Long ago, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” noted that some homosexual rights activists particularly enjoy painting their political opponents as latent homosexuals. We don’t say this to prove any kind of larger point in America’s so-called culture wars, but we’ve merely noticed that it’s true.
And, if you ask us, it’s rather quizzical. Apparently, such activists can’t think of a more lowly insult for their enemies than calling them gay. You might have thought that this isn’t exactly a glaring example of gay pride.
Now, as we said before, we don’t mention this out of any kind of animosity. As far as we’re concerned, if you’re here and you’re queer, we’re used to it. That is even the case if you’re not technically “here” but somewhere else. Mighty nice of us, we think.
All the same, we don’t see the strategic benefit to be gained from ridiculing, say, Pat Robertson by claiming he’s a secret homosexual. We think it’s insulting to self-respecting homosexuals everywhere. Truth be told, we want this kind of nonsensical polemic to stop.
How, you might wonder, do we aim at putting a stop to it? Why, we’re delighted that you asked. The Official Schemes and Machinations Department here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” (which we call TOSMD for short) has been working on an idea for the better part of an hour, and we think it just might do the trick.
In today’s humble “post,” we hope to demonstrate the ridiculousness of labeling opponents of, say, same-sex marriage latent homosexuals. And we plan to do so by doing the exact reverse. That’s right: We’re going to offer a list of flaming homosexuals and mean-spiritedly claim that they’re secretly straighter than an un-bent arrow, that they’re collectively as un-queer as a one dollar bill.
Without much in the way of further ado, then, let the games begin:
Nathan Lane: If you ask us, this guy is beyond straight. We mean, come on: Anyone who tries to be so over-the-top flamboyant is clearly putting on a show. We bet that Mr. Lane surreptitiously enjoys female strippers and WWII documentaries.
Jodie Foster: Talk about a flagrant heterosexual! She is totally in the straight closet. Sure, she may be rumored to be a lesbian, but we ask you: Does she even remotely look like one? Just ask John Hinkley Jr., for crying out loud. And that guy’s as sane as they come.
Ricky Martin: So many people mix this up: He’s not gay, he’s Latino. And, yes, jerks, there’s a difference.
Melissa Etheridge: No self-respecting lesbian would write songs that are that bad. “Come to my window”? Oh, how sickeningly straight!
Sandra Bernhardt: Pretending that she’s a lesbian has been the greatest boon for this woman’s career that you can fathom. How else would a woman this eerily untalented be allowed to eke out a career as an entertainer?
Tom Cruise: Okay, you’ve got us here. He’s gay.
(Note: The crack young staff normally “weblog” over at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” where they are currently listening to hours of Peter Allen tunes.)
That idea is so gay.
I’m sorry, I am unable to be concerned about the “Latent Homosexuals”. I am sure they exist, but somehow, I just can’t picture them as a threat.
However, the group that does frighten me considerably are the “Latent Homo Sapiens”. You know the group… they are people, but refuse to act like it. If you examine your circle of acquaintances, I am sure that you will be able to identify a rather large percentage that would fit this category. They have inflitrated our social structure to the tipping point.
The reason gay activists do this is because, in their worldview, the greatest sin imaginable is that of hypocrisy. To label someone a hypocrite is, in their mind, to drain that person of all credibility. Never mind that every human being is a mass of contradictions, leftists believe if you can sucessfully say “hypocrite!” you have won the argument and defeated your enemy.
The problem in this case is that the ideological blinders they wear lead them to believe that if someone has a desire for sexual contact with a person of the same sex, that person is REQUIRED to believe that the state should recognize same-sex “marriages” in the same way it recognizes real marriages.
The truth they will not see is that these two things are not necessarily connected. They CAN be, but it is not a requirement.
It is possible to be gay and still recognize that socialists, radical secularists and others on the left are actually pushing the gay marriage issue because they (correctly) see the institution of marriage as a powerful stabilizing force in society, one that therefore needs to be destroyed (or at least weakened). It is possible to be gay and still recognize that if these people can redefine the concept of marriage until it becomes meaningless, they will have struck a powerful blow against the bourgeois status quo they despise. It is possible to be gay and still recognize that this is exactly what they are trying to do, though they disingenously frame the issue in a “civil rights” and “fairness” context.
There is, in other words, nothing hypocritical about being gay (secretly or otherwise) and opposing this radical agenda.
On the other hand, there IS something hypocritical about denoucing gay-bashing and gay-baiting with one breath, and using those same tactics yourself with the next.
Decades ago, in the film “Z” (Costa Garvas, I think), the right wingers were introduced (probably accurately) as thugs whose favorite tactic was to malign their morally upstanding opponents as fags .
As the film progressed the right wingers were portrayed as, you guessed it, closet gays. Great movie but I always think of that
double standard. It is unfair and politically incorrect for you to identify your opponents, rightly or wrongly, as gay. But sometimes I have to do it. That’s different.
The reason that frequently anti-gay crusaders are called latent homosexuals is because frequently they turn out to be closet homosexuals with a self-acceptance problem. There really isn’t any reason to be obsessed about homosexuality, unless you yourself are gay and can’t deal with it. It has nothing to do with whether it’s the worst insult that could be thought up. It isn’t even an insult. With your worldview (that is, agenda drives allegations, and truth takes a backseat), I’m sure you can’t understand that this comment is made because it is perceived to be true. Other people, however, live in a different world – one in which honesty has a role in discourse.
So, as usual, you don’t even understand the left, but presume to understand it, and criticize and ridicule comments that are simply over your head.
because frequently they turn out to be closet homosexuals with a self-acceptance problem.
You have an independent cite for this? I’ll bet its been the case from time to time, but frequently? Doubtful.
You know, several homosexual friends have mine have expressed their personal disgust at the act of male-female sex. They don’t think it’s wrong, but they do find it personally repulsive. I figure the anti-gay crusaders are the same way, with a bit more of a publicity-whore component to their persona.
I think people are more likely to be opinionated jerks on either side than secretly batting for the other team.
Yes, of course there is independent confirmation.
Jim West, former Republican speaker of the House for Washington State, who crusaded for years against gay rights, was run out of office for arranging gay sex over the net.
Reverend Stephen White, anti-gay crusader at Yale, was arrested for soliciting sex from an underage boy.
Steve Wilsey of Focus on the Family was convicted of molesting an eight year old boy.
Those are the ones I can name off the top of my head. There are at least dozen more if you spend ten minutes on google.
I’ve read that pedophiles are separate from homosexuals, two entirely different sexual preferences, Don. It’s also considered rather degrading to link normal, law-abiding gay people with pedophiles.
Even granting equivalence for all of your examples, you could name three (out of how many hundreds or more anti-gay types?). Google isn’t a cite, it’s a hand-wave. I’m not saying you’re right or wrong, but you are making claims without squat to back them up.
By the way, your last name wouldn’t begin with “M” would it?
That is just the kind of annecdotal examples J Irving is talking about. How about a study (other than Kinsey, which has serious issues in methodology and conclusions).
Oh, and I thought gays were always claiming they were different from the pedophiles. That the priest problem in Boston (and elsewhere) had nothing to do with gay priests.
So… of your examples, 2/3s are either not gay, or there is a high rate of pedophilia in the gay community.
Personally, I lean toward the former (pedo’s being another species of deviant
That’s curious. I could have sworn I posted a comment on this discussion.
Maybe you’re secretly anti-comment, ed.
You need to try to follow the argument.
Some people state that a motivation for anti-gay crusading is latent urges.
The blogger thinks this is an attempt to label and insult.
I stated that it is likely stated, not as an attempt to label, but as an attempt to accurately describe the motivation of the anti-gay folks.
It is unfortunately something which can’t be proved, either way. I could list another ten anti-gay crusaders who are rumoured to be gay. You’d dismiss that as unreliable, and you’d be right. I could also list three or four more who have been in trouble with underage boys (West, by the way, was soliciting young men who were above the age of consent, and was not a pedophile).
The reason that verifiable instances of anti-gay crusaders being exposed tends to be with young boys is because they get arrested. Normally someone makes an allegation that someone is engaging in legal gay sex, the allegation is denied and it isn’t pursued by the legal process. But, the fact is, that if you do some google research, you’ll easily find another dozen. Inconclusive, yes, but we’re talking about people’s private lives here, and consenting adults who don’t want to share secrets.
Now, keep with me on this. The question ISN’T whether YOU think or even whether I think the claim that anti-gay crusaders are closet cases is true. The question I was dealing with is whether the allegation is made in good faith, or whether, as the blogger alleges, it is just mudslinging. I think it is made in good faith.
And, as to your perception of the motivation of the anti-gay crusaders – your explanation doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t like to think of fat people having sex. People do all sorts of stuff sexually that I don’t care for. So, I don’t buy porn with fat people, or think of fat people having sex. My life is better if I don’t focus on sex acts I find gross, and in fact I would be making myself pretty unhappy if I did otherwise.
For someone to take a personal revulsion to a sex practice and make it into a career in which the disgusting act is always formost in one’s mind, twenty-four seven, is bizarre. Psychologically it’s nonsense and inexplicable. These people are fascinated by homosexuality, and obsess about it. It seems to me more likely that they are engaged in their own struggle between fascination and self-hatred. I can’t know this, of course, because I can’t get in their head. But it is hard for me to understand this in almost any other way.
Yes, this is old. Whatever.
Don: The entire premise of gay activists is wrong and, frankly, more damaging to the gay cause. You make the point that you do not like to see fat people have sex, so you avoid such entertainment. However, the fact remains that some gay activists are very much in the people’s face. In addition, they not only demand tolerance but, even further, acceptance: they want people to not only tolerate their predilections but also accept them as correct and worthy. This is quite unacceptable. Tolerance is good, but no one should be so blatantly forced to accept another’s behavior as good.
Now, you made the point that many anti-gay activists (“crusaders” is a highly-charged and unacceptable term) are actually gay. As you made the point, the burden of proving it lies with you. Ancedotal evidence does not suffice: what is needed is statistics – what percentage of anti-gay activists are latently gay? to what extent are they latently gay? what about their associates?
And so on and so forth.
I have no idea how your comments are intended to relate to my points.
—The entire premise of gay activists is wrong and, frankly, more damaging to the gay cause.
I don’t know what you mean by the “entire premise.” The notion of equal rights to marriage? Or something else?
—the fact remains that some gay activists are very much in the people’s face
Like who, for instance? What do you mean by in people’s face? If you mean that they are vocal about their position, that’s true, but so is every activist.
–they not only demand tolerance but, even further, acceptance
I’m sure this semantic distinction means something to you, but neither of these words accurately describe their position. What they demand is equality.
—-“crusaders” is a highly-charged and unacceptable term
If someone spends tens of thousands of hours and tens of millions of dollars promoting a political point of view, getting initiatives on state ballots and proposing a constitutional amendment, that person is a crusader.
The remainder of your comments have already been discussed, and since you don’t address the relevant comments, stand as refuted already. The phenonomen is called ego-dystonic homophobia.