The endless celebration and mollycoddling of homosexuals in the media has transformed the genteel, camp rightsists of the 1950s into brash, glitter-drenched Pride queens. If for no other reasons than manners and aesthetics, we ought to think about shoving the next generation back into Narnia.
But evolutionary science, it seems, presents us with an even more compelling reason why gays should pipe down and get back in the closet. It’s all down to how smart gay men are, compared to the rest of the population.
We’re told that behind every great man is a woman. It follows that a great man with another dude behind him would do even better. And so it has been for much of the life of our species. Historically, homosexuals have been massively over-represented not just in the arts but in all the various corridors of intellect, power and influence.
The British Establishment, in particular, has long relied on gay geniuses. Consider Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde and John Maynard Keynes. OK, maybe not that last one.
Elsewhere in the world, the story is the same. Abraham Lincoln was almost certainly at least bisexual. And then there are figures from remoter history, such as notorious bum bandit Alexander the Great. It seems that wherever you find human greatness, gays are joyfully abundant.
That’s at least in part because gay men are smarter: we test higher for IQ than our heterosexual counterparts. Intelligence allows us to “transcend” our evolutionary programming, according to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, which may explain the correlation between homosexuality and high IQ.
But there’s a problem brewing, and it has to do with evolution. In in the 1950s, gay men would “live a lie,” get married and have kids. They’d let off steam in dark rooms and bathhouses. That’s not happening any more: the gay rights movement has liberated queens from societal expectations, so they shack up with their boyfriends and either don’t have children, or adopt.
With the result that an entire generation’s worth of artists, playwrights, scientists, and fashion-forward gay BFFs are being mopped up by horrified housekeepers instead of being born.
I am a gay exceptionalist, because that is what science and history tell me to be. That’s why I find it depressing that my fellow fags have stopped breeding. James I, generally regarded as a good king, had gay relationships. It’s said that one of his lovers was Francis Bacon, the father of British empiricism. Bacon married twice but had no children. What might his descendants have accomplished, had old Francis bitten the bullet and shagged his missus a bit more often?
Analogical reasoning is more strongly influenced by health, upbringing and education than genes. But overall processing speed and reaction time are almost certainly largely heritable. That’s why gay sperm is precious. The medical establishment tacitly admits this by encouraging gays to be sperm donors but blocking them from donating blood.
Since we know that IQ, an imperfect measure of lots of things but a reliable guide to genius, is 60 to 80 per cent heritable, the obvious question to ask is: did gay emancipation make the species more stupid?
The answer is: sort of, yes. To be strictly accurate, a lack of gay reproduction wouldn’t make the population “more thick.” But it could, in theory, arrest the rate of increase in overall IQ. That’s because if intelligence is one of the selectors for evolution, then people who are above average for intelligence will be selected more often. So even if you truncate the top tail of the distribution, the mean of the population will still increase. It just won’t increase as quickly.
Intelligence isn’t the only reason I think gays should reconsider the traditional family as the best possible contribution to the species. Remember, intelligence, emotional well-being and so on are only partly inherited. The rest of a child’s success comes down to good parenting. There’s no end of literature on the importance of father figures and what happens to communities who don’t have them.
Gay dads can be great role models for kids who want to climb the greasy pole. Once upon a time, they had to work for it. Good daddy by day, bad daddy by night. They had to be sneakier in the days when being a Mary could get you thrown in the slammer. They had to be constantly alert and always thinking up new ways of evading detection.
That’s why these days it’s so easy for kids to choose deviant sexualities just to annoy their parents. (This is a particular problem with lesbians.) All that deception and scheming and plotting in your twenties makes for a natural writer or politician in middle age, don’t you think?
Today, the “beard” is a thing of the past, because being gay no longer a taboo. In fact, in today’s closely-policed and achingly progressive public spheres, you’re more likely to be fingered as a subversive for being right-wing. It seems you can jam anything inside yourself with impunity, unless it’s a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
Ironically, gay men in the west are in some respects getting more conservative, throwing themselves into traditional institutions like marriage that straight people are abandoning. That’s one reason gay couples earn less than straights: often, one partner stays home, echoing family structures heterosexuals have left behind because women are being pressured into the workforce, whether they want to be there or not.
Why not capitalise on this new wave of gay traditionalism by bullying gay men back into heterosexual unions? Girls, as ever, are one step ahead: I’m convinced the newfound popularity of anal sex among young women is just signalling to fags that they’re happy to bite the pillow if it means bagging a sensitive husband who appreciates her choice of drapes.
When I express views like this, I’m sometimes called a reactionary. People say I want to go back to the 50s. And they’re right – but it’s the 650s BC I want to return to, because Sparta had the right idea about male love. You can spend all day wrestling and wanking each other off if you want to, chaps, but you still have to get married, have kids and go off to fight wars.
Forcing gays back into the closet also solves the problem of what happens to children when they have two dads or two moms. Children raised in gay households are more likely to suffer mental problems, more likely to end up gay themselves and, if raised by lesbians, almost certain to witness domestic abuse.
The good news is that gay rights are in the minority, globally speaking. China, India and most of all Russia proudly celebrate the importance of the nuclear family.
You can hardly blame them. Online photo blogs from San Francisco’s notorious Folsom Street Fair will do nothing to dispel Vladimir Putin’s hunch that the west has become a decadent mess. Frankly, I would have been less ashamed to be gay in the days when being gay was something to be ashamed of. Gays were classier when they were worried about being queer-bashed.
It’s also worth considering the fact that the entire Muslim world is virulently homophobic, so men there continue to reproduce like rabbits. (Except in Iran, of course, where they get sex changes instead.) When Muslims move west, they bring their attitudes with them, so there’s a reason Mohammed will soon be the most popular boy’s name in many western countries.
Unless we want to fall behind the emerging superpowers in the east, and the Muslim world, we should follow their example and encourage gay men to keep having children and raising them in traditional nuclear family structures, whatever their private proclivities. I hate to exaggerate, but you might say that the future of the West sort of depends on us faggots leaping back in the closet and churning out a few kids.
Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Twitter.