Diversity

Righty: Why do bleeding hearts on the left continue to gush about "diversity" when the guests at their dinner parties are almost exclusively white and upper middle class? I don’t detect much "diversity" among all you Chardonnay-sippers, eh Lefty? The fact is, most of us instinctively gravitate toward others like ourselves. Blacks do it. Hispanics do it. Greeks, Armenians and Jews do it. So do gays and celebrities. Even Lefty’s pampered, privately educated liberal friends do it. The difference between them and me is that I’m honest enough to admit it. Nobody who sends his kids to a private school is morally entitled to rhapsodize about diversity or impose it on others. I’m no bigot, but I’m comfortable among my own kind and I don’t see why we should have to include quotas of various favored minorities in every neighborhood, company, school, and TV show. I’m fine with blacks or gays moving into my neck of the woods as long as they’re decent, law-abiding citizens who embrace our Christian way of life. But I don’t see why we should have to send out engraved invitations to encourage them.

Lefty: I’m sure Righty would like nothing better than to whisk us back to the Eisenhower era, when America’s unofficially sanctioned national color was lily white. In those halcyon days, blacks, Hispanics, gays and even women were essentially disenfranchised and hidden discreetly from view. Is that the kind of society Righty (I almost said "Whitey") would have us celebrate? We need to empower individuals of all colors, genders and sexualities if we truly want to build an egalitarian society. We empower them by boosting their representation in academic and professional life, and by renouncing the primitive prejudices that made them second-class citizens in the first place. All right-thinking people have an obligation to help diversity flourish. Those who stand in opposition to it must be condemned as bigots, oppressors and -- worst of all -- Republicans!

The New Moderate:

I’m not especially fond of code words; they tend to conceal a multitude of agendas. "Diversity" is a stellar example of the breed. When a liberal uses this richly flavored buzzword in casual conversation, other liberals know immediately that the speaker is one of them... that they understand each other and breathe the same sociopolitical vapors. They’re siblings under the skin and firmly planted on the "correct" side of the great cultural divide.

What does "diversity" signify, exactly? Well, you’d think it would imply an open friendliness toward every conceivable minority group, white and otherwise... every economic class... every ethnic group, religion, philosophy and temperament. But as Righty suggested, those who talk loudest about diversity seem to be highly selective about the minorities they embrace. And that’s what bothers me.

An instructive example: here in Philadelphia, home of The New Moderate, the most richly diverse neighborhood is the Northeast -- a bubbling cauldron of hardworking whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and immigrants from dozens of outposts on the planet. But Northeast Philly gets no respect from the city’s educated white liberals. They positively shun the place. Too lower middle class. Too philistine. No trendy restaurants. Their paragon of "diversity" is my own Mt. Airy neighborhood, which is roughly 50% African American and 49% educated white liberal, including a generous sprinkling of lesbians and vintage hippies. You can search the place from top to bottom without unearthing any Poles, Greeks, Italians, Hungarians, Russians, Lebanese, Indians (Asian or American), Filipinos, Koreans, Mexicans or Jamaicans. Republicans are universally reviled and practically extinct. Presbyterians and pro-lifers languish on the endangered list. Other rarities include working-class whites, Boy Scouts, non-black fundamentalist Christians, gay men and young single heterosexuals.

Don’t get me wrong: Mt. Airy is a handsome and friendly old neighborhood. Blacks and whites seem to coexist peacefully and even marry each other. But diverse? The folks in Mt. Airy are clearly tailoring the word to fit their politics.

I’d like to see "diversity" used according to its dictionary definition rather than the ill-concealed biases of its liberal champions. If you want real diversity, take a walk around Northeast Philly, not Mt. Airy. Be true to your creed and welcome Irish-American firefighters into your neighborhood as readily as you welcome blacks, lesbians and educated white liberals. You might actually learn something from them.

Summary: Diversity is an admirable concept, but the term is habitually slanted to promote favored minorities and exclude those who offend liberal sensibilities. True diversity embraces all ethnic groups and philosophies; it can't be achieved through selectively imposed quotas.

Gays

Righty: Homosexuality is an abomination unto God; the Bible tells us so, and the Bible is the ultimate authority. Gay people commit beastly sins of the flesh, and for the most part they look and act like freaks. Real men don’t worship Liza Minnelli, talk with their wrists or gush about exquisite drapes. Real women don’t look like truckers. Gays lead an unnatural, abhorrent way of life, but we still love them and would accept them if they changed their wicked ways. All they need is Jesus and a little forced deprogramming. But until then, let’s keep them away from our children and in the closet where they belong.

Lefty: They’re here, they’re queer... get used to it! Gay people were born that way; they have no choice in deciding their sexual orientation. Discriminating against them in any form is no different from racism. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality: you see gay dogs, birds and sheep. Gays have a right to marry each other and raise children; in fact, they generally make more enlightened parents than the average obtuse breeder couple. Gay people have shaped our theater, music, art and aesthetics; without them our cities would be dull, dull, dull! We should celebrate their lifestyle, welcome their gay pride parades and organizations, and encourage our own children to explore their sexuality. How about ballet lessons for your son, Righty?

The New Moderate:

Gay people deserve to be treated as the first-class citizens they clearly are, without derision or prejudice. It must have been intolerable, in a less sensitive age, for gays to put up with all the withering innuendoes cast in their direction. How did they listen to the snide aspersions, the pansy and fairy jokes, without going psycho?

Still, The New Moderate must dispute a few of their claims. Is homosexuality natural? Sure, but so is color-blindness. So is malaria. The "naturalness" of gay sex doesn’t necessarily make it normal or praiseworthy any more than its minority status makes it sinful or perverted. It just is what it is: a departure from mainstream sexual behavior.

The claim that gay people are born gay is a half-truth. Studies of identical twins have shown that if one of the pair is gay, the other twin has roughly a 50% chance of playing for the same team -- well above the 5% estimate for the general population, but still open to non-genetic factors (including parental influence and personal choice). Probably Kinsey’s sexual continuum theory remains the most valid: those of us born at one end or the other of the spectrum are essentially captives of innate sexual desires, while those who fall somewhere between the two camps can teeter in either direction (or both).

Yes, homosexual acts have been a fact of life for ages (just ask Socrates), but the notion of gay lifestyles is a relative novelty. The New Moderate has never understood what liking musicals has to do with liking men. Do men who hunt for antiques need to come clean about their sexuality? I might be a little dense, but I just don’t see how a lust for vintage furniture equates to a lust for studly males. For example, I’m a fan of old movies and Art Deco architecture. (You got a problem wid dat?) Does The New Moderate harbor a lavender gene that makes him easy prey for the charms of Una Merkel or the Empire State Building? Nobody can be 100% sure, including me, but my experiences and desires tell me no. In fact, I’d like to see an end to such cultural stereotyping before all the arts become the province, by default, of gay men.

I suspect that because of such stereotyping, most "regular guys" studiously avoid genteel pursuits that used to be enjoyed by heterosexual gentlemen in the past. The trend is comparable to white flight from urban centers, and it’s just as hazardous to our cultural health. Why shouldn’t heterosexual men be able to study art history or confess an affection for operetta without raising eyebrows both gay and straight?

Gays should probably get used to the idea that they will always be a rather exotic minority, at least outside of liberal urban neighborhoods. Extreme gay and lesbian styles and mannerisms still look outlandish to a lot of straight people and even many gays. The "in your face" approach doesn’t win friends. In fact, gays don’t help their cause by referring to themselves as a "community," unless they aspire to live in separate gay ghettos. Our culture is already ghettoized enough.

The marriage issue is a thorny one: yes, gays are entitled to sanctified unions and the attendant benefits, but do we dare call them marriages? I don’t see how gay marriage can threaten heterosexual marriage; the decline of religion, the empowering of women, and the white middle-class aversion to procreating have been much more effective in that department. It’s just that marriage between two men or two women still strikes some of us as a little bizarre, a wry parody of traditional domestic life. (Do gays, who for decades have embraced a uniquely stylized bohemian existence, really aspire to life as Ozzie and Harriet?) We’ve only recently come to accept gayness in our midst; it might take a bit longer before most of us get used to the idea of attending a wedding shower for our friend Brad... and referring to Brad’s mate as his "husband" -- or worse yet, his "wife."

Is gay marriage just another example of the decadent silliness of our culture... another depressing milestone for a soft society headed into oblivion? Or is it a legitimate idea that would strengthen the institution of marriage as the ideal estate for all entwined couples? Something tells me that it’s both at once. My instincts oppose gay marriage; my sense of fairness obliges me to support it.

At least gay marriage might eliminate the objectionable use of the word "partner," which always poses the uncomfortable question of whether the person is a professional or sexual affiliate. For that matter, The New Moderate would like to see the word "gay" restored to its former innocence as a synonym for all that is lighthearted, festive and conducive to joy. What was wrong with "homosexual"?

Summary: Gays deserve acceptance and equal rights, but they can’t expect everyone to embrace their lifestyles or the idea of gay marriage.