Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Homophobia’

From pinkpages.co.uk

From pinkpages.co.uk

Ulster politician Iris Robinson has been named ‘Bigot of the Year’ at the Stonewall Awards after a particularly abhorrent series of comments determining that homosexual activity is a greater abomination than paedophilia and promoting ‘talking therapy’ for homosexuals (is there a ‘talking therapy’ for stupidity?) . Robinson is a member of the ‘Democratic’ Unionist Party, the DUP (‘Getting it Right’), which was founded by Ian ‘never, never, no, no’ Paisley and is now led by Iris’ husband, Peter Robinson. Incidentally, during 2007, a junior member of the DUP was defended by his party after claiming to be ‘repulsed’ by homosexuality. And who was that member? Oh, Ian Paisley Junior, of course. Could the party get any more inbred? The ‘Union’ to which the party title refers is that between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom; they oppose Nationalist Republicans who wish for a ‘united’ island of Ireland. Confused? Let’s just say that even in the current political climate, there are a few moments when it’s good to be a ‘Republican’. As an aside, Sinn Féin regularly speaks out against homophobia.

Anyway, political sentiments aside, back to Robinson, who describes herself as a Born Again Christian and who insists that the government and Church should be strongly connected. After a homophobic attack in June of this year, Robinson decided to get herself some tenuous publicity by making the statement that it would be possible, through therapy, for homosexuals to change their sexual orientation. This theory has caused controversy for many years; some believe that homosexuality is caused by a trauma which can be uncovered and reversed with psychiatric assistance. It’s possible to be an activist for homosexual rights and still acknowledge that people’s sexual orientation is influenced by events in their lives; and that, in some cases, that their perceptions of their sexuality may be inaccurate or delusional. However, it is utter nonsense to suggest that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ taken by those who wish to lead immoral lives. Defying the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders held by the American Psychiatric Association, this nonsense is a key part of the rhetoric promoted by the ex-gay movement, which would be laughably ridiculous if it wasn’t so frightening. Oh, but it works, claims Robinson!: ‘I have met people who have turned around to become heterosexual.’ No, you haven’t. You have met people who were never really non-heterosexual but worried themselves into a frenzy because they accidentally looked the wrong way in a urinal. You have met people who have been shamefully brainwashed into repressing their feelings, which will no doubt cause them great turmoil later in life. Or you have met people who are just outright lying to get you to shut up and leave their doorsteps on your disgusting canvassing slime-trail.

Robinson compares homosexuality with the act of murder (‘just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual’) and with paedophilia (‘There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children’). She also takes the bizarre standpoint adopted by many homophobics in suggesting that granting any rights to non-heterosexuals will result in a homo-run anarchy with heterosexuals washed away by the tides of gayness; in reference to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, Robinson makes the utterly erroneous claim: ‘We are moving mountains to facilitate immorality and to bring the rights of lesbians above all others in this country.’ How is it that enabling a few non-heterosexual couples to have children (which will still be a very arduous process) will mean that their rights are suddenly ‘above’ those of others? Might I add that this woman chairs the Health committee of the Northern Ireland assembly? Another tendency of such homophobes is to believe that it is perfectly fine for them to spout their disgusting diatribes whenever they wish, but any retaliation means that ‘Christians’ are being ‘silenced’ and abused. As Robinson said, refusing to retract any of her comments: ‘I think at the moment there is a witch hunt to kerb or actually stop or prevent Christians speaking out…’ Boohoo. Only bad witches are ugly.

Finally, Robinson espouses this rubbish: ‘I stand by my faith and the word of God that man was created in the image of God and that woman was created from the rib of Adam to be his helpmeet and companion.’ Oh, COME ON. You’re a Health minister and you actually want to defy evolution. Are you channelling Sarah Palin or are you just having a laugh? The misogyny which saturates the Bible is all abhorrent, but this ‘Adam’s rib’ nonsense is the worst part of all; a shameless attempt to subjugate women by making them feel unequal to, and the property of, their male counterparts. What is worse than ever is to see a woman willingly complicit in this nonsense. And what’s most terrifying of all is that it’s 2008 and this person is a leading politician.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

You

You've seen it before, but it's appropriate... fark.com

I am now pretty much convinced that the Calvinists4Conservatism blog is a parody; it claims: ‘We believe in geocentrism and a flat, circular Earth with the North Pole as its center, just as the earliest Christians did.’ Fundamentalism is crazy, but surely it can’t be that crazy. Whether the site is a parody or not is extremely dubious, but it’s still a hate-filled and dangerous resource. The same goes for the Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old-Testament Morality (SCROTM?! it must be a joke) and no doubt several others. There is very little clever about satire if it never reflects upon the people it intends to satirise. Whether these sites are bona fide or not, the opinions they espouse / satirise are damaging and dangerous. And making ‘jokes’ about stoning, if they are intended to be jokes, is particularly disgusting in consideration of the fact that this abhorrent practice still continues. Yep, I’m pretty sure this site is a satire. But it’s still irresponsible, defamatory, and if it is manned by one person, I dread to imagine what his life is like.
Since my earlier post, I’ve been reading a bit more of the hateful absurdity being spouted at the Calvinists4Conservatism blog, which, although it claims not to be satirical, is certainly a joke – or would be one if it wasn’t so terrifying. Am I missing something with this blog; is it already infamous, has it been exposed as a satire, or are people simply unaware of it? It is full of misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic and otherwise disgusting content, and whilst I suspect that a dialogue with the writer would be fruitless, at least I can discuss here the dangerous nonsense which is being transcribed on the site, whether or not it is intended to be ‘ironic’. In its reluctance to censor, does WordPress really allow content such as this, or is it merely that those concerned are unaware of the blog? Despite an avoidance of censorship, surely it must be drawn to the attention of the complaints team that this blog is inciting hatred.

So, for a little proof… I have already mentioned the author’s abhorrent statements about Stu Rasmussen, the transgender Mayor who was elected in Oregon, and who is apparently spearheading a ‘Fascist Communist Trannie Theocracy’ and should therefore be stoned. This is no joke, whether or not it is intended to be satirical.

Referring to the shameful success of Proposition 8, the author states that: ‘Hopefully, we will be able to return to the REAL definition of traditional marriage: a contract between a man and his concubine’s father. Hopefully, we can also fully protect marriage, by executing homosexuals.’ How very progressive.

But, this post, ‘A Truly Terrifying Vision of the Future’, was by far my favourite, if such a term can be used, for the sheer detail of its paranoid inanity. Even if this is intended to be satirical, it is revelatory of a very disturbed pysche. The author hypothesises a future under a liberal government, which he fails will not fulfil his special remit for dealing with homosexuals, who should apparently be ‘quarantined and stoned.’ Let’s see what he predicts. Apparently, to educate schoolchildren that homosexuality is NOT abhorrent will result in the following: ‘…bullies will now be able to sodomize our children on the swings and face little to no reprimand for doing so. Our children will be encouraged to get a sex change if they want to; sex change operations will be performed by the school nurses, and they will be forced to experiment with a condom in forced sex with an older, pedophilic teacher.’ Yes, that will be a logical conclusion to a programme of sexual education which does not intend to instill shame and self-loathing into those children who will be non-heterosexual. But I have no doubt that this author subscribes (or is pretending to subscribe) to the belief that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ and that the suppression of natural desires can be encouraged with a healthy dose of fire and brimstone.

This diatribe becomes even more bizarre: ‘According to homosexuals, if a child wants to profess Christianity, he or she should be placed in ‘time out’ until he or she renounces Christianity. Children will now be forced to be raised by people that are likely to get AIDS, more likely to separate, and more likely to be suddenly smitten by the LORD.’ Oh, is this a doctrine which is adopted by all homosexuals? I wonder at which point they are granted access to that. I’ll have to ask one of my homosexual Christian friends, who would be surprised to hear about it, as I think they missed out on that… Perhaps it is part of the graduation ceremony at the Sodomy Academy. My favourite part, though, has got to be ‘smitten by the LORD,‘ which, in this context, looks like a bit of a Freudian slip. Purple-faced, and, I speculate, furiously-masturbating man of God (whether you’re ‘joking’ or not), I think you would have been better off using ‘smote’, to avoid the terrifying implication that all of these disease-ridden, child-cannibalising degenerates are developing unhealthy designs on the Celestial Master.

It continues: ‘Homosexuals are far more expensive to care for than heterosexuals’ and are unable to work since they are all ‘too busy masturbating.’ Sounds okay to me. ‘Muuuuum, can I get a homosexual?’ ‘No, Billy, they’re too expensive, and they need all those accessories. Leather chaps and George Michael CDs / Birkenstocks and Murray’s Pomade don’t come cheap, and you know who’d end up looking after his / her Chihuahua / German Shepherd. No, you can have a sugar glider or a Madagascar Day Gecko.’

Now the author’s ‘satirical’ fantasy is getting a little out of control, and he whips himself up into a frenzy: ‘We ought to respect the rights of doctors to avoid checking a homosexual’s private organs, since in a sensible society, administering towards a patient of the opposite sex would be punished by death, due to its deviancy. No person should have to examine the genitalia of a homosexual that is likely masturbating towards them, or have to pluck off the butt plugs of a lesbian.’  None of this makes any sense. Is the author implying that homosexual men and women are of the ‘opposite sex’ to non-homosexual men and women? And is he suggesting that we execute all male gynaecologicists? And those pesky gays just won’t give up the masturbating, not even to get their blood pressure checked. I wish my trips to the GP were as much fun. Oh, and ‘butt plugs’? Really, plural?

Next, ‘group masturbation will be forced in churches under a homosexual proletariat.’  What an interesting image… I think you came up with that one all by yourself. Oh, and any child carrying a copy of the Bible will be tortured. And new babies will be raised in vast test tubes. And ‘[a]ny nurse that doesn’t deliver an abortion will forcibly be stripped of her job, and then continually raped by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and their ‘human’ clones until a baby is conceived, after which it will be partially aborted until the woman professes respect for abortion.’  Doctors will be forcibly infected with sexually-transmitted diseases and will be required to infect their patients.

The whole thing spirals into completely insanity to the point that I’m sure the author realises the ridiculousness of what he is saying and must surely realise how dangerous it is, whether or not he intends it to be satirical. More choice visions of the future include the genital-exposing Burka for women and the abolition of any energy sources apart from ‘Hippie’ ones such as wind and solar power (gee, imagine that). However, one of the best quotes from the whole diatribe is the fear that ‘[t]he nation will be ‘forced to worship at the altar of homosexuality.’ Imagine what that would look like… the altar of homosexuality. Mr. Calvinist or Fake-Calvinist, if you read this, and I hope you do, you are utterly obsessed with homosexual intercourse and paedophilia; although that is no surprise from someone who espouses / pretends to espouse a religion which focuses upon the nonsense concepts of ‘original sin’ and ‘total depravity.’ In the movie Fetishes by Nick Broomfield (I’m sure you’ve seen it), one of the clients at the New York S/m parlour remarks that ‘fetishes are the eroticization of the worst thing you can ever imagine happening to you.’ This writing can be considered as indicative of a severe sodomy fetish, which is compounded by your suffering from androphobia (fear of men), contreltophobia (fear of sexual abuse), cypridophobia (fear of venereal disease), genophobia (fear of sex), haphephobia (fear of being touched), homophobia (goes without saying), iatrophobia (fear of doctors), ithyphallophobia (fear of the erect penis), paraphobia (fear of perversion), and virginitiphobia (fear of rape). Take three poppers and call me in the morning.

I’d continue, but I’m suffering agateophobia (fear of the insane). At least William S. Burroughs had several drug addictions to justify his sex-obsessed ramblings. You know, the more I read about homosexuality from its detractors, the more fun it sounds.

Read Full Post »

I think I want to write a lot more blog entries from now on, but I always get writer’s block. However, although I’m happy to be an emigre, I keep up with the UK news every day by reading The Times online and the BBC News (plus, I can’t yet speak decent enough German to read a newspaper here), and so I thought I could start writing up some of the thoughts and discussions I’ve had regarding what I have read over the past month or so in the British e-papers. I wish some of this news had been good news, but I honestly couldn’t find any of that in the British press over the last month. However, even though this occurred over a month ago, I wanted to write something about the death of Shaun Dykes – and from now on, I’ll be a bit more punctual.

28 September 2008: A mob goads suicidal teenager Shaun Dykes to his death. Dykes jumped from the roof of a multi-storey car park after attracting a crowd of onlookers, some of whom filmed the event on their cameraphones and jeered him to jump, encouraging him to ‘get on with it’, and subsequently photographed his body. This is an indictment of the police, who were unable to negotiate with the young man sufficiently to discourage him from suicide, or to disperse the crowd. More so, it is a shocking indictment of a minority of the British people who have become so inhumane, bloodthirsty and desensitised. To me, the saddest thing about this story was that it was neither impossible to believe nor a horrifying anomaly, but another signifier of the shift which has occurred in the British public over the past five or ten years and which suffuses so many towns with an atmosphere of aggression and nihilism. Although the reasons for the suicide of this young man are not known, it is possible that he was motivated to kill himself because of his homosexuality. This serves to remind that we cannot yet risk apathy regarding the difficulties which some people, and particularly young people, still suffer due to their sexuality. It also reinforces a need to change the lexicon which has made homosexuality an object of derision and which associates the term ‘gay’ with anything negative; a term which is used in this context with a frightening abandon. It’s interesting that the reactionary tabloids which reported this story (The Sun, The Mirror, The Daily Mail) did not mention Dykes’ sexuality; although the latter suggested that he had been depressed by the breakdown of a relationship. There were no plans to pursue inquiries into those responsible for goading Dykes. As an aside, one of the strangest things about modern tragedies like these is the ease by which information about the people concerned can be discovered by looking at their pages on personal networking sites. It is so eerie and melancholy to see the banal elements of their lives and the sudden cessation of their posts and comments.

Read Full Post »

My good buddy narrioch and I have been discussing ‘Proposition 8’ over the last few days, and I thought I would jump on the bandwagon and post my own thoughts on this matter. In a few weeks, a Californian ballot will be held to determine the success or failure of Proposition 8, which intends to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Over here in Europe, it is quite difficult to fully comprehend the nuances of this matter, because it simply seems so bizarre that this could even be an issue in California; a state which not only encompasses the gay mecca that is San Francisco, but which is regarded by many to symbolise the encapsulation of the American Dream of freedom. It is illogical that the proponents of Prop 8 are demanding a regression, a move backwards in time. Most disappointing of all is the fact that opinion polls suggest the likelihood that the Proposition will indeed be passed.

The fact that Proposition 8 is even being entertained as a possibility compounds that humanity still has a very long way to go, but it would be inexcusable to reverse progress in this way. It is staggering to think of just how recent have been the fights for equality by all ‘minorities’, not just those defined by sexuality. Already, it is sufficiently abhorrent to consider that the rights and desires of a supposed ‘out-group’ are denied. It will be as perplexing for future generations to consider that same-sex marriage was disallowed as it is for us to imagine that inter-racial marriage was illegal until a few decades ago. That is, of course, to make the general assumption that humanity progresses through time, and that future generations will be increasingly enlightened. If Proposition 8 is passed, that will be one obstacle to such progress.

Supporters of Proposition 8 contend that marriage is a sacred and sanctified union which may only be valid between a man and woman. Many of these supporters simultaneously claim that they do not wish to deny the rights or privileges of those in same-sex relationships, and that their standpoint is not indicative of homophobia on their part. Of course, it is perfectly evident that the opposition to same-sex marriage is entirely indicative of homophobia, albeit covert. It makes no logical sense whatsoever to suggest that the participation of same-sex couples in marriage will somehow corrode the significance of this sacrament. The marriage of same-sex couples neither devalues nor intrudes upon that of heterosexual couples; it is merely a mutual participation in the same activity. Nevertheless, it evidently proves problematic for many that heterosexual and non-heterosexual couples are engaged in the same activities. This is because the long-held belief that non-heterosexuals simply do not have the same rights as heterosexuals has not yet been eliminated; and still has sufficient cultural currency to be accepted by a significant part of the population. To see non-heterosexuals assuming a ‘privilege’ which has previously only been the purview of heterosexuals evidently still rankles too many people. This is perhaps because marriage, supposedly, legitimises a union – to ignore for a moment the fact that countless marriages, between same- or opposite-sex couples, are less than legitimate. Apparently, then, it is distasteful that a same-sex union should be legitimised in this way; that it should become not only officially sanctioned, but visible, tangible and even celebrated. It is distasteful that non-heterosexuals should be as open as  heterosexuals about their relationships and their joy in each other. And it is definitely distasteful that the visibility of such relationships might offend and intrude into the lives of others – particularly the impressionable children who will subsequently be so indoctrinated into the well, gaiety of gayness that they will instantly choose to be homosexual. These are the anxieties which have allowed Proposition 8 to get as far as it has, and these are the indicators of an insiduous homophobia which is made all the more dangerous by its insiduousness, and by the failure or fear of its proponents to openly articulate their true beliefs.

No doubt, many of those who support Proposition 8 would argue virulently that they are not homophobic. Some would even support the concept of union for non-heterosexual couples in the form of civil partnerships; but, to my knowledge, those have a long way to go before they truly afford the same rights as marriage to those who participate in them. And it is almost more ludicrous to suggest that civil partnerships should be entirely synonymous with marriage. If the difference is in title alone, then it merely compounds the invalidity of the concept that same-sex couples should be allowed certain privileges, but not others; when the difference is only one word, it only illuminates the groundless paranoia and fear of those who want to keep marriage to themselves.

It would be interesting to know of the gender bias in the arguments surrounding Proposition 8. I would speculate that there is a much greater anxiety surrounding the union between two males than that between two females, as has always been the case (think of Queen Victoria, who penalised ‘homosexual contact’ but contended that there was no such thing as lesbianism). Contemporary culture does little to contradict the notion that a union between women can be more than an extension of a desexualised friendship – or a fantasy for heterosexual men. However, fear of the threat which homosexual men are perceived to contain, however, is still terrifyingly prevalent. The occasional film of ‘Brokeback Mountain’ proportions aside, the media does very little to encourage society to overcome these anxieties – and there is no doubt that the media is the most significant educator for most of humanity. The idiotic statement , ‘God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’, which is so often repeated by opponents of same-sex marriage, mentions nothing of Eve and.. er.. Niamh. This is because, two decades of ‘Cosmopolitan’ aside, women’s sexuality still matters very little – and the traditions of marriage do nothing to encourage change in this respect. The customs with which marriage has traditionally been associated – for instance, the ‘giving away’ of the bride by her father, or the union between ‘man and wife’, are abhorrently misogynistic and are by no means made innocuous by their prevalence, or their relegation to the status of quaint tradition. Many couples, of course, choose not to include such elements, which are regarded by many as out-dated and unacceptable. Therefore, it is acknowledged that times have changed since the institution of marriage was first conceptualised. To enable same-sex couples to participate in such unions is only to further acknowledge the progression that our society has made. Similarly, the reversal of this  progress would be, to adopt the rhetoric of Prop 8 supporters, a truly illogical and unnatural action. It seems increasingly likely that a true signifier of social progress would be the dissolution, or gradual abandonment of the institution of marriage. Despite that, we should defend the rights of anyone who wishes to participate in it.

Edited to add: links to some other sites which are also discussing this matter.

Bamboo Nation
Torschlusspanik!!
The Liberal OC
Chouchou, this site (linked from The Liberal OC) elaborates on the differences between civil union and marriage.

Read Full Post »