Saturday, October 22, 2005
Calling It Like It Is
In language I wouldn't possibly dare to duplicate, Connor on the The Little Green Blog gets it right in mocking Joe Malchow. Whoever this 'Connor' is I owe him/her a drink on me. If it is the Connor whom I met many years at my Coed Fraternity's (Alpha Theta) party, then I'll buy him two. Malchow sarcastically remarks in a post entitled "Promoting chastity is homophobic,":
Princeton students have started a new group that aims to promote chastity as a means of avoiding teenage pregnancy and the panoply of STDs. Anscombe, named after the English philosopher, has come under attack on the Princeton campus as being "anti-gay". According to CNN, some students oppose the group because they see it as "opposing homosexual relationships." And articles in the Daily Princetonian
routinely refer to the organization as one which promotes a "conservative sexual ethic".
Such accusations seem entirely unfounded, unless chastity has a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy I don't know about.
In a vulgar stream of consciousness that unfortunately leaves out the lesbian queer identity, Connor rightly takes Malchow to task
getting directly to the heart of the matter with Malchow's remark [WARNING: Very Vulgar!]:
you're not going to be surprised that this group is fucking homophobic. it takes all of two clicks on their website to find the following preface to a big ol' heap of religious/pseudoscientific pile of bullshit bibliography: "We have not shied away from religious based arguments - or arguments advanced by religious leaders - as we are open to a good pluralism in which arguments from all vantage points that buttress familial and sexual life and ethics are welcomed."
let's go over the "religious based" (sic, motherfuckers, come on. i thought you went to princeton) argument against homosexuality: in leviticus 18, the bible gets to talking about whose nakedness to uncover and not to uncover, etc, and then drops a bomb in verse 22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." now, that sounds like a pretty serious indictment. but rewind 7 books back to leviticus 11. in verse 10 he says: "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: they shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination."
now, essentially, we have a normative position taken by leviticus, or God, or whoever, against "abomination." what constitutes abomination? for one thing, hot, gay assfucking. wait, i mean assfucking AND/OR the consumption of mussels, clams or other oceanic bivalves.
at this point it should be pretty clear that the "religious based" arguments against homosexuality are really fucking stupid, and we should move on. perhaps i am betraying my identity as a left-wing cultural elitist when i say that it's okay to go ahead and define any group or individual who gives the slightest bit of credence to the "religious based" arguments against homosexuality to be homophobic, as well as a gibbering fucking moron. this wouldn't be such a big deal, except there really AREN'T any other arguments against homosexuality. malchow likes to trip on its "biological abberance," but first of all, being biologically aberrant/engaging in "aberrant" behavior should not carry any kind of normative weight as far as whether society should confer rights on an individual. i could go on and state that we're seeing more and more results of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, etc., but i shouldn't have to.
is he really talking about people "hoisting" (or foisting) homosexuality on other people? what the fuck kind of bullshit is that? homosexuality is about a man or woman wanting to fuck an individual of the same gender. the only way that could be "foisted" on me is if a dude tried to rape me. going up to me and screaming "I THINK IT'S OKAY THAT I WANT TO FUCK OTHER DUDES IN THE ASS" isn't foisting shit, except for what should be an obvious statement of fact.