Hitherto resolution has gone too much with blindness, and intelligence with dissolution: a resolution therefore running

its head against every stone wall, and an intelligence soon dying in vice, or wasted on trifles. George Santayana, Oribiter Scripta Any surfer knows that a large wave must be caught just as it breaks in order to ride its momentum towards the shore. If he's too far out to sea, no matter how large the approaching wave, he will not move forward at all. He will simply rise high in the water as the wave passes and then sink back to sea level and slightly below, after it passes. When waves of change pass through societies, individual participants rarely have a feeling of historical movement or significance. They simply bob up and down. In the early 1800's a small group of American abolitionists called for an end to African slavery. Most Americans thought of this tiny group of radical visionaries as irrelevant fools. In 1860, John Brown was viewed with the same intense hatred as Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma Federal building, in 1995. Queen Victoria said about the woman's suffrage movement of the late 19th century: "The Queen is most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of Woman’s Rights, with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor, feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feeling and propriety." It is clear that slavery could not have survived the industrial revolution and the invention of mechanized farming, and it is certain that the American Civil War was not caused by a general wish to free African slaves and integrate them into American life. In fact, Abraham Lincoln himself said, in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857. "There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together." Lincoln went on to say in the same speech, "Racial separation, must be effected by colonization... Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be." Homosexuality has been criminalized in almost all societies but, much like prostitution, unofficially tolerated and sometimes even given special status. Homosexuality comes under the general legal definition of sodomy which includes any form of sexual intercourse whose goal is not reproduction. This includes masturbation, sex with animals and children, sado-masochism and all other forms of sexual behavior that are not performed within a legally or religiously sanctioned marriage. History makes it clear that most people are socially conservative. They have approved slavery, embraced the secondary political status of women, enacted the death penalty against homosexuality and participated in the mass murders of the twentieth century without much protest, for the most part. History also demonstrates that most societies criminalize forms of sexual behavior that are considered deviant, from polyandry and polygamy to sex with and among children. But deviant sexual practices are often tolerated if they are done discretely and sometimes, as in the case of prostitution, masturbation or homosexuality, given special status. Although American advocates of sexual freedom rest their case on the freedoms guaranteed by the United States constitution, most contemporary (2010) homosexuals state that homosexuality

is beyond conscious choice and is fated by nature. They have come full circle and landed where our Puritan founding father John Winthrop started in 1620: Predestination. Everything is exactly as God willed it before the beginning of time and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. This presents Americans with a paradox: If homosexuals believe in the doctrine of sexual predestination then heterosexuals, who hate homosexuality, are justified by the same doctrine, of waging all out war against it. Obviously, this paradox doesn't stop with persecuting homosexuals: Consider sex in public, polyandry, polygamy, adultery, sex with children, with animals or any other form of sexual behavior that is disgusting to the majority. If the majority believes them to be predestined behavior that cannot be changed then their only "choice" is to prevent these behaviors with the fear of harsh punishments. Even more discouraging to those who advocate sexual libertarianism is the fact that virtually every culture has had no tolerance for aberrant behavior of any kind up to the practical limits of police control: The police can't patrol every bedroom. Masturbation is usually thought of as the least important and minor sexual deviation of all. It seems that there should be no regulation at all of masturbation. But consider the example of a husband or wife who almost always masturbates instead of having sex with his/her partner. Masturbation is usually accompanied with images. Suppose the images are homosexual. Does a partner have the right to a divorce, with all of the financial and child support implications, in such as case? Is the masturbater a homosexual even if he/she has never had an actual homosexual experience? The use of pornography during masturbation complicates the matter even further. And this situation is not unusual and before homosexuality was decriminalized it was even common. Clearly, it isn't possible to legalize homosexuality without also legalizing other forms of "deviant" sexual behavior starting with masturbation and progressing to adultery, polygamy and polyandry and from there to sado-masochism and bisexual group sex with persons of all ages. It appears that the only response to this pessimistic assessment is humor, and in 2010 there is precious little of that left in America. For example, humorously, we could imagine a future society where each biological man and woman would be free to choose (or is predestined to act out) the social role of man or woman. Large, strong, intelligent, dominant and ugly biological females would find it advantageous be social men, and weak, stupid, pretty endomorphic, passive biological males would find it easier to be social women. We could have a sitcom where the two principle characters are: 1) A large, dominant, intelligent and ugly bull dyke and 2) A meek, submissive, stupid and very pretty fairy queen, WHO ARE HAPPILY MARRIED. But as I said, there is precious little humor left in America. Puritanism does not disappear. It goes to seed, turning into tight-lipped corruption which takes itself very seriously, indeed. And that isn't funny.