reason for double-quotes bounding these three items.)
Is everyone ready? Don’t blame me for what I’ve concluded as I’m merely applying logic to the subject. In other words, one might get what one wishes for when wishing for more “reason”. As final preface, I can tell you that I’ve never read the equivalent to my reasoning and reasonable take on the “gay gene”.
If homosexuality is inherited, that is, that a person may be born with “it”, then it can be considered a birth-defect under the following condition: when the Species—or clan, group, community—is in jeopardy from a precluded birth-rate; that is, zero births.
Some may think straightaway of the “state of Nature” as being just such a possible scenario: our Species, we all know as fact—save the Creationists—has spent the bulk of it’s time on Earth in this state, where births were essential, or near-so.
Of course, some will consider the gay gene a birth-defect for the reason that we are always susceptible of being placed back into a or the state of nature.
This may be too much to bear for those who find great appeal in a return to “nature”, the “back to nature” semi-ideal, something we tend to think of as one of the Leftist’s callow fantasies.
The inescapable conclusion that I have reached from this “reasoning” is that homosexuality is a luxury at best, or, under periods of plenty and leisure, particularly when all basic needs are very far from NOT being met; our great wealth.
The message to those who yearn for being relieved of the burden of choice with respect to their sexuality is: be very careful for what you wish.