WHAT GAY IS

WHAT GAY IS

Deconstructing the Gay Mythtique (heheh)

(Master metaphysical Metaphor here: Coining S*)

"Gay" is a homosexual-friendly hip/slang term that emerged in America's pop-culture in the 70's.

-carries its own grammar

"homosexuals have always existed throught various societies in about the same number, proportionally" => "there have always been gays"

Wrong. Not only did the word not exist, neither did the pop culture attitudes prevalent at the time it was coined. Few words for what is taken as gay behavior today existed in early American Colonial popular use, among them "sodomy", used in laws enacted for disease prevention (and moral censure as well). Juxtaposing "gays" with "sodomites", as if a gay community existed even in such a repressive social context, makes no sense except in a bizzare kind of way. (<=mark that something isn't Square; suspicion it was itended not to be.)
"Gays" weren't beat up, abused, harassed by the law in that context; that was happening, to the extent it actually was, to sodomists. Sodom and Gommorah had it worst.

WHAT GAY IS (<=what "gay" communicates)

I hadn't put this together except over Memorial holiday week-end, as one in a 4 part exposition of The Unconscious in Politics today - 6.2.11 It, together with anti-abortionist obsession with "baby killers" define(s) the two deepest common strata of trauma in indivual and group psychodynamic process: birth and sex.

The same template -- co-opt, redefine, reverse and (finally) kill -- can be traced to/in the ZIONAZI complex and Israel-U.S. relations.

GAY*, the sign-use, began as a pop culture term of use after the 60's, replacing "queer", "faggot", "homosexuals," "homo" as friendly, vrs antagonistic, toward homoerotica (male: lesbianism has an entirely different psychohistory). The erotic itself, through certainly not ignored throughout human history, has only recently, say the last century or so, come to be understood in hormonal, blood-chemistry-arousal terms, as opposed to introspection and intuition accompanying observed behavior. Attempt has been made to link self-observed attraction of males to other males to genetics, or brain modulation. Apart from being inherently dubious on its face, the mental attitude that cedes such external control over behavior is a paradigm of Sartre's 'false consciousness'. Data from that level, intellectually processed, simply isn't pertinent in deciding what to do. Many things need not affect consciousness unless allowed, that is, tolerated and/or encouraged. The effect on consciousness of thought is not limited to, though it includes, bio-neuro-psychological content. Who knows what bumps are on their, or any other person's, brain? The conduct of articulated, conscious behavior according to ideas communicated by commonly understood sign-use proceeds through an entirely different, and supervient (<=using results of prior) processes. To which grammar and logic apply.

Taking constructs such as "Gay" up into the grammar of common discourse, as denominating a group, claiming 'rights' against prejudice and discrimination, introduces:

FALSE* IDENTITY claim (*and not just; based on negating identity attributed by others)

Fabricating a FALSE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OF ITSELF, a way of reading history that would redefine what others are called to accomodate them --"straight", "heterosexual", "man-woman marriage preference" (<- which, if insisted on in sacral terms, seques to "--prejudice", if not 'religious homophobia')



The final step, subversion of the life-cycle bond between parent-child, past-future, is taken by substituting 'same-sex' in the language of marriage between husband and wife. This negates the conscious bond sealed by "I do" between a couple and their biological child whose memory of fetal origins reconnect to it.