The indisputable advantage of old age is the readiness to speak one’s mind.  Though it is not a benefit upon which I daily linger, there are nonetheless occasions (such as that which arose today) when I lapse into the vernacular without hesitation. I am naturally grateful for the inspiration to do so arising from my acquaintance with those who stimulate such alacrity.

The particular correspondence which triggered this frenetic involvement came from a gentleman whom I have known almost sixty years.  We were in undergraduate studies together at Glendon Hall, Toronto. Initially he had opened the communication by sending me a legal case concerning whether calling someone “gay” is defamatory. I replied that in my opinion the label is superfluous and often confusing (even incriminating of the accuser). Following is what he subsequently wrote:

Bill, 

Well said – there was no such condemnation in Classical Greek and Roman times

 

It is the influence of the Christian Bible which created the problem. More particularly the Book of Leviticus. So blame the Jewish priestly caste.

 

Unlike your good self, I always found lesbianism titillating. 

 

If your gay friends deplore the problems with coming out, you should support them. There are still a lot of apeneck Trump voters who consider it a sin or a crime. Mutual support is essential for gays as it is, more obviously, for ethnic Jews.

 

But of course it’s up to you where you direct your sympathy.

 

As you know, I consider the gay gene to be an essential control mechanism on human population growth.

 

At any rate, it is not defamatory to be described as LGBT2SQ+ or whatever it is. I thought that would amuse (if not encourage) you.

 

Hope that you and Denis are enjoying the Spring weather.

Following is my response:

I consider the sexuality of people irrelevant, yours or anyone else’s.  I do not have gay friends; I have friends.  I would never think of calling you my straight friend. Likewise I consider Christianity or any other religion a clown show. To say you find lesbianism titillating is nothing but lasciviousness. I do not support “coming out” anymore than I support “hate and shallow behaviour”. And as for the “gay gene”, that is but the latest of confusions surrounding this matter – again, as irrelevant as the “straight gene” which according to latest trends is doing its own work at reducing population growth. In short, of course it is defamatory to be described as gay – it’s just another device for separation by small-minded people who prefer to make themselves taller by standing on others. And usually they’re just looking in a mirror.  Religion had nothing to do with it; they had everything to do with religion.

I am aware that this diatribe of mine is open to misinterpretation.  What however I am attempting to assert is my dispute with hateful behaviour. More often than not the description and labelling of people is but another intrusion upon their freedom to act as they wish without the approbation of others. If the conduct does not conflict with others then I see no need at all to dwell upon it singularly – any more than you (whoever you are) might expect (or require) the approval of others.

The so-called social norms – and their legitimization by formal legalization or illegality – are nothing but constructs often based upon prejudice and authoritarianism (power). The indirect expression of control of others is nothing short of manipulation, frequently based upon themes designed to animate hatred and thence support of the ruling class or oligarchs. The motive behind “the few to rule” is always self-interest. We are foolish to imagine it were otherwise.  This confession of “humanity” is not however a vehicle for dominance over others or perversion of the distinction of others – any more than the colour of one’s skin is relevant to the greater “humanity” of them.

The obfuscation of the social norms is further enhanced by the alleged authenticity of religion which of course is utter balderdash – a convenient belief in imaginary (fabricated) mystery for purposes of strengthening pragmatic but fictional boundaries. Naturally there have also been developed (or espoused) theories of medical detail to support the intended limitations whether racial, sexual or spiritual.  Just more rubbish!

I feel that increased pronouncements of kindness and affability among people is more likely than labels to improve humanity. Spending more time overcoming hatred will do more than instilling people to incite disapproval. It is a convenient resolve of the disheartened individual to dwell instead upon the disapproval of others. Unfortunately even that psychological perversion fails in the end to improve the world or the poisoned innards of the complainer.