The Plain Truth About Homosexuality–Part Two: Brad MacDonald Shows Contempt for the World

PCG's Young Ambassadors: totally not gay.

Last week, we gave you a brief outline of the history of homophobia that revealed its origins as part nature and (at least in the western world) part Christian nurture–for which we must be forever grateful to Emperor Constantine, friend to fools. Now that we know where homophobic bigotry in the West comes from, it is time to investigate the homophobia promulgated by our favorite Fundamentalist sect (and, of course, all the other Fundamentalist sects).

Oh, didn’t we mention that Armstrongism is just a Fundamentalist Christian sect, specifically an Adventist splinter-group, and therefore of Millerite origin–as in, followers of the very same Miller who gave us the Great Disappointment, and who himself was a Baptist preacher? Well, it is. There. So much for Armstrong’s version of “church history”. He wasn’t an apostle of the original church, he was just a nut cleaving to a heretical twig on the Baptist branch of the Jesus tree.

In fact there is exactly zero difference between Armstrongist teachings on homosexuality and those of mainstream Fundamentalist groups. They all utilize the same talking points, usually couched in identical turns of phrase. And their passionate bigotry hasn’t matured a fraction beyond the ignorant, ranting lunacy of 12th century Christianity. Without straining credulity in the slightest, one can imagine any of today’s hotheaded preachers bewailing (a la Bernard of Cluny) the fact “there are now far too many hermaphrodites.”

For an example of this reactionary nonsense from the throwback homophobe set, we turn to our trusty nemesis, the Trumpet. The latest offering of bullshit from Brad MacDonald (who enjoys the overweening title “columnist” without ever having had to complete any legitimate journalistic training–and it shows) is a petulant and effete complaint about the popularity of the television program Glee. His column, entitled “Flee Glee”, was taken off the front page almost immediately after it was posted, for reasons unknown. But one of our editors, the illustrious Jace, was able to retrieve it somehow (all I know is his methods involved something called a “TARDIS”), allowing us to shred it publicly for your enjoyment.

So, we will be devoting this entire second installment in The Plain Truth About Homosexuality series to untangling Brad’s mess and exposing the flaws in the underlying ideology. This is only a brief stopover, though: in subsequent installments we will delve deeply and seriously into the various homophobic myths that inflict our modern world. Consider this a comedy break if you like! So, without further ado, I present to you, Brad MacDonald, columnist…

Losing It Over Losing It

What sends Brad into an undignified tizzy, dramatically clutching his pearls and flailing for his fainting couch, is Glee’s portrayal of two homosexual teens (males!–O ultimate madness!) losing their virginity. The episode was called “The First Time”, included both straight and gay romantic encounters, and was handled responsibly by all reasonable accounts. Brad’s own source, Kevin Fallon of the Atlantic, puts it this way:

Meghan Lewit wrote here back in April, that today’s shows “mirror the glassy-eyed detachment and [casual] attitudes towards sex that pervaded teen pop culture in the ’80s,” while ’90s series “debated having sex like it was a U.N. Security Council Resolution.” This week’s episode of Glee bucked all those trends. Rarely has the act been portrayed with as much thought to the impressionability of young viewers and the honesty of the situation as it was on “The First Time.”

In other words, this episode of Glee did a better job at being sensitive to the whiny demands of puritanical parents than did similar shows from the ’80s. But that wasn’t good enough for Brad (or the clueless prudes of the Parents Television Council, who called it “reprehensible” for “celebrating” teen sex). Here’s Brad’s take:

Take the Parents Television Council, the leading television watchdog in the United States. The ptc slammed last week’s Glee episode as “reprehensible.” Not because of the flagrant teenage homosexuality—it said that “the gender of the high school characters involved is irrelevant”—but because it celebrated “children having sex.” The ptc is right, of course. Celebrating teens engaging in sexual activity on tv only promotes it in real life.

Scrrrtch! Hold on a minute. What definition of “celebrate” are these morons using (or, for that matter, “children”)? To me, it sounds like the show was overly careful to treat teens’ loss of virginity as at least minimally and potentially fraught with peril. I’ll let Brad’s source give you the facts Brad didn’t bother reporting. Fallon, again:

Yet the emphasis of “The First Time” was on the overwhelming emotional roller coaster that surrounds the act, far more so than on the physical aspects of it—something that one would imagine the PTC, if not most parents everywhere, appreciating. The show focuses on the romance of it all, with both couples coming to the mutual decision that it is, in fact, “the right time.”

Birth control is mentioned multiple times, with Finn and Puck having a heart-to-heart about it. At one point there’s a healthy and hilarious conversation among all the girl characters about sex and first times. Quinn suggests waiting not just because she got pregnant when she lost her virginity, but because she gave up something that she can never get back before she was ready. Santana alerts Rachel that it will likely be disappointing: “It’s like being smothered under a sweaty sack of potatoes soaked in body spray.” But Tina reminds everyone that at the right moment, with the right person, and after careful consideration, the first time can be something to cherish. Every nervous teen should be so lucky to have such a nuanced discussion to educate her decision.

See? They even brought up the dangers of body spray.

What I’d like to know is when do the hipsters of the PTC expect people to lose their virginity? In their 30s, like they did (presumably)? Hey, considering my history, I’ll be the last to knock it–better late than never, right? But even I know the late start isn’t for everybody, and that pressuring people to avoid having sex when they want to is a dick move. In fact, it doesn’t work for most people. The truth is–close your eyes, PTC–most people lose their virginity in their teens. I know, right? Scary!

Let’s be rational for a moment. This might be a newsflash to some of you: teens have sex! Even if you don’t want them to. Even if you don’t know it. Even if there was never a television program “celebrating” the fact, they would still do it. Before there even was television to watch, teens were fucking like mad. Of course, we didn’t call them “teens” then; they were treated like oppressed adults, with adult responsibilities but without adult liberties (even FOXnews gets this much right). In the glorious olden days of yore that fundamentalists harken back to so fondly, righteous old men sexed up their adolescent wives, often without the latter’s consent. But that’s fine, right? Isn’t it funny how our cultural mores shift with time to match what we have determined is rationally ethical? We are evolving toward a higher ethic, expanding our circle of empathy and thinking progressively more clearly about more nuanced questions.

Some of us, though, simply aren’t keeping up. Some of us think morality demands that we remain in the state of unenlightened bigotry that characterized Medieval society (or worse, that of Middle Eastern desert nomads). Folks like the PTC are stuck ethically in an attitude that pines unrealistically for non-sexual teens. Granted, this is a step above arranged marriages and virtual sexual slavery of adolescent girls to wealthy, old men (and is, perhaps, a reaction to this historical reality). But it isn’t quite up to the level of the advanced ethics of modern civilization. Now, we are starting to understand that teens are, you know, people, with rights. They have urges and needs and are capable of, and should be allowed to make, informed decisions about sex.

“Not so!” say Brad and the PTC, “teens are our kids and we love them so much we don’t want them to have information that might lead to their deciding to do something we don’t want them to do.” So, you see, to some, teenagers are still little more than mindless property. Authoritarian parents are so afraid of losing control over the automatons God gave them to lead around by the wrist. It gives rise to the kind of paranoid histrionics displayed by PTC. They don’t seem to get it: no matter how tightly they pucker their sphincters, they aren’t going to stop “their kids” having sex. All they’re doing is stressing themselves out over something that is. Going. To. Happen. The best thing PTC-type parents can do is learn how to relax, maybe take a Zen Buddhist class or two, let go a little bit, smoke some pot, have sex, in a word…chill the fuck out!

What the World Needs Now…is More Hate!

Brad, of course, was not satisfied with PTC’s rebuke; fundamentalists are, as a whole, even more ethically retarded than authoritarian puritans like PTC. He took offense at their conspicuous lack of a particular form of bigotry that is dear to him:

But where was the similarly stinging rebuke of teenag homosexuality, a theme that pervades Glee, and especially last week’s episode?
Liz Perle, the editor in chief of Common Sense Media, was even more blasé. “Homosexuality is a part of life in our kids’ world—no matter what your family’s beliefs are,” she stated. Instead of criticizing Glee, Perle suggested parents watch the episode with their children and educate them on homosexuality. (No thanks!) The lack of a backlash is remarkable. More remarkable, however, is the fact that most conservatives barely recognize their defeat. Meanwhile, liberal activists are celebrating what they know is a critical victory.

Poor, poor Brad. No one hates gays anymore. Or, at least, that’s what he’d like you to believe. The truth is a bit darker than that. Apparently Brad has not gone off the PCG compound enough to notice the raging homophobia on the outside (from the loud, well-funded, and stupid, that is–not necessarily the majority). More likely, though, he’s just being his normal, disingenuous self. Brad’s team is in it to win it! They are evidently aiming to be seen as the most bigoted group on the planet, so it would not be convenient for them to mention reports of hate crimes and discrimination against gays, bigoted fly-by-night “research” councils, or the unfortunate existence of Fred Phelps.

Someone's getting Flurry's message out to the largest audience possible, and it ain't PCG.

Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist offspring are doing more to spread Armstrong’s hateful “warning” message (the essential elements of which are, if Flurry’s efforts are any indication: America is doomed! Repent and be saved! By the way, God hates fags!) across the “modern-day nations of Israel” than any of the Armstrongist splinter groups could ever hope for. This is just one family! And they are doing a mighty work for Yahweh.

Is it any wonder PCG and other Armstrongist groups work so hard not to mention their efforts? Westboro Baptist has, for better or worse, become one of the world’s most recognizable and enduring memes. They’ve even attracted the attention of Flurry’s boyfriend, Bill O’Reilly. And still, the silence over at the Trumpet is deafening.

Gerald must be really jealous.

Glee is Just Part of the Wider Conspiracy to Make Us More Tolerant as a Society!

Brad goes on:

It was a milestone for the radical homosexual juggernaut too, mostly because it was a victory without significant opposition! Without doubt, Hollywood’s homosexual activists noticed the dearth of anger surrounding last week’s episode and are already planning their next “milestone.” They’re thinking to themselves, If we can get away with showing teenagers engaging in homosexual sex on prime-time television, what can’t we do?

How refreshing, a conspiracy theory! Note that Brad MacDonald has read the minds of “Hollywood’s homosexual activists” and has discovered their diabolical plot to promote acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality. Okay, Brad, but how did you manage this psychic clairvoyance? Divination? Consulting of mediums? Oh, you used the Urim and Thummim. It’s all good, then; that’s totally not witchcraft.

This is none other than the “gay agenda” conspiracy theory promoted by the “worldly” conservative pundits PCG pseudo-elites love to masturbate to. Here’s how it works: they take a real agenda with laudable goals and tack on a few crazy-sounding objectives they pulled directly out of their puckered-up assholes; things like, “Them gays are tryin’a recruit our children into the homosekshul lifestyle!” How easy! Let’s see if I can do something similar. The Armstrongist agenda: lie to you and take your money; destroy your family; idolize a stupid, dead guru; suck all the life out of your human potential until it ain’t so “incredible” anymore; keep you as ignorant about reality as they are; and inflict teens with demon-possession through the medium of Glee. (Okay, so I totally made up one of those.)

So, just because I can say shit, does that mean you should take it seriously? No, and Brad doesn’t get a pass either. The next time someone starts yammering about a “gay agenda” of “recruiting” children, ask them for evidence and watch them sputter ineffectually. I assure you it will be hilarious. And, protip, Brad, cite your goddamn sources!

Glee Not Dishonest Enough for Brad

Back to Glee, a show that, beginning with its title—a term that invokes images of joy and merriment—creates a mesmerizing world of teenage fun. Each episode overflows with well-dressed, perfectly complexioned, vibrant teens—mostly waif-like, hairless, pink-shirt, tight-jean-wearing metrosexuals—living a carefree life. Each episode is peppered with catchy, delightfully sung show tunes, smartly choreographed (albeit painfully effeminate) dancing and, of course, plenty of teenage sex. Glee is a teenager’s paradise, a world without shadows or blemishes, without law and authority, without financial or moral constraints—and without consequences.

This is rich, coming from someone who believes in an imminent Utopia. At first, I thought he was talking about the campus of HWA College (there’s certainly some painfully effeminate dancing going on there). Even in the cult, these little ministerial lap dogs (they don’t deserve to be called “students” since they aren’t learning any actual knowledge) were a running joke. Their can-do attitude, plastered-on smiles, and “stick-to-it-iveness” just made you want to smack the sanctimony right off their bright, little faces. But you refrained because you realized that behind the facade of dutiful joy was a broken young person: cut-off from the wider world, often indoctrinated from birth and woefully undereducated, preyed upon by relatively powerful old men, overworked, and generally victimized. Utopia, they say, is highly overrated, and this is doubly true when it is filtered through the visionary dictates of a despotic, lying thief.

And, speaking of lying, Brad is misrepresenting the show, at least according to the source he links to. It apparently isn’t true that this episode of Glee portrayed “a world without shadows or blemishes, without law and authority, without financial or moral constraints–and without consequences.” Once again, according to Fallon:

Birth control is mentioned multiple times, with Finn and Puck having a heart-to-heart about it. At one point there’s a healthy and hilarious conversation among all the girl characters about sex and first times. Quinn suggests waiting not just because she got pregnant when she lost her virginity, but because she gave up something that she can never get back before she was ready. Santana alerts Rachel that it will likely be disappointing: “It’s like being smothered under a sweaty sack of potatoes soaked in body spray.” But Tina reminds everyone that at the right moment, with the right person, and after careful consideration, the first time can be something to cherish. Every nervous teen should be so lucky to have such a nuanced discussion to educate her decision.

I’m trying to figure out what would have satisfied Brad’s standard for pessimism. Maybe they should have sent the message that sex gives you AIDs, magically binds you to any person you fuck–for life (even with a condom? What about same-sex couplings?), and makes you pregnant with a baby you will probably have to eat in the Tribulation. If you’re going to critique, Brad, you should come to the table with some suggestions of your own.

Well, as it happens, he does have something to say about the failure of his straw man of Glee to address the supposed dangers of homosexuality:

There’s no recognition of the fact that between 30 and 40 percent of homosexual teens have attempted suicide, that the suicide rate among homosexual teens is three to four times higher than their heterosexual counterparts, or that homosexual teens are more than twice as likely to experience depression. There’s no mention that homosexual relations are more dangerous to physical health than heterosexual relations.

Bradley, Bradley, Bradley. Bad move. This might be why the article was taken down as quickly as it was published (though I’m probably giving the Trumpet’s editors too much credit). The link he provides here is indeed to a study showing higher rates of suicide among LGBT teens, but the authors discuss in great detail the cause of these higher rates–right on the first fucking page! Here’s what it says:

Risk and protective factors help explain suicidal behavior and inform program and practitioner approaches to reducing suicidal behavior. LGB youth generally have more risk factors, more severe risk factors, and fewer protective factors than heterosexual youth. For example, LGB youth often lack important protective factors such as family support and safe schools, and more LGB young people appear to experience depression and substance abuse. In addition, there is risk unique to LGB youth related to the development of sexual orientation, for example, disclosure at an early age raises risks. It would be difficult to overstate the impact of stigma and discrimination against LGBT individuals in the United States. Stigma and discrimination are directly tied to risk factors for suicide. [emphasis added]

Do these idiots even read their own sources? (More to the point, do they trust their readers not to?) What this means is that the bigotry Brad is promoting is the very cause of the higher rates of suicide among gay teens. Claiming that homosexuality itself is dangerous because it is correlated with higher suicide rates is completely illogical. It’s like punching someone in the face and then proclaiming their face the cause of their black eye–and then hating them for it. Correlation is not causation. But, yes, Brad, do keep raising the rates of suicide attempts. I’m sure that’s what Jesus would do.

By the way, I have no clue where he gets the idea that “homosexual relations are more dangerous to physical health than heterosexual relations”, since he doesn’t cite a source. But, fuck it, let’s do his work for him.

So, just briefly, the issue here seems to be pretty much identical to the one involving suicide and depression statistics (i.e., mental health). Take a look at this Pro/Con presentation, and notice that all three of the quotes offered in support of the proposition that increased health risks are attributed to homosexual orientation, are from religious organizations (one from Family Research Council, one from Traditional Values Coalition, and one from an MD who is a board member of Family Research Council), while five of six refuting this notion are science and health professionals. Interesting, but not really proof of anything. What breaks this case, though, is that it is entirely attribution biason the part of the numbskulls who preach it from their pulpits. Gregory M. Herek, PhD, Professor of Psychology, lays it down:

Phenomena should not be assumed to result from sexual orientation simply because they are observed in the gay community. Alcoholism, for example, is a serious problem in some sectors of the gay community. Attributing it to homosexuality per se, however, exemplifies the fundamental attribution bias… It explains behavior entirely in terms of personal characteristics while ignoring situational factors.

Just as with the suicide statistics, correlation does not imply causation. Just because a study finds a correlation between homosexuality and certain higher health risks doesn’t mean that homosexuality itself caused the higher health risks–any more than it would mean that higher health risks cause homosexuality. There is no reasonable, proposed mechanism by which sexual activities between two men or two women would be more dangerous than sexual activities between a man and a woman. So, what explains the correlation? Those situational factors Dr. Herek mentioned probably have a lot to do with it, and likely the most influential situation in this case is bigotry. Kerryn Phelps, MBBS, Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Medicine in the Schools of Public Health and the Discipline of General Practice at Sydney University (breath), explains:

The common experience of discrimination means that the health of non-heterosexual populations differs from that of the general population. It is most important to state that nearly all of these increased health risks are a direct result of the societal marginalisation and stigmatisation of sexual minorities. They ARE NOT due to people being identified as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Homosexuality itself does not pose some genetic or biological hazard. It is the negative reactions of others to it that creates the problems.

Besides, even if homosexuality led to increased health risks, would that, in and of itself, make it morally wrong to be gay? Would that excuse the bigotry and discrimination exhibited by the Brad MacDonalds of the world? No. It would make it a public health challenge, just like heterosexual sex, work-related stress, and driving cars.

So, Brad, if you’re reading (and we think you probably are), can the bullshit, as it’s contributing to a public health crisis.

Someone Needs to Come Out of the Closet

Now it seems Brad is frustrated about something or other. Let’s try and see if we can’t sort this out. He continues (getting a bit snippy if you ask me):

In fact, Glee puts homosexuality on a pedestal. Like so many of the homosexuals on tv, Glees homosexual characters are usually the happiest, the trendiest, the most popular, the best dressed, and the most sophisticated and cultured. The message is subtle but strong: The homosexual lifestyle is something to aspire to.

O ultimate horror! One is left wondering how Brad would like to see the gay kids portrayed: dressed in rags, with heroin tracks and a sign saying, “I’d rather be burning at the stake”? Despite his use of superlatives, apparent happiness, trendiness, popularity, style, sophistication and culture are all relative to the viewer’s discretion. It raises the question, therefore, why Brad seems to be most impressed with the gay boys. Reading further, though, we discover that he had something a little different in mind. What he really wants to see is what is called in the gay community a bear. Notice, it’s intriguing:

Absent from Glee, and pretty much every other television show these days, is the barrel-chested outdoorsman, a man with hair on his chest, a deep voice, strong gestures, a love of sports, art and fine music, a likeable personality and quick intellect, and a willingness to serve and respect women. In other words, anything resembling the traditional, masculine man!

Brad's kind of man

It’s true that bears don’t get much press, and that there aren’t many bear characters on television. But there is at least one that I know of. His name is Mr. Slave and he appears on the show South Park. Granted, he is an intentionally lame animation. But give him a chance, Brad; you might find that he grows on you. After all, beggars can’t be choosers. And it has to be better than jacking off to Glee; at least South Park is actually funny.

Thankfully, Brad does not let his disappointment deter him from continuing his rant:

Watching shows like Glee is deadly. It’s so easy to get caught up in the emotion, in the visual, sensual appeal. And to forget that brightness is not evidence of purity; that smiles are not always a sign of happiness; and that perfect harmonies and slick dancing are not the result of a healthy, stable lifestyle. In 2 Corinthians 11, the Apostle Paul writes, “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” The devil is appealing; he sings like Pavarotti and dances like Astaire—but he’s mean and miserable and the enemy of peace and happiness.

Oh, thank you, Brad. What would us stupid, clueless kids do without your wise hyperbole and paranoia? Only uptight, conservative morons like you are capable of recognizing that slickly produced sitcoms are not exact replications of reality. And only uptight, conservative morons like you would proclaim them “deadly” because of this. Hey, remember those parables Jesus taught? Fiction! It’s so easy to get caught up in the easy answers and lazy reasoning of religious gurus, isn’t it? You might even call it deadly!

And what about those candy-ass kids you’ve got down there on the compound? You sure do portray them as being eternally joyful, like little angels of light, singing perfect harmonies and dancing around slickly for your entertainment and PR campaigns. What kind of message are you trying to convey? That being a dupe for a cult-leader’s interests results in purity and happiness and a healthy, stable lifestyle? Well, none of that is true, really, is it? But thankfully we can see through your charade without resorting to this non-sequitur of yours claiming that if it looks good it must be deadly. After all, it isn’t just the gay boys in Glee who look good–except maybe to you.

You can’t stay in that closet forever, Bradley. Renounce your self-loathing and go get your papa bear!

O Ultimate Madness! More Conspiracy Theories!

Brad can’t help elaborating on his next-favorite conspiracy theory (second only to one involving a ten-headed beast of pagan origins, inarticulately shoehorned into some patent nonsense about Europe taking over the world). And please take note of his sneaky propagandist trick of transforming the democratic process into an evil conspiracy when it doesn’t support his ideology. “Our” politics, legal systems and educational institutions are not intended to be answerable only to right wing prudes with sticks up their asses (in other words, “Why does Brad hate America?”)–and they certainly are not answerable to petty cultists who don’t fucking vote, so he should be careful how he uses the word “our”:

Of course, the homosexual juggernaut isn’t simply taking over media. It’s invading our politics, legal systems and educational institutions. Since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex “marriage” in 2004, six states have since jumped on the bandwagon. This past July, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill requiring public schools to teach students about the contributions of “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans” to U.S. history. In New York, a curriculum is being developed that will educate middle and high schoolers in not just homosexual practices, but other unmentionable fetishes.

Unmentionable? Huh, that sounds like a challenge to me. Let’s see: spanking, bondage, domination and submission…did I mention spanking?–how hard core do we want to go? Rape fantasies? Sure. I’m game. Unlike Bradley here (and maybe you!), I’m not afraid of the prospect of consensual play. And I sure as fuck shouldn’t be. There’s absolutely nothing amiss here! But the bigots don’t like it. Nosiree! And they don’t want their children (or anybody, for that matter) to know that anything except straight people and traditional, vanilla-type sexual options exist (if you call that sex–just kidding). They would rather teens just stumble blindly into these realities uninformed. They would rather their kids do it like they do: conventionally, with conventional results and with an abiding fear and hatred for those who aren’t satisfied by mere convention.

But the whole pretense is the height of hypocrisy: for example, did you ever hear of a domineering cultist husband giving his wife a safe word before spanking her for a lack of submissiveness? Strange how these “unmentionable fetishes” pop up with such frequency in your cult, Brad. The only difference is that this conventional shit is coercive instead of properly consensual. (I guess it’s only wrong if both parties actually want it. Now, that’s perverted.)

Next we get to hear Brad complain that, “Meanwhile, across America legal and other actions are being carried out against priests, students and virtually anyone who opposes homosexuality.”

Note that neither of his links are to an example of “legal” actions, so Brad’s being a weasel (big surprise). What we have here are cases in which (1) a priest is transferred for taking out bigoted political ads in the name of the Church, during a campaign, and (2) a student is suspended for “speaking his mind” in the presence of an over-sensitive teacher. The first case is cut and dried: Bishop corrects priest for crossing a line that would possibly get the Church into hot water over separation of church and state issues. The second case is one of school policy, in which free speech is not necessarily sacrosanct and the maintenance of order is a legally-sanctioned priority. Likely the teacher overreacted and the school administrators sided with the teacher, initially–ultimately the little bigot was only suspended for one day, and the fiasco won’t touch his squeaky academic record. So, nothing really happened in either of these incidents that would reasonably support Brad’s claim that “legal…actions are being carried out against…virtually anyone who opposes homosexuality.” It’s just more propaganda from a paranoid cult. Like this:

Britain is under assault too. In Liverpool, homosexual hangouts are now identified by rainbow emblems on public signs. Meanwhile, the British government is throwing the book at hotel owners who refuse homosexual couples, registrars who refuse to marry homosexuals, foster parents who oppose homosexuality, and adoption agencies that won’t assign children to homosexual couples. The government is also rewriting school curricula to condone and promote the lgbt lifestyle.

OMG! Rainbows on public signs! Government enforcement of non-discrimination laws! School curricula that doesn’t promote anti-gay bigotry! Join me and Bernard of Cluny in a rousing shout of, “O ultimate madness! For shame!” You’d think Brad would be happy to see gay bars prominently identified so he knows where to go to meet single bears. The ultimate madness continues:

This movement thrives on the silence and inactivity of its victims. The pertinent question then is, why are most people, even “conservatives” and supposed Christians, silent? Why is it that so many oppose homosexuality inwardly, but only a few have the moral fortitude to stand up to it?

Victims? So many? Moral fortitude? Hey, Brad, I don’t see you protesting soldiers’ funerals, waving “God Hates Fags!” signs around. Where’s your sense of victimhood and moral fortitude? The best you can do is write insipid articles that get retracted? For shame!

Pay attention, Brad: let the young bigot brigade show you how it's done.

A very vocal minority does not a majority make. Although folks like Fred Phelps and the unholy spawn he calls a “church” are a bunch of loud-mouthed shit-stirrers, their message is far from popular. I couldn’t find any data on folks who answer “Yes” to, “Should gay people be rounded up and stoned to death?”, but this Pew survey clearly shows that a majority (as of 2009, and growing) support same-sex civil unions. That’s a far-cry from Brad’s claim that “so many oppose homosexuality,” unless by “so many” he means “only religious conservatives.” It’s true, Americans might not support gay marriage in droves–there are still a lot of religious bigots with hangups out there–but the anti-gay message Brad’s spreading has everything to do with homosexuality itself–as in, its very existence offends him and his ilk on some sub-rational basis he feels the need to rationalize (why, one wonders).

Take a look at the table below for more relevant statistical information. Brad’s insinuation that most Americans inwardly agree with his message of hate, discrimination, and bigotry, but are just too cowardly to speak up, is demonstrably false (those who hate gays are speaking up, they just don’t represent the majority view)–and if he actually believes it, that just shows how naive and childish an Armstrongist can be.

Hate has a conservative bias.

Civil Rights?–all Wrong, According to Brad

Ugh, I’m starting to grow weary of Brad, aren’t you? Let’s give him a couple more chances to say something intelligent. This looks promis…oh, nope, never mind:

A large part of the answer lies in the 1960s, a decade marked by the pursuit of freedom from perceived gender inequality. Of course, the institution most targeted for infringing on women’s rights was marriage. So, beginning in the ’60s, traditional marriage fell under near-constant attack, from feminists and intellectuals, from politicians and the media and, eventually, even religious leaders. As the years passed, despite the continued widespread practice of marriage, respect for the institution waned. Meanwhile, divorce rates soared, as did single motherhood, abortions and promiscuous sex.

Ah, yes. The paradise of pre-’60s America, where no one ever had sex outside of marriage, women stayed in the kitchen where they belonged, mothers who were abandoned by their husbands were shamed along with their bastard kids, abortions were accomplished with the deft yank of a coat hanger, and any uppity gays or niggers were strung up on trees all proper-like. That’s the world I want to live in, how about you? So, Brad adds misogyny (and possibly racism) to his cultural wish-list. How charming.

But let’s examine briefly his actual contention here: “traditional marriage” was “attacked” in the ’60s, which led to a rise in divorce, single motherhood, abortions, and (O incontinent horror!) “promiscuous sex”. What this really comes down to is that women should not be allowed out of the house. It’s great that Brad can tie this objective of imprisoning and demeaning women to the related, apparent goal of ensuring the misery of unsuitable marriages, increased spousal abuse, child abuse and neglect, and the suppression of healthy sexual activity.

The various counter-cultural movements of the ’60s, ushering in a “new morality”, were a necessary step in our ethical development as a more civil society. That Brad doesn’t understand this, that he sees this progress in terms of an “attack” on “traditional marriage”, merely demonstrates his high level of ignorance and moral obstinacy.

And there’s more…

Gradually, and without traditional marriage as a defining influence in human relations, new ideas about relationships—and age-old perversions—crept into the mainstream. The cultural embrace of homosexuality is a direct result of our rejection of traditional marriage.

No, Brad, these “age-old perversions” are being accepted by western society because most of us have developed the good sense to put down the mindrot of your Bronze Age idol, the Bible, and of the superstitious, pre-scientific moralizing of barbaric, Medieval monks, long enough to see the light and be roused out of the idiotic stupor that ignorant, supernatural religion (the real “age-old perversion” in this story) has cast upon us as a civilization. So, here we are with more liberty, justice, tolerance and mental health as a result, and all you can do is complain about this triumph, casting aspersions and making up fantastical connections between increased civil rights and an apocryphal “rejection” of some idealized “traditional” marriage. You’re a child seeing patterns in clouds, except, unlike the child, you actually expect us to believe your delusions are real. In other words, not only do you need to grow up, you need to stop being a moron.

Now, I think I’ll go back to watching the Glee girls prance around the school library half-naked. God bless America!

27 thoughts on “The Plain Truth About Homosexuality–Part Two: Brad MacDonald Shows Contempt for the World

  1. Same thing for those Westboro Baptist kids. Which group is worse, you think; the ones who wear their demon-horns on their head or those who mask their hate behind fancy dance numbers? And I’m antichrist? Come on. Whitewashed tombs and what-not. I wonder how many Armstrong Auditorium shows would get canceled if the performers knew that rabid homophobes would be signing their checks.

  2. Those Young Ambassadors look….sort of inter-related, don’t they? It will come to that, in the end, as the COG’s lose more and more members. They remaining holdouts will have to start marrying each other. In the end, young ministers will be marrying their own sisters. It’s a bleak future. It’s HWA version of “Flowers in the Attic.”

  3. hahahaha! Ohh, brilliant! Utterly hilarious. It is slightly disturbing, though, that I used to would have (time travel verb conjugations) accepted most of the article as “right on” w/o actually looking beneath the surface and seeing the utter nonsense and hate tied up in it.

    I always thought it was taught that god hates the sin, not the sinner–accept the world the way it is and learn more about god’s way and warn the world that god will punish them for their sins…then comes the Wonderful World Tomorrow. Hmmm, guess that’s why I’m out…

    • “I always thought it was taught that god hates the sin, not the sinner–accept the world the way it is and learn more about god’s way and warn the world that god will punish them for their sins…then comes the Wonderful World Tomorrow.”

      Bingo. That’s the way I always understood it to be–until Flurry dragged us into the culture wars and Armstrongism (Flurry version) was slightly morphed into a non-voting, ultra-right-wing, Euro-conspiracy theory sect. And by “slightly” I mean just that: Armstrongism was just begging to be politicized.

  4. Pingback: Straight Marriages – Gay Unions :Austin Attorney

  5. I freely admit to homosexual feelings toward people I’ve been close to in the past.

    But gay is more than homosexual. Homosexual desire is universal; in fact, it is the foundation of military cohesion, and why the military is so self conscious about open homosexuals serving. (I am a pacifist and so I do not throw support behind movements to allow gays to slaughter people).

    The tacit meaning of “gay” is “unmanly”. And “manly” is everything that is required of soldiers. The antithesis is the mother. These two essential forms of human labor power (the soldier and the mother) are dichotomous, and so a bifurcated gender system is enforced in order to produce both.

    In a world of competing patriarchal nation states, sensitive men and assertive women muck of the works.

    In a high-tech globalized, united, overpopulated world, soldiers and mothers are superfluous. So, in the transitionary epoch in which we are living, a space opens up for freedom from bifurcated gender, and this is manifested (at least initially) as the gay rights movement.

    But make no mistake, homosexual desire is universal, and every man, straight or gay, strokes a dick, every day.

    • This all sounds as plausible as it sounds unfalsifiable. You don’t cite a source.

      Furthermore, I think it is dubious (and an apparent argument by slogan) to equate homosexual desire with masturbation (it is, if anything, a reduction of homosexuality to a penis fetish, and a non-sequitur in the first place–you could just as easily say that female gender is universal because every man strokes his own penis, as if penis-stroking defined femaleness). Masturbation has nothing whatsoever to do with attraction and is by definition oriented toward self-pleasure, whereas homosexual desire does imply attraction and involves pleasuring others. Although I do unabashedly engage in masturbation on a semi-regular basis, it just doesn’t translate well into a homosexual desire (except as a joke involving a clever equivocation, perhaps–I’ll add it to my warehouse repertoire).

      I too hope that I would freely (gladly, proudly) “admit” to homosexual feelings if I ever experienced them, but thus far all I’ve been able to find attractive are extremely female bodies. In light of this empirically observed (albeit self-reported) data point, it is just as unlikely that you can authoritatively tell me I am homosexual as it is that fundamentalist Christians can tell me that I am not (it is also just as distasteful a presumption in my view). I doubt that I am the only person who was passed over by the thus far undescribed mechanism that imparts “universal” homosexual desire. In any event, you can’t reasonably describe homosexual desire as “universal” without also admitting that heterosexual desire is, ahem, even more universal.

      I think the best we can do without tripping over ourselves is to say that sexual orientation for any given individual is a more or less shifting continuum between the two “extremes” of homo and hetero. At the end of the day, we’re all just apes with varying genitalia, sex characteristics, and general orientations that tend toward (at least) two different forms. In some, that tendency is stronger and more defined than in others, and the hetero tendency is more likely to prevail in any given individual, both in general and longitudinally. This much is supported by evidence. Anything else, I think, is the province of speculation and/or ideology (though I suspect this case is the latter more than the former–it has that ring to it, if I may take my turn at presuming).

      • The difference between masculine and feminine is a difference of power, and this gets into the realm of radical feminism, and what it means for a man to (ostensibly) only be attracted to someone weaker, smaller, younger, less educated, with a lower social status, who plays a passive role, who subsumes her identity under his, etc.

        If it is a matter of body parts, then all men love penises, as masturbation proves. Indeed patriarchy worships the phallus.

        I bring up the point to provoke thought on the subject. The sadomasochistic nature of heterosexuality requires aggressive masculine subjects that fuck (a verb with ambiguous meaning) a feminine object. There is no natural necessity for heterosexual desire. There are hundreds of millions of sperm in every ejaculation, and males can achieve this several times per day. A few inseminations in a lifetime are adequate to pass on genetic material, and homosexual activity (even primarily homosexual activity – masturbation is probably the most common form) in no way threatens reproductive success.

        This goes completely unexamined by most who thoughtlessly identify as “heterosexuals”.

        There is a homosexuality that is based in equality and sameness, what Harry Hay called “subject-SUBJECT” consciousness, and the very best of gay liberation and feminist theory. It is inextricably linked to women’s liberation. It might, in a future time, be possible for there to be homosexual relationships between males and females.

        It is possible in many cultures to spend one’s entire childhood and adolescence without access to the bodies of the opposite sex. This makes the body of the “other” alien in a way that one’s own sex can never be. There is a comfort level (both psychologically and physically) within one’s own gender to such an extent that it is observed that heterosexual societies are primarily homosocial. Where do men and women come together except for in the bedroom? And what does it mean when one hears old advice like “lie back and think of England” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_back_and_think_of_England) when referring to what goes on between men and women in traditional hetero sex acts?

        And there is a militaristic homosexuality that has been understood since the time of the ancient Greeks. To quote Plato: “And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their beloved, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger?” And this contrivance has been implemented.

        We are not allowed to experience conscious homosexual attraction outside the realm of war or athletics (training for war) precisely because by foreclosing all other opportunities these drives are channeled to militarism. Free homosexual love dismantles the tacit homoerotic draw of the military.

        Ever been in a gang shower after practice? You can’t do that in any other situations. It’s a homoerotic reward for masculine training.

        Patriarchy is fundamentally homosexual, but only in a militaristic way. All men prefer men. It is gay men love women, and women know it. Straight men just fuck them, unless they buck the traditional role (which many do), but that only reflects the influence of three waves of feminism and two waves of gay liberation.

        It is the violation of gender roles that endangers the nation state, and this is the reason the Right opposes homosexuality. It is the emasculation of males who are used as cannon fodder for competing nation states in a globalizing world that worries the elites. And it is the ownership of their own bodies that lesbians lay claim to, by choosing not to be reproductive machines for men who pass laws and customs that forbid contraception and abortion, and give the husband (think animal husbandry) ownership of the product of her “labor”.

        From the Nazis in 1928: “It is not necessary that you and I live, but it is necessary that the German people live. And it can live if it can fight, for life means fighting. [The] German nation… can only fight if it maintains its masculinity. It can only maintain its masculinity if it exercises discipline, especially in matters of love. Free love and deviance are undisciplined. Therefore, we reject you, as we reject anything which hurts our people. Anyone who even thinks of homosexual love is our enemy. We reject anything which emasculates our people and makes them a plaything for our enemies. … We therefore reject any form of unnatural sexuality, above all homosexuality, because it robs us of our last chance to liberate our people from the chains of slavery under which they now suffer.”

        Does this contradict the homosexuality of the SA? Not at all, because that was militaristic homoeroticism, like that of the Hitler Youth, or the YMCA, something that reinforced masculinity and patriarchy and strengthened the nation and its supply of soldiers.

      • Yep. I called it. You’re in the grip of an ideology. You can’t even respond directly to my arguments. All you can do is spout your propaganda as though I’ve said nothing. I suppose you think you’re very original, but I’ve seen it all before. You fail to impress.

  6. Sex in humans is not for reproduction. It is for pleasure and bonding. As such, it does not need to restrict itself to heterosexual desire. It doesn’t in Bonobo chimps either. Their most common sexual configuration is between females.

    Saying that sexual desire is motivated by reproduction is like saying eating is motivated by nutrition. If that were true we wouldn’t have an obesity epidemic. We eat because we are hungry and food tastes good. We have sex because it feels good. We don’t masturbate to have babies, and we don’t’ have sex to have babies. On the contrary, much effort is expended to prevent pregnancy. So exclusive heterosexual desire is not necessary for human reproduction. Heterosexual sex will happen because there is an overabundance of sperm, and plenty of opportunity for desire on a daily basis. But this, in humans and other primates, takes many forms, and is motivated by physical pleasure and social bonding. It does not need to be restricted to only the opposite sex. That idea is pure ideology. And the ideology that condemns homosexuality also condemns masturbation, and most religious folks who argue against masturbation do so with the knowledge that it is a basis for homosexual desire. It is inherently homosexual to give oneself a hand job.

    Heterosexual males steer clear of homosexuality because of its association with effeminacy. This is due to 19th century sexology which claimed that homosexuals were a “third sex” in which female minds inhabited male bodies. That there is an association in the general public’s mind between “gay” and “effeminate” is undeniable. And the reason this effeminacy is undesirable, at a national level, is explained by the 1928 Nazi quote. Masculinity is required for fighting, and nations need male conscripts to fight their wars.

    I fail to understand your hostility. I think the points that I bring up are entirely relevant. Armstrongism (The World Tomorrow) was an idea of a worldwide peaceful utopia, and while it didn’t understand the issue of homosexuality correctly, by advocating pacifism and explicitly condemning militarism it unintentionally (if indirectly) comments on sexuality and gender. Pacifist men reject the most masculine of activities: fighting in war. Other than fucking a woman there is no more potent demonstration of one’s masculinity.

    Ideology is inescapable. It is a framework for understanding events and phenomena. I realize it (like the word propaganda) has taken on an undesirable connotation. Regardless, there is no better term for a system or framework with which one sees the world. The funny thing about many Americans is that their ideology includes the idea that they are not at all swayed by any ideology. But if you call yourself “heterosexual” you are in the grip of a late 19th century ideology. The word wasn’t invented until the 1860s in German and the 1890s in English. Look up “heterosexual” in Google’s N-gram. Here, I’ll give you the link: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=heterosexual&year_start=1800&year_end=2011&corpus=0&smoothing=3

    Check out Jonathan Katz’ “The Invention of Hetreosexuality” or David Fernbach’s “The Spiral Path: A Gay Contribution to Human Survival”.

    Pacifism, militarism, capitalism, communism, masculinity, homosexuality, maximizing population growth and labor exploitation, technology and automation, all of these things are relevant to discussions of Armstrongism, religion and atheism. I do not mean to spam your blog by quoting from the Communist Manifesto to suggest that Armstrongism fits the description of Utopian Socialism. I mean to put Armstrongism in a particular context and provoke thought on the relationships between particular phenomena.

    My apologies if this does not sit well with you. I mean it with the best of intents.

    My thesis is that Armstrongism was a religious reaction to the unprecedented Industrial-social revolution and the inherent crises which arise within it (as articulated by Marx); a revolution which, by the way, has not completed and still presents the world with unresolvable crisis. Because of the exponential advance of technology (which capitalism provides via competition for market share), the end result will be total automation and an end to human labor power as a source of exploitation (and the basis for markets, money, capitalism and all the social ills that determine “human nature”, including enforcing human relationships such as marriage and the nuclear family and the need for soldiers and mothers). Armstrongism and Communism both comment on this. But it is a very old idea.

    To quote Aristotle: “There is only one condition in which we can imagine managers not needing subordinates, and masters not needing slaves. This condition would be that each (inanimate) instrument could do its own work, at the word of command or by intelligent anticipation, like the statues of Daedalus or the tripods made by Hephaestus, of which Homer relates that ‘Of their own motion they entered the conclave of Gods on Olympus’ as if a shuttle should weave of itself, and a plectrum should do its own harp playing.”

    My first post was criticized for not providing sources. So I copy some brief quotes. So what? Be nice. I’m nice. I don’t like hostility. Maybe I’m a brainwashed ideologue, but I grew up from birth until I was 20 in the WCG (76-96), went to Ambassador, came out as gay and an atheist, and this is my personal insight. Judge it. Refute it. But please remain civil. We share a unique past, and I mean to provoke thought, not spam with rigid and uncompromising dogma. Perhaps my style of communication doesn’t come across well. So I state these points explicitly.

    • “this is my personal insight.”

      One which you have not supported with facts.

      “Judge it. Refute it. But please remain civil.”

      Part of civility, Jeffrey, is responding directly to the arguments of your interlocutors. Ignoring them and continuing to perseverate makes you uncivil, regardless of any therefore meaningless invitations to refute your position. Don’t pretend to be taking the high road until you can answer these points (note that I don’t take kindly to being forced to quote myself in a debate–it’s disrespectful):

      “Furthermore, I think it is dubious (and an apparent argument by slogan) to equate homosexual desire with masturbation (it is, if anything, a reduction of homosexuality to a penis fetish, and a non-sequitur in the first place–you could just as easily say that female gender is universal because every man strokes his own penis, as if penis-stroking defined femaleness). Masturbation has nothing whatsoever to do with attraction and is by definition oriented toward self-pleasure, whereas homosexual desire does imply attraction and involves pleasuring others. Although I do unabashedly engage in masturbation on a semi-regular basis, it just doesn’t translate well into a homosexual desire (except as a joke involving a clever equivocation, perhaps–I’ll add it to my warehouse repertoire).

      I too hope that I would freely (gladly, proudly) “admit” to homosexual feelings if I ever experienced them, but thus far all I’ve been able to find attractive are extremely female bodies. In light of this empirically observed (albeit self-reported) data point, it is just as unlikely that you can authoritatively tell me I am homosexual as it is that fundamentalist Christians can tell me that I am not (it is also just as distasteful a presumption in my view). I doubt that I am the only person who was passed over by the thus far undescribed mechanism that imparts “universal” homosexual desire. In any event, you can’t reasonably describe homosexual desire as “universal” without also admitting that heterosexual desire is, ahem, even more universal.

      I think the best we can do without tripping over ourselves is to say that sexual orientation for any given individual is a more or less shifting continuum between the two “extremes” of homo and hetero. At the end of the day, we’re all just apes with varying genitalia, sex characteristics, and general orientations that tend toward (at least) two different forms. In some, that tendency is stronger and more defined than in others, and the hetero tendency is more likely to prevail in any given individual, both in general and longitudinally. This much is supported by evidence. Anything else, I think, is the province of speculation and/or ideology (though I suspect this case is the latter more than the former–it has that ring to it, if I may take my turn at presuming).”

    • “But if you call yourself “heterosexual” you are in the grip of a late 19th century ideology. The word wasn’t invented until the 1860s in German and the 1890s in English. Look up “heterosexual” in Google’s N-gram. Here, I’ll give you the link: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=heterosexual&year_start=1800&year_end=2011&corpus=0&smoothing=3

      And this is bullshit. Using a word that describes something is not indicative of being in the grip of an ideology. The word was invented in the late 19th century not as the formulation of an ideology but because homosexuality was being recognized (albeit improperly) and its counterpart needed a technical term with which to identify it (interestingly, it was defined at first as a morbid desire for the opposite sex–in counterpart to the mistaken psycho-pathological conception of homosexuality). This idea that heterosexuality doesn’t actually exist is just as bizarre and nonsensical as positing that homosexuality doesn’t exist. You have to get pretty far down the rabbit hole not to see that.

  7. “I mean to put Armstrongism in a particular context and provoke thought on the relationships between particular phenomena.”

    For one thing, this is wildly presumptuous on your part. You are commenting on a site with the title “Armstrong Delusion”. It never occurred to you that maybe its authors had already thought of these things and needed no provoking? I’m all for a discussion of Armstrongism and Socialism, but you presume way too much if you think your thesis on the subject is the only one to have been imagined. Which brings me to my second point: you didn’t approach this as one who wanted to have a discussion or provoke thought. First, you fired off a volley of talking points from the radical left and then you ignored thoughtful responses to it. Perhaps you should devote less energy trying to “provoke thought” (where provocation is far from required) and more energy to thinking yourself? That’s how the civil exchange of ideas takes place, Jeffrey. It is the height of hypocrisy for you to ignore arguments and then talk about how you just wanted to “provoke thought”. Did you not realize that provocation can go both ways? Did you presume that you were wading into the shallow end of the pool here? You aren’t dealing with uneducated children. I want to see three things from you: (1) can the pretentious, passive-aggressive demands for pseudo-“civility” and start demonstrating the real thing yourself, (2) knock off the disrespectful presumptions, and (3) respond directly to your interlocutors, using your own original, valid arguments from factual information, rather than radical left talking points and Marxist scripture.

    • I think I have been responding to your arguments.

      I do not mean to insult or presume.

      I am pretty passionate about these ideas.

      • “I think I have been responding to your arguments.”

        It is inconceivable to me that you would say this while continuing to ignore my clearly stated arguments. I won’t copy/paste them for you again. I refuse. Scroll back up there and read them, and then respond to them, if you have the spine for it.

      • “I do not mean to insult or presume.”

        I know you don’t mean to; it is a natural consequence of expressing a bigoted ideology. Now, if you meant to avoid insult and presumption, you could abandon bigotry and embrace reason. But I don’t expect you to do that, because of that passion you mentioned. You should instead reserve your passion for the pursuit of truth itself and be dispassionate about how you interpret the results. Then you would be doing science, though, and I think you’d find that icky.

      • Of course you give up. Your ideology is indefensible. Your histrionics over well-deserved insults, by the way, are just a red herring designed to distract readers (gods save them!) and possibly yourself from the fact you had no answers for the arguments that directly contradicted your strongest propositions. You lost this debate fairly, on the merits of your position. Now, go pout elsewhere.

  8. I think I did provide facts.

    I linked to the introduction of the word “heterosexual” in Google N-gram.
    I noted that the most common configuration of sexuality among Bonobo Chimps is between females (you can verify this on Wikipedia).
    I mentioned two to sources (Katz, Fernbach).
    I provided a quote from Heinrich Himmler on the national value of masculinity.
    I provided a quote from Plato on the value of homosexuality in military cohesion.
    I provided a quote from Aristotle on the necessity of slavery prior to automation.
    I provided a quote to Wikipedia on the oft heard phrase “Lie back and think of England”.
    I noted that human males can produce millions of sperm per day.
    I noted that much effort is made to prevent pregnancy, so it seems that sexual desire is not a desire to reproduce.
    I noted that masturbation is a form of satisfying sexual desire that does not have anything to do with reproduction.
    I noted the unnatural division of the sexes in the human population, such that a person can conceivably spend their entire childhood and adolescence without ever spending time in the nude with the opposite sex; and yet this is not at all the case with the same sex.
    I noted the homoeroticism of athletics and the locker room.
    I noted the primarily homosocial state of heterosexual societies. Until recently, women were not allowed into the clergy, the state, the university, athletics, the military, weren’t allowed to vote, own property, etc.
    I see no reason why heterosexual desire would be more universal than homosexual desire if what governs sexual desire is social bonding, and not a desire to reproduce.
    Finally, I’ll add that the overwhelming emphasis placed on preventing homosexuality is itself evidence that it is a massive temptation. I would say this is because sex segregation naturally tilts the population in a homosexual direction, because sexual attraction is a part of social bonding and love, and not a desire to make babies. The reproductive aspects of sex are side effects that are not conscious or even subconscious (like the nutritional value of food).

    I don’t think it is possible, even today, for most males to admit to any homosexual desire, even to themselves. Despite the gains of gay liberation, such admissions still put one into a loathsome category, and I do not expect you to admit, even to yourself, that any such thoughts have ever occurred to you within your lifetime.

    Sexual orientation is an effect of gender orientation, but in terms of homosexuality it affects how it is expressed, not whether or not it exists. “Straight” men still experience homosexual desire, even though it is not gay. Prison rape is homosexual, but it is not gay.

    Why do you assume that feminist and Marxists insights are indoctrination and biological determinism and capitalism are not?

    • You continue to talk in poetry. Where are your facts? All the links and quotes you provide are either fact-less or they are blatant non-sequiturs. You keep talking about what you “think”, but you have not once provided any valid support for what you think. I am frankly not interested in what you think (since most of it is bigoted and presumptuous), I only care about what you can support with valid argumentation and evidence.

      “Despite the gains of gay liberation, such admissions still put one into a loathsome category, and I do not expect you to admit, even to yourself, that any such thoughts have ever occurred to you within your lifetime.”

      There’s that presumptuousness again. But, of course, you would have to say this to protect your ideology. It’s a hedge, a common ad-hoc rationalization supported by nothing. For you, the belief system comes first: everybody is homosexual. Next, you rationalize as to why others don’t report experiencing feelings your ideology demands they feel. It’s because they’re the delusional ones. So, it’s conspiracy theory 101. Self-identifying heterosexuals are unconsciously complicit in the patriarchy that enslaves them to the impossible horror of being attracted to wide hips and breasts. It’s unfalsifiable, untestable, and multiplies entities unnecessarily. It moves against reason from the conclusion to the manufactured evidence, instead of following the actual evidence where it leads.

      “Why do you assume that feminist and Marxists insights are indoctrination and biological determinism and capitalism are not?”

      It’s not an assumption and they aren’t insights (in the case of Marxism, it’s secular prophecy, which is a delusion; in the case of radical feminism, it’s unsupported bigotry)–and, in the first place, I was talking about radical feminism, not serious feminism. Furthermore, I am not promoting biological determinism or capitalism. I don’t need to. This is a straw man on your part. Interesting (no, it isn’t) that you respond to arguments I didn’t make, while continuing to ignore the ones I did make.

      You’d think a gay man would resist prejudiced worldviews. You’d think educated women would as well. But radical feminists and heterophobes abound on the far left, along with anti-science postmodernists, pseudo-multiculturalists, and reverse racists. The message of the radical left is, “If you’re male, white, and straight, you are obsolete or worse [usually the charge is that you are a de facto rapist]–and possibly don’t actually exist.” And I would accept my fate as the target of this bigotry fairly gracefully if it could be supported with actual evidence. Thankfully, it is, and can be shown to be, unscientific ideology and nothing more.

      • It’s unfalsifiable, untestable, and multiplies entities unnecessarily. It moves against reason from the conclusion to the manufactured evidence, instead of following the actual evidence where it leads.

        Taken out of context, you could just as easily be talking about string theory!

  9. “We have sex because it feels good.”

    And why does sex feel good to us? More to the point, why doesn’t it feel good to bacteria? I mean, I could snipe off important little problems with your arguments all day, but I want to give you a chance to respond to those arguments that you have already ignored. Consider this a taste of things to come, and that should help you decide if trying to defend your ideology here is worth the considerable effort I will force you to make. It’s not that I reject your position out of hand–rather, I am placing the burden of proof back where it belongs, since you were acting as though you aren’t the one who must bear it.

    • The point of my post is that your main idea, that homosexuality is despised in the West because of the Bible, doesn’t address why Christianity (which hasn’t been consistent about its treatment of homosexuality) would bother with it at all. I’m trying to provide an economic explanation for the anti-homosexual (really anti-effiminacy) position that your article attacks.

      It is bound up with national divisions which require soldiers and mothers, and if Christians are anti-homosexual, it is only because they have been enlisted in nationalist efforts to maximize the the strength of their respective country. The Soviets were anti-homosexual, as were the Nazis, as were the Americans, and all without using the Bible. In America, it was a “mental illness” until 1973.

      The Bible is more than just worthless superstition, and I say this as an atheist. Control of sexuality and gender are more than just artifacts of Christian morality. They are tools for nation building, of which, Christianity is used at times. Psychiatry is also enlisted, as is “science”, in the form of sexology and ideologies like biologically based sexual orientation.

      And bacteria don’t have sex and are not sensate.

      I’m surprised you didn’t accuse me of not having the “balls” to reply. Because, having balls or being a pussy imply things, and further my argument that masculinity and femininity are about power differences. Faggots, wimps, sissies, pansies – these are ways of intimidating males into being fighters, and it is the national militaries that benefit from this social conditioning.

      • “The point of my post is that your main idea, that homosexuality is despised in the West because of the Bible, doesn’t address why Christianity (which hasn’t been consistent about its treatment of homosexuality) would bother with it at all…[yadda yadda]”

        Fuck’s sake, read the first part of the series and then talk to me about the history of homophobia. I worked pretty hard on that, you know. Learned a lot. You might even benefit from my amateur research if you can set aside your preconceived notions for a few minutes.

        “I’m trying to provide an economic explanation…”

        And failing, demonstrably.

        “And bacteria don’t have sex and are not sensate.”

        They are not sensate. Yes, that’s kind of the point, since this fact didn’t stop them from evolving sexual reproduction. Stop being an asshole and read the article I linked to (it contradicts your statement in the first paragraph). And answer my questions, respond to my arguments, and stop presuming you know what you don’t.

        “I’m surprised you didn’t accuse me of not having the “balls” to reply. Because, having balls or being a pussy imply things…”

        How insightful. Now tell me why I consciously chose the word “spine” instead. Please, explain my own reasoning to me because I just don’t have what it takes to understand it and I need someone like you to guide me by the wrist into the orthodoxy. Gods, you’re a presumptuous, pretentious prick.

        I’m still waiting for you to stop being a pussy (irony intended, so can the lecture already).

  10. Well, you know those doctors of scientific medicine are complicit in the wider heterosexual conspiracy to infest the world with humans. Joke’s on them, though: homosexuality is universal (you stroke a cock, don’t you? I rest my case!*) and their science is no match for our economic determinism. Soon, there will be no need for mothers or warriors and we can all finally come out of the closet!

    I warned our delusional bigot friend that he wouldn’t have a very easy time of it here trying to defend an indefensible position. I think Jeffrey assumes he’s smarter than anybody else and that’s why he gets it and nobody else does (unless he comes along to infect them with his mind virus–which will allow them to believe without comprehending). He’s one of the radical left’s very elect, you know. On the other hand, if he himself comprehended his own talking points, then he should be able to answer challenges to them instead of merely repeating them.

    *To avoid homosexual desire in masturbation, use a fleshlight or fuck a pillow–since this way you won’t be touching male genitals (which is the definition of homosexuality). But you’re still homosexual anyway because…uh…my theory demands it?

    It’s all the same stuff Armstrongists, theists in general, and conspiracy theorists pull. Anybody devoted to a preconceived idea that is not based on sound reasoning from objective facts–they all engage in the same invalid tactics trying to defend their untenable delusions. Reasonable people will not be fooled by their rhetoric. The trick is getting more people to be reasonable: it’s a skill that must be developed. It isn’t exactly natural–irrational beliefs are natural. But irrational beliefs lead us astray into error and bigotry and bad choices like voting poorly. This, in turn, makes life suck interesting for the rest of us.

  11. If the overheating is happening because there is too much dust on the motherboard of the console then a
    simple fan of air can resolve the problem. Even though the video quality seems better on the i – Pod video device, the PSP presents a longer life of the battery and faster ways to encode videos.
    Fortunately, such software does exist and best of all, you do not have to pay
    anything for it.

Say anything you want. We do.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s