Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:25:38 AM
Well, I may have only a handful of regular readers, get maybe seventy five visits a day (if that), but I did get an encouraging sign. My site was
linked on Q-Tips, and, better still, dubbed "
News from the self-righteous right". I take it as quite a compliment to be dubbed both self-righteous and right wing in a negative context. I once said I would know I made it when Olberman called me the "worst person in the world". Well, this isn't quite as good, but it isn't a bad start.
What makes this particularly amusing is that I am far more tolerant of
one's sexual preferences than some on the right. I not only believe
one's sexual practices deserve to be left private, I was also one of
the first to argue that the government should get out of the business
of marriage, even before gay marriage advocates adopted that position
(see "
Solving the Gay Marriage Debate", "
Updating an Old Post", "
Gay Rights or Lawyer Pay Day?", "
Unlikely Agreement", "
Revisiting Gay Marriage"). Yes, I will grant I don't believe that homosexuality is biological ("
Biology as Justification","
Don't Liberals Notice the Contradictions?","
Correlation and Causation Revisted", "
Just Asking For It", "
Myths of Homosexuality", "
A Question About Biological Theories of Sexual Identity"),
but at one time that was considered the enlightened position, it only
became the party line with the press for gay "civil rights" ("
Follow Up").
Prior to that, say throughout much of the 1980's, calling homosexuality
a biological aberration would get one dubbed a "Nazi".(Nor is my view
limited to homosexuality, read my post on mental illness and you will
find I am equally skeptical of biological theories of insanity. And,
though I did not write on the topic, I also endorse Stanton Peale's
argument that alcoholism is a behavior and not a disease, biological or
psychological. Which makes my view much less shocking. See "
The Power of Words", "
Mental Illness", and "
Hollywood Illogic".)
So, because I don't believe being gay is biological, because I don't
believe one deserves special treatment due to one's choice of sexual
partner and because I don't think treating homosexual and heterosexual
scout masters the same is impermissible, I am now a "homophobe". How interesting.
I am not even going to bother with the usual "some of my best
friends..." or "many relatives..." or any of those usual excuses, as it
really doesn't matter. If anyone who knew me read that description they
would be amused, but that is neither here nor there. Instead, I will
simply let my past writing stand. I admit I am impatient with the
sex/gender gibberish that the academics force on us ("
A Question About Language"), and I think some academic "gender studies" is nonsense ("
Deceiving Themselves?"). But, beyond that, I really see very little one could realistically call "homophobic." ("
Pseudo-Homophobes and Silent Assent")
Well, to be fair, I have asked whether or not allowing openly gay men
and women into the military might have negative impact upon recruitment
and morale, but I have asked the same of women in combat, ("
An Old Bone of Contention")
and, though many may be offended, they are valid questions which need
to be asked. So, if open inquiry makes one a "homophobe", so be it.
Then again, I am proud to be so labeled, because in dubbing me an
opponent, these people have shown just how little the gay rights
movement has to do with tolerance, and how much it is a rigid
orthodoxy. We who truly believe in freedom seem to be dubbed enemies
precisely because the "rights" movement cares little about rights and a
lot about privileges and pressure group warfare.