I have that reaction every time I see the characters who show up at every gay pride parade — groups like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (drag queens dressed as nuns) and Dykes on Bikes (leather-clad lesbians). And I had it again when I read a class description in the University of Michigan’s fall 2000 catalogue, "How to Be Gay: Male Homosexuality and Initiation."

Taught by homosexual English professor David Halperin, the course description proclaims that "Just because you happen to be a gay man doesn’t mean that you don’t have to learn how to become one." It promises to explore "cultural artefacts and activities that seem to play a prominent role in learning how to be gay: Hollywood movies, grand opera, Broadway musicals, and other works of classical and popular music, as well as camp, diva-worship, drag, muscle culture, style, fashion, and interior design."

At the risk of being called a narrow-minded homophobe, I’m not convinced this class will be the highlight of any student’s academic career. Neither are a bunch of other people. Actually, that’s putting it mildly; at least one Michigan regent, Daniel Horning, is siding with the state’s branch of the American Family Association in calling for the course’s cancellation. So far the university is keeping the course, with Provost Nancy Cantor insisting it has passed "a rigorous review by the faculty."

That may not speak well for the UM faculty’s idea of "rigorous review." On the other hand, I do think the course has a certain (perhaps unintended) value. Halperin is calling attention to the existence of a distinct gay culture that a non-gay could not describe without being accused of blatant stereotyping and bigotry. Indeed, he’s rather matter-of-fact about it.

Halperin’s candor is a reminder that some gay stereotypes, however unflattering, do have a basis in reality. You don’t have to look far to see that. "Mainstream" groups like the Human Rights Committee sponsor an annual National Coming Out Day on college campuses, with materials promoting activities like "a queer prom" and an ‘80s party with "a drag show commemorating the divas of 1988." "Mainstream" gay magazines like The Advocate are full of predominantly sexual ads, where no one is over 30 and many look to be teen boys.

Not all homosexuals go in for this sort of thing, of course. Many lead rather quiet lives and have little interest in either bizarre display or political activism. Still, as I said, there clearly is a distinctive gay culture. And whatever variations exist within it, you can’t help noticing some recurring traits — the rampant promiscuity, the tasteless flamboyance, the in-your-face pleasure it takes in offending other people’s moral and aesthetic sensibilities.

This reality stands in stark contrast to the sanitized picture the media present when dealing with issues like same-sex "marriage." If you judged by typical press coverage, you’d get the impression that homosexual activists aren’t at all alienated from traditional American culture. You’d think they’re eager to join it — to adopt the values of monogamy and family, to pursue essentially normal lives — if only society would let them.

In truth, gay culture is characterized by its lack of norms — moral norms, that is. Many gay males have hundreds of sexual partners, as numerous studies have shown. (See "Not Afraid to Come Out.") Homosexuals freely acknowledge this among themselves, albeit in value-neutral terms. As columnist Hastings Wyman wrote in a prominent gay publication, The Washington Blade, "Many Gay men, accustomed to a loosely structured love/sex life, aren’t especially anxious to sweat blood and tears for the right to commit oneself to one man for life." ("Loosely structured" — nice euphemism, that.)

Having no norms, gay culture also has no real concept of perversion. As decadent as American culture has become, promiscuity and pornography still draw lots of moral opposition among heterosexuals. There’s no parallel to speak of among homosexuals — no protests of "adult" shops or sex clubs, no sense that any sexual conduct is actually sinful. There’s only the amoral standard of personal preference. Even objections to adult-child sex have been relatively recent, tepid and tactical. (The message gay political strategists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen suggest for groups supporting such behavior: "We’re not judging you, but others do, and very harshly; please keep a low profile. You offend the public more than other gays.")

For Christians, it can’t be surprising that gay culture’s deformities and vices go so far beyond homosexuality itself. While we understand homosexuality to be innately wrong, we also understand that the bigger problem is people rejecting God’s standard, and thus God Himself. Once that happens, the door is wide open to any sort of behavior. As Dostoyevsky wrote, if there is no God, everything is permissible.