Monday, September 19, 2005
All Heart, No Mind. Oprah Winfrey has joined the Castration Conspiracy, the drive to convince homosexual (and lesbian) lunatics that it is possible to be 'a woman trapped in the body of a man' (or vice-versa), and become what they 'really are' by surgical mutilation, chemical infusions, and lies to everyone around. Again this past week, she has indulged the insane lie that it is possible to "change one's sex" thru "sexual reassignment surgery". But not one single cell changes from XY to XX, or XX to XY chromosomal configuration, so there is no sex change at all, only mutilation — gruesome, vile mutilation that would be punished by life in prison if it were done to someone without his or her consent.
+
Lunatics are incapable of consent to mutilation, and society long ago accepted that crazy people cannot be permitted to harm themselves. It is a sacred trust to protect lunatics from themselves. That is as true of "transgendered people" who want to slash themselves to ribbons as of anorexics who, unless stopped, will starve themselves to death.
+
Oprah is a decent woman whose sympathy exceeds her sanity. Indulging lunacy is not in the interest of the lunatic, and studies have shown that people who have mutilation surgery are no happier than people who receive counseling. Worse, "transsexuals" often develop very serious health problems, including a higher incidence of fatal cancers because of disruption of their normal blood chemistry thru the administration of unnatural and inappropriate concentrations of (synthetic) sex hormones. That's why Johns Hopkins University stopped doing "sex-change" operations.
+
The harm that these vile lunatics do themselves is the least of it. They also entrap innocent people in their web of lies and madness, inducing people of inappropriate gender and orientation to become involved in hidden homosexual or lesbian relationships, betraying people they pretend to love. There's no surprise there. People who hate themselves cannot love anyone else, so of course they maliciously and willfully use and hurt other people. Society must not permit that, and preventing lunatics from harming others is the other part of the moral charge we are given relative to madness.
+
Gender confusion has to be addressed by simple, straightforward explications of science, if not also religion.
+
Science can say plainly:
Religious people can say,
The human race is feeble-minded, in the sense that personal identity, something about which everyone should be very clear, can be easily confused. A boy can look at himself naked in a mirror and see plainly that he is a boy, but people's hostility to his wanting to be involved emotionally and sexually with other boys and to grow up to be happily attached to a man, can make him deny his eyes and convince himself that he is "really" a girl and want to grow up to be a woman.
+
Simple sex-role behaviors, like the choice of toys or games, can throw a child's identity into doubt. A boy wants to play with a doll or a girl wants to play with a truck, and all of a sudden the adults around start worrying, and conveying that worry to the child. Or the boy is fine with wrestling with other boys, playing with gender-appropriate toys and such, but would rather play piano than football, and a macho, sports-obsessed father starts to feel insecure about his own manhood, then makes it known to his son that there is something wrong with him, that's he's not as masculine as he should be, and that maybe he's some kind of fruit.
+
A perfectly masculine little boy notices that when (some) other boys are starting to take interest in girls, he doesn't. Then he realizes that his emotional and sexual thoughts are centered on and intent upon boys, learns the words "gay", "homosexual", "fag", "fruit", "fairy", and the like, and decides that he must be gay, and gay must mean effeminate, so he must become effeminate, not because it's really his nature, but because that's what he's supposed to do. We all try to live up to expectations, to some degree or other.
+
So he decides that if to be gay he must become a flaming faggot, he is going to flame as big and scream as loud as anyone has ever flamed or screamed — maybe a bit more. He's going to be the best damned faggot you ever saw!
+
Some people are not even that strong, but allow themselves to accept the equation, "Attracted to boys/men = girl/woman", and then conclude that since they are attracted to boys/men, therefore they must "really" be a girl and must find a way to "become" a woman. Along come some medical quacks who say, "For X-thousand dollars, I can make you a woman!" and they buy it. Everyone around them, in government, in media — even Oprah Winfrey, a decent, caring woman — says that's possible, so it must be true.
+
But some gay people are stronger than the rest, and say "I know what I want, and know as well that wanting boys/men does not make me any less a boy myself nor keep me from growing up to be a full, normal, active man, enthusiastic about life with men. I don't have to be nelly, or queeny, or flamboyant, or loud and obnoxious about it. I'll just be myself, a gay man, and live my life with dignity, self-respect, and respect for other gay men." They're the lucky ones.
+
How can the strong share their strength? "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link", and gay society is very weak indeed, because the connections between us are weak, and many relationships dysfunctional. In a metal chain, a strong link cannot make a weak link strong. Can a human chain be any more dynamic? Can one man's strength and confidence make another man stronger?
+
One thing is plain: the confused do not become unconfused in isolation. Surrounded by negative influences, they become more confused, not less. Surrounded by positive influences and role models, they might become less confused, and eventually sort themselves out. But they must escape the constant pressures to confusion. And they can't do that in straight society, not when even decent people are pushing indecent things, like persuading faggots that they should have their genitals chopped off and a slit gashed into their crotch so as magically, by that mutilation, to become a woman! whereupon all the feelings they have for men will become "normal"!
+
Gay men must get away from heterosexual notions of gender-appropriate behavior. For us, it is gender-appropriate to make passes at men, have sex with men, form intimate relationships with men. We must find places where those behaviors are not just accepted, grudgingly, but actively encouraged.
+
Just as gay men need bolstering, so too, because they too are feeble-minded, do straight men. Thus straight society has to constantly instruct its own members as to what is and is not appropriate. Heterosexual society is constantly reinforcing heterosexuality in images, song lyrics, literature, etc., and constantly fiting against temptations to homosexuality by steering straight men away from 'danger', because people in general are weak-minded as regards sexual identity, straight men as much as gay men.
+
Without constant reminders that homosexual sex is disapproved and unmasculine, if not actually forbidden, a very large proportion of "straight" men would have homosexual sex when the opportunity to do so with a desirable man occurred. So the straight world is constantly on guard against homosexuality.
+
The gay world doesn't have to be as agitatedly wary, however, because gay men who have made the transition from the straight life they were raised to have, do not ever choose heterosexuality thereafter. Homosexuality is plainly the more powerful instinct. Straight men are attracted to it, so are constantly warned away. Nobody has to warn gay men away from heterosexuality. They just naturally cleave to their own orientation if given a choice.
+
The problem is finding a way to be free and to meet potential partners. That is what the gay world is for, but it does a very poor job of providing opportunities for gay men to find happiness as full, natural men. The "gay" world retains a lot of deeply instilled heterosexual notions. That is something we need to work on.
+
But the first responsibility of gay men is to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE STRAIGHT WORLD, to escape its expectations and coercions. Lessening those expectations and coercions by altering the straight world's behavior and teachings can help. Thus, it is urgent that whenever someone like Oprah Winfrey does us injustice, we gently but forcefully correct her. I'm going to write her a note. You might too.
+
Lunatics are incapable of consent to mutilation, and society long ago accepted that crazy people cannot be permitted to harm themselves. It is a sacred trust to protect lunatics from themselves. That is as true of "transgendered people" who want to slash themselves to ribbons as of anorexics who, unless stopped, will starve themselves to death.
+
Oprah is a decent woman whose sympathy exceeds her sanity. Indulging lunacy is not in the interest of the lunatic, and studies have shown that people who have mutilation surgery are no happier than people who receive counseling. Worse, "transsexuals" often develop very serious health problems, including a higher incidence of fatal cancers because of disruption of their normal blood chemistry thru the administration of unnatural and inappropriate concentrations of (synthetic) sex hormones. That's why Johns Hopkins University stopped doing "sex-change" operations.
+
The harm that these vile lunatics do themselves is the least of it. They also entrap innocent people in their web of lies and madness, inducing people of inappropriate gender and orientation to become involved in hidden homosexual or lesbian relationships, betraying people they pretend to love. There's no surprise there. People who hate themselves cannot love anyone else, so of course they maliciously and willfully use and hurt other people. Society must not permit that, and preventing lunatics from harming others is the other part of the moral charge we are given relative to madness.
+
Gender confusion has to be addressed by simple, straightforward explications of science, if not also religion.
+
Science can say plainly:
Biology doesn't lie. Chromosomes, not the mind, not human will, not anything else, determine gender, and the physical reality of gender is never a lie, never a delusion. Physical reality is reality. No emotional 'reality' trumps physical reality. You "really" are what your chromosomes say you are, and there is no such thing as "a woman trapped in the body of a man" or "a man trapped in the body of a woman". No such thing. Wishing you were something else doesn't make you something else. You can wish you were Napoleon or a porpoise or orangutang — or refrigerator, for that matter. But surgically installing a lite bulb at the back of your mouth won't make you into a refrigerator.
Religious people can say,
"God doesn't make mistakes, so if you're born a boy, you are a boy, period. You grow up to be a man. No one born a boy grows up to be a woman, or vice-versa. God marked you in every cell of your body with the gender you really are. There is no such thing as emotional reality that conflicts with physical reality. If you are chromosomally a man, or woman, that's what you are. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Now, if you're unhappy about that, we can address that, and help you accept what you really are. But we're not going to pretend that God made a mistake and it is for man to fix it."
The human race is feeble-minded, in the sense that personal identity, something about which everyone should be very clear, can be easily confused. A boy can look at himself naked in a mirror and see plainly that he is a boy, but people's hostility to his wanting to be involved emotionally and sexually with other boys and to grow up to be happily attached to a man, can make him deny his eyes and convince himself that he is "really" a girl and want to grow up to be a woman.
+
Simple sex-role behaviors, like the choice of toys or games, can throw a child's identity into doubt. A boy wants to play with a doll or a girl wants to play with a truck, and all of a sudden the adults around start worrying, and conveying that worry to the child. Or the boy is fine with wrestling with other boys, playing with gender-appropriate toys and such, but would rather play piano than football, and a macho, sports-obsessed father starts to feel insecure about his own manhood, then makes it known to his son that there is something wrong with him, that's he's not as masculine as he should be, and that maybe he's some kind of fruit.
+
A perfectly masculine little boy notices that when (some) other boys are starting to take interest in girls, he doesn't. Then he realizes that his emotional and sexual thoughts are centered on and intent upon boys, learns the words "gay", "homosexual", "fag", "fruit", "fairy", and the like, and decides that he must be gay, and gay must mean effeminate, so he must become effeminate, not because it's really his nature, but because that's what he's supposed to do. We all try to live up to expectations, to some degree or other.
+
So he decides that if to be gay he must become a flaming faggot, he is going to flame as big and scream as loud as anyone has ever flamed or screamed — maybe a bit more. He's going to be the best damned faggot you ever saw!
+
Some people are not even that strong, but allow themselves to accept the equation, "Attracted to boys/men = girl/woman", and then conclude that since they are attracted to boys/men, therefore they must "really" be a girl and must find a way to "become" a woman. Along come some medical quacks who say, "For X-thousand dollars, I can make you a woman!" and they buy it. Everyone around them, in government, in media — even Oprah Winfrey, a decent, caring woman — says that's possible, so it must be true.
+
But some gay people are stronger than the rest, and say "I know what I want, and know as well that wanting boys/men does not make me any less a boy myself nor keep me from growing up to be a full, normal, active man, enthusiastic about life with men. I don't have to be nelly, or queeny, or flamboyant, or loud and obnoxious about it. I'll just be myself, a gay man, and live my life with dignity, self-respect, and respect for other gay men." They're the lucky ones.
+
How can the strong share their strength? "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link", and gay society is very weak indeed, because the connections between us are weak, and many relationships dysfunctional. In a metal chain, a strong link cannot make a weak link strong. Can a human chain be any more dynamic? Can one man's strength and confidence make another man stronger?
+
One thing is plain: the confused do not become unconfused in isolation. Surrounded by negative influences, they become more confused, not less. Surrounded by positive influences and role models, they might become less confused, and eventually sort themselves out. But they must escape the constant pressures to confusion. And they can't do that in straight society, not when even decent people are pushing indecent things, like persuading faggots that they should have their genitals chopped off and a slit gashed into their crotch so as magically, by that mutilation, to become a woman! whereupon all the feelings they have for men will become "normal"!
+
Gay men must get away from heterosexual notions of gender-appropriate behavior. For us, it is gender-appropriate to make passes at men, have sex with men, form intimate relationships with men. We must find places where those behaviors are not just accepted, grudgingly, but actively encouraged.
+
Just as gay men need bolstering, so too, because they too are feeble-minded, do straight men. Thus straight society has to constantly instruct its own members as to what is and is not appropriate. Heterosexual society is constantly reinforcing heterosexuality in images, song lyrics, literature, etc., and constantly fiting against temptations to homosexuality by steering straight men away from 'danger', because people in general are weak-minded as regards sexual identity, straight men as much as gay men.
+
Without constant reminders that homosexual sex is disapproved and unmasculine, if not actually forbidden, a very large proportion of "straight" men would have homosexual sex when the opportunity to do so with a desirable man occurred. So the straight world is constantly on guard against homosexuality.
+
The gay world doesn't have to be as agitatedly wary, however, because gay men who have made the transition from the straight life they were raised to have, do not ever choose heterosexuality thereafter. Homosexuality is plainly the more powerful instinct. Straight men are attracted to it, so are constantly warned away. Nobody has to warn gay men away from heterosexuality. They just naturally cleave to their own orientation if given a choice.
+
The problem is finding a way to be free and to meet potential partners. That is what the gay world is for, but it does a very poor job of providing opportunities for gay men to find happiness as full, natural men. The "gay" world retains a lot of deeply instilled heterosexual notions. That is something we need to work on.
+
But the first responsibility of gay men is to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE STRAIGHT WORLD, to escape its expectations and coercions. Lessening those expectations and coercions by altering the straight world's behavior and teachings can help. Thus, it is urgent that whenever someone like Oprah Winfrey does us injustice, we gently but forcefully correct her. I'm going to write her a note. You might too.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
A Straight Man in Gay Rodeo. This weekend, the Discovery Times cable channel is showing an episode of its Only in America series in which New York Times reporter Charlie Duff puts himself into a gay rodeo in Oklahoma City. If you haven't already seen it, you can still see it tonite at 7:00pm (ET) if your cable system carries the Discovery Times channel. Besides, most cable channels repeat their offerings often, so you might catch it eventually if you're interested.
+
There are some interesting moments in that hour-long program, some having to do with the need of the reporter to make plain to everyone that he is straight, and the reaction that provokes; others having to do with the maladjustment of many of the small-town boys portrayed to their homosexuality (and of some dykes to their 'lesbianism' — if any). Duff also makes an interesting observation that became plain to him in very short order: There is no such thing as "the gay community". It's a fraud, a contrivance for political purposes that conceals a host of subgroups and intersubgroup hostilities that The Movement tries to suppress.
+
Altho he observes that this is a politically-expedient "community", not a real community of people who feel real connections, what he doesn't quite "get" is that the maladjusted people who have fabricated this artificial community actually want to believe it exists, despite all indications to the contrary. They want to believe that gay men and lesbian women "belong together", have everything in common, so "should" be together in the same movement, the same bars, the same everything except bed. But they can't force their truly perverted views upon the many disparate people who refuse to conform to that peculiar, mock-heterosexual "lesbigay" world. Gay men insist on being gay and going their own way.
+
Duff's intelligence and sanity fail him, however, when he deals with a profoundly disturbed individual who, he tells us, "became a woman" some years ago — but continues to participate in the gay rodeo! That demented loser is not just a psychotic, who deluded himself that he was a woman, tho everything on Earth shouted plainly that he was a man, and mutilated his body to try to flesh out his sad fantasies, but a psychotic's psychotic, a man who despite a "sex change", continues to immerse himself in the gay world! Why on Earth would a gay man have himself castrated and then continue to associate with men who want men who are sexually intact?
+
When I first saw the face of that sad creature, who had theretofore been called only by a woman's name, I was startled, because it looked like a man's face. Then I heard that he is, chromosomally, a man. You see, "sex-change" surgery cannot alter so much as one single cell of a person's body to change over to the opposite sex. All it can do is chop out millions of cells and rearrange others that retain to their dying day the XY chromosomal makeup that marks a man or XX makeup that marks a woman. So there can never be a true "sex change", only a conspiracy of lies and mutilation.
+
That double psychotic is sad that he has lost his family, who will have nothing to do with him in his mutilated and dishonest state. Good for them! No one should have anything to do with these crazed, evil liars who insult homosexuality and deform themselves to try to conform to heterosexual expectations. If the gay world stridently and viciously campaigned against mutilation surgery, maybe maladjusted faggots and dykes who have terrible things done to their bodies and who then drag innocent straight people into their sick fantasies by lies and deceit wouldn't have such surgery but would come to terms with their true gender and true nature.
+
The "gay" rodeo is of course not gay at all, but basically "lesbigay". Altho most of the competitors are men, women are intruded into this gay scene, destroying it and rendering it into just another bit of twisted heterosexuality. For, the very least "gay" means — the very, very least — is "same sex", and that means one sex or the other, but not both.
+
Actually, some men interviewed onscreen said that the "gay" rodeo doesn't even insist that participants be gay or lesbian, but permits anyone in who wants in. Why on Earth would you establish a gay event and then invite in straights? No pride, that's why.
+
I was also offended by the fact that, according to Duff, in straight, professional rodeo, one must ride a bull for 8 seconds to be credited with a good ride, but in the gay rodeo, it's only 6 seconds. Is that standard for nonprofessional rodeo? Or are gay men telling themselves that they are less than straights so cannot hold themselves to the same standard? I really don't know. If the latter, they need to up their qualifying time to whatever the standard is for rodeos of comparable level, 8 seconds if that is standard for amateur rodeo, 7 if that is standard, and 6 only if every straight amateur rodeo abides by that standard. What is the point of embracing an activity to prove to yourself that you're a man if you don't live up to the standards required of (straight) men?
+
So the "gay" rodeo is not same-sex, and thus not gay. It welcomes straights, so is not "lesbigay". And it turns out that "gay" rodeo is actually insanely antihomosexual for inflicting transvestism upon its participants and audience. In what is supposed to be funny, a gay man and lesbian woman are paired for a race. Think about that: a gay man and lesbian woman are forcibly formed into a heterosexual couple — except that the sexes are reversed. The man dresses as a woman, even if he has a beard and mustache, and the woman dresses up as a man. That's supposed to be gay? "lesbigay"? lesbian? And it's supposed to be funny?
+
Even more disgustingly, Charlie Duff, the heterosexual intruder, is paired with the "TRANSSEXUAL", who is now to be considered what? A lesbian?!? He had his genitals chopped off and a slit carved in his crotch so he could love women??
+
Outside the rodeo's confines, Duff teams up with a formerly-straight gay minister to confront a 'formerly-gay' straight lay preacher who is now active in trying to convert gay men to heterosexuality. The two Bible-thumpers do some moronic sparring over Bible quotes, mixing Judaism (as tho Oklahoma is Jewish) with Christianity, and then Duff asks the now-"straight" guy, who still sounds a little faggoty, which kind of sexual activity he prefers. The guy's remarks are revelatory! He compares sex with men to a drug-induced high, wild and ecstatic but (somehow) artificial and unsatisfying. Then he says that sex with his wife, tho apparently not nearly so pleasurable nor ecstatic, is filled with "peace", which he never found in 8 years of homosexual activity.
+
How could he find peace in homosexuality if he consented to keep his head filled with superstitious disapproval from Judaism, our worst enemy? How could he heed Leviticus over Jesus? Does he abide by the other requirements of Leviticus, dietary laws and animal sacrifice? I suspect he does not.
+
You can't pick and choose which requirements of Judaism you will abide by and which ignore. Obey them all or ignore them all. Christians are supposed to heed Jesus.
+
For his part, Jesus gave us three commandments: (1) love God with all your heart and soul; (2) love your neighbor as yourself; and (3) "As you would have others do to you, so too do to them" — the Golden Rule that is supposed to be the supreme guide to behavior for Christians.
+
The Golden Rule makes a self-directed morality easy. All you need do is ask "Would I want someone to do this to me?" and the right answer comes back.
+
Plainly gay men abide by the Golden Rule to the letter, as literally as anyone can do. So why would a good Christian feel guilty about homosexuality?
+
All that being said, it does, alas, require courage and insight to break from the expectations of small-town America in the Bible Belt. The fact that television, films, music, the Internet, the reach of national organizations, and the impact of readily available travel make it easier for people today to assert themselves against conformity to a 'norm' that is not theirs does not detract from the achievement of small-town gay men who have liberated themselves in some regard, even if they are still not fully free. That being said, gay men owe it to themselves and each other to work harder to become fully free, and not accept the right of their parents or teachers or preachers or small-town small-mindedness to keep them from being themselves — for even one more day.
+
There are some interesting moments in that hour-long program, some having to do with the need of the reporter to make plain to everyone that he is straight, and the reaction that provokes; others having to do with the maladjustment of many of the small-town boys portrayed to their homosexuality (and of some dykes to their 'lesbianism' — if any). Duff also makes an interesting observation that became plain to him in very short order: There is no such thing as "the gay community". It's a fraud, a contrivance for political purposes that conceals a host of subgroups and intersubgroup hostilities that The Movement tries to suppress.
+
Altho he observes that this is a politically-expedient "community", not a real community of people who feel real connections, what he doesn't quite "get" is that the maladjusted people who have fabricated this artificial community actually want to believe it exists, despite all indications to the contrary. They want to believe that gay men and lesbian women "belong together", have everything in common, so "should" be together in the same movement, the same bars, the same everything except bed. But they can't force their truly perverted views upon the many disparate people who refuse to conform to that peculiar, mock-heterosexual "lesbigay" world. Gay men insist on being gay and going their own way.
+
Duff's intelligence and sanity fail him, however, when he deals with a profoundly disturbed individual who, he tells us, "became a woman" some years ago — but continues to participate in the gay rodeo! That demented loser is not just a psychotic, who deluded himself that he was a woman, tho everything on Earth shouted plainly that he was a man, and mutilated his body to try to flesh out his sad fantasies, but a psychotic's psychotic, a man who despite a "sex change", continues to immerse himself in the gay world! Why on Earth would a gay man have himself castrated and then continue to associate with men who want men who are sexually intact?
+
When I first saw the face of that sad creature, who had theretofore been called only by a woman's name, I was startled, because it looked like a man's face. Then I heard that he is, chromosomally, a man. You see, "sex-change" surgery cannot alter so much as one single cell of a person's body to change over to the opposite sex. All it can do is chop out millions of cells and rearrange others that retain to their dying day the XY chromosomal makeup that marks a man or XX makeup that marks a woman. So there can never be a true "sex change", only a conspiracy of lies and mutilation.
+
That double psychotic is sad that he has lost his family, who will have nothing to do with him in his mutilated and dishonest state. Good for them! No one should have anything to do with these crazed, evil liars who insult homosexuality and deform themselves to try to conform to heterosexual expectations. If the gay world stridently and viciously campaigned against mutilation surgery, maybe maladjusted faggots and dykes who have terrible things done to their bodies and who then drag innocent straight people into their sick fantasies by lies and deceit wouldn't have such surgery but would come to terms with their true gender and true nature.
+
The "gay" rodeo is of course not gay at all, but basically "lesbigay". Altho most of the competitors are men, women are intruded into this gay scene, destroying it and rendering it into just another bit of twisted heterosexuality. For, the very least "gay" means — the very, very least — is "same sex", and that means one sex or the other, but not both.
+
Actually, some men interviewed onscreen said that the "gay" rodeo doesn't even insist that participants be gay or lesbian, but permits anyone in who wants in. Why on Earth would you establish a gay event and then invite in straights? No pride, that's why.
+
I was also offended by the fact that, according to Duff, in straight, professional rodeo, one must ride a bull for 8 seconds to be credited with a good ride, but in the gay rodeo, it's only 6 seconds. Is that standard for nonprofessional rodeo? Or are gay men telling themselves that they are less than straights so cannot hold themselves to the same standard? I really don't know. If the latter, they need to up their qualifying time to whatever the standard is for rodeos of comparable level, 8 seconds if that is standard for amateur rodeo, 7 if that is standard, and 6 only if every straight amateur rodeo abides by that standard. What is the point of embracing an activity to prove to yourself that you're a man if you don't live up to the standards required of (straight) men?
+
So the "gay" rodeo is not same-sex, and thus not gay. It welcomes straights, so is not "lesbigay". And it turns out that "gay" rodeo is actually insanely antihomosexual for inflicting transvestism upon its participants and audience. In what is supposed to be funny, a gay man and lesbian woman are paired for a race. Think about that: a gay man and lesbian woman are forcibly formed into a heterosexual couple — except that the sexes are reversed. The man dresses as a woman, even if he has a beard and mustache, and the woman dresses up as a man. That's supposed to be gay? "lesbigay"? lesbian? And it's supposed to be funny?
+
Even more disgustingly, Charlie Duff, the heterosexual intruder, is paired with the "TRANSSEXUAL", who is now to be considered what? A lesbian?!? He had his genitals chopped off and a slit carved in his crotch so he could love women??
+
Outside the rodeo's confines, Duff teams up with a formerly-straight gay minister to confront a 'formerly-gay' straight lay preacher who is now active in trying to convert gay men to heterosexuality. The two Bible-thumpers do some moronic sparring over Bible quotes, mixing Judaism (as tho Oklahoma is Jewish) with Christianity, and then Duff asks the now-"straight" guy, who still sounds a little faggoty, which kind of sexual activity he prefers. The guy's remarks are revelatory! He compares sex with men to a drug-induced high, wild and ecstatic but (somehow) artificial and unsatisfying. Then he says that sex with his wife, tho apparently not nearly so pleasurable nor ecstatic, is filled with "peace", which he never found in 8 years of homosexual activity.
+
How could he find peace in homosexuality if he consented to keep his head filled with superstitious disapproval from Judaism, our worst enemy? How could he heed Leviticus over Jesus? Does he abide by the other requirements of Leviticus, dietary laws and animal sacrifice? I suspect he does not.
+
You can't pick and choose which requirements of Judaism you will abide by and which ignore. Obey them all or ignore them all. Christians are supposed to heed Jesus.
+
For his part, Jesus gave us three commandments: (1) love God with all your heart and soul; (2) love your neighbor as yourself; and (3) "As you would have others do to you, so too do to them" — the Golden Rule that is supposed to be the supreme guide to behavior for Christians.
+
The Golden Rule makes a self-directed morality easy. All you need do is ask "Would I want someone to do this to me?" and the right answer comes back.
+
Plainly gay men abide by the Golden Rule to the letter, as literally as anyone can do. So why would a good Christian feel guilty about homosexuality?
+
All that being said, it does, alas, require courage and insight to break from the expectations of small-town America in the Bible Belt. The fact that television, films, music, the Internet, the reach of national organizations, and the impact of readily available travel make it easier for people today to assert themselves against conformity to a 'norm' that is not theirs does not detract from the achievement of small-town gay men who have liberated themselves in some regard, even if they are still not fully free. That being said, gay men owe it to themselves and each other to work harder to become fully free, and not accept the right of their parents or teachers or preachers or small-town small-mindedness to keep them from being themselves — for even one more day.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
LOGO — Fundamentally Missconceived. Viacom's "LGBT" cable channel is a nitemare. Any gay man who thought he would see his life reflected and feel his heart warmed by a national 'gay' network will be extremely disappointed. Logo is appallingly antigay. It literally speaks with a female voice: essentially all its own promos are narrated by a woman! Why does a "gay" channel speak with a woman's voice? Well, you see, Logo endlessly promotes the lie that homosexuality means "lesbianism"; gay men are only male lesbians; "gay" and "lesbian" are "the same thing"; men are unimportant; and it is better to present "gayness" to the general public as gentle, female-to-female affection rather than as man-to-man sexuality. Logo is, in short, the enemy.
+
I have been checking Logo's schedule regularly from the first nite, and am sad to report that it appears to be 70% female, 10% drag, 10% AIDS, and only 10% non-drag, non-AIDS gay men — some of them nelly, others maladjusted, and few to none manifestly well-adjusted, self-affirming, masculine men.
+
Most of the programming on that dreadful channel is reruns of old straight productions with some gay, lesbian, or transvestite theme or subplot. Logo has shown the grotesque, viciously antihomosexual monstrosity The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, at least 30 times since the network debuted June 30th.
+
What little original programming it offers is campy, c*nty crap. The Canadian fruit, Scott Thompson, hosts a loathsome wedding show which, of course, focuses on women at least as often as on men, and is peppered with fruity remarks. Logo's own website actually promotes that show with a photograph in which Thompson is between two women who are kissing him on opposite cheeks! Very gay, isn't it? Oh, no, that's wrong. Women kissing men is heterosexual, not homosexual — indeed, it is the opposite of homosexual. You'd think Logo would know that. You'd be wrong. Logo is utterly, utterly confused.
+
Logo broadcasts a travel show that employs foreigners, even in segments made in the United States. This is an American cable service paid for by an American company supported by American cable subscribers, but it hires foreigners, so American gay people can't even find work on their own network!
+
That travel show goes way out of its way to point out places of interest to lesbians. In one recent show, the (fruity) host intoned a script that told viewers of places for lesbians only and for both lesbians and gay men together — but, curiously, mentioned nothing for men only. Men, you see, are not important to Logo. We're only the bulk of the potential audience, with the bulk of the disposable income. Why would they want to appeal to or inform us?
+
Logo also broadcasts some music videos and concerts. The videos I have seen have had no apparent relevance to homosexuality whatsoever. They are not of men singing love songs to men. The images are not homosexual but neuter or heterosexual. Or the songs are performed by mixed-gender (heterosexual) groups or women alone.
+
The concerts are overwhelmingly female, hours and hours of Melissa Etheridge, Kylie Minogue, and Sarah McLachlan. PlanetOut.com says in so many words that "Sarah McLachlan is not a lesbian". Nor, apparently, is Kylie Minogue. So why does Logo broadcast their concerts? Well, they're women, and Logo loves women — straight, lesbian makes no difference. They'll put any woman on because Logo loves women. It doesn't much care for men.
+
Oh, there was a Morrissey concert, but he's not gay. A VH-1 bio says he sang one vaguely gay song in his 23-year career (to date), "'Hand in Glove,' a love song filled with oblique references to homosexuality". Oblique references. Not good enuf. Worse, the same bio speaks of Morrissey's "self-proclaimed celibacy in the wake of much speculation about his sexuality." So he isn't gay, his music isn't gay, his band isn't gay, and his lyrics aren't gay. Why was he on Logo? Is there really no openly gay male musician Logo could present?
+
Gay men aren't even to be accorded the dignity of sexual privacy. Logo aired a hideous standup comedy concert by the maladjusted heterosexual loser Margaret Cho, who admits in that performance to one lesbian incident in her entire life and then makes explicit, obscene remarks about her heterosexual activities and talks about watching gay porn! I turned off. How dare she! And why would she watch men, who want no part of women , having sex with men? Because she's insane, that's why, as Logo is insane.
+
An original Logo series, Open Bar, concerns a maladjusted homo only recently out of the closet who decides to open a 'gay' bar/restaurant in West Hollywood, even tho he knows nothing about the business. Instead of opening a comfy little neighborhood place and learning the business over time, he rushes into creating a large and hugely expensive 'destination' establishment, to be called ICandy ("eye candy"). He partners with a straight man whose architect's drawings show lots of women scattered throughout the place — an oddity that even the macho recent convert comments on. But then this maladjusted loser goes out of his way to hire women to tend bar, wait tables, and even co-manage the place! Yes, gay men in West Hollywood all want to look at women behind the bar! Of course. Gay men love to stare at and flirt with barmaids and waitresses! Women are "eye candy" for gay men. Oh. No. That's wrong.
+
The maladjusted loser who is doing all this is still living in his straight-boy frat days. I have seen quite enuf of that series, just enuf to come to hate that guy with a passion and hope he fails miserably and loses everything he and all his investors expend.
+
Viacom does everyone extreme disservice with a single missconceived (no typo) cable network directed to four different audiences: lesbians (first and foremost), gay men, "bisexuals" (a mythical creature), and "transgendered" people (an even more pernicious myth, self-despising, gender-confused lunatics who should be in mental institutions until cured of their delusions).
+
Gay men do not want to watch lesbian TV, but Logo tries to force them to.
+
Lesbians should not want to watch gay men's TV, but I'm not persuaded there really is such a thing as a lesbian. Lesbianism may be an urban legend, referring only to man-hating women who wish they were themselves men and avoid intimacy with men — when they do — only because being naked with a man strips them of their delusion that they are themselves men. The great preponderance of "lesbians" have had a lot of sex with men, and perhaps most have even had children the old-fashioned way.
+
In a mixed gay-lesbian bar (the Townhouse of old, in 1970s Manhattan), gay men had the second floor and lesbians the third. As the nite wore on, more and more "lesbians" would drift down to the men's floor, because they preferred to be with men.
+
"TV's" (transvestites) must hate all 'TV' except drag shows. And "transgendered" people (transvestites with pretensions) are too lost in a world of delusion to be of any value to any advertiser, in part because many of them are unemployed and unemployable — as well they should be.
+
If Viacom is to salvage anything positive for gay men from its Logo monstrosity, it will have to either dump all the craziness and lesbianism, speak with a male voice, and create tons of original programming fit for well-adjusted gay men to watch, or create separate channels for its separate and mutually incompatible audiences, say, Logo 1 for gay men and Logo 2 for lesbians and people who identify as women. Alas, I suspect that if Logo were to be parted in two, Logo 1 would be designated for women — somehow lesbians aren't offended by "ladies first" when it comes to pride of place in the "lesbigay" world — and gay men would at best get Logo 2. If Viacom created four separate channels, one for each of its audiences, gay men would almost certainly be put dead last, in Logo 4.
+
For my part, I'd rather watch well-adjusted straight TV than lunatic "lesbigay" and 'TV'-TV. If you would too, write to the head of Viacom to tell him that Logo is a monstrosity that must be reformed: Mr. Sumner Redstone, Chairman, Viacom, Inc., 1515 Broadway, New York, NY 10036.
+
I have been checking Logo's schedule regularly from the first nite, and am sad to report that it appears to be 70% female, 10% drag, 10% AIDS, and only 10% non-drag, non-AIDS gay men — some of them nelly, others maladjusted, and few to none manifestly well-adjusted, self-affirming, masculine men.
+
Most of the programming on that dreadful channel is reruns of old straight productions with some gay, lesbian, or transvestite theme or subplot. Logo has shown the grotesque, viciously antihomosexual monstrosity The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, at least 30 times since the network debuted June 30th.
+
What little original programming it offers is campy, c*nty crap. The Canadian fruit, Scott Thompson, hosts a loathsome wedding show which, of course, focuses on women at least as often as on men, and is peppered with fruity remarks. Logo's own website actually promotes that show with a photograph in which Thompson is between two women who are kissing him on opposite cheeks! Very gay, isn't it? Oh, no, that's wrong. Women kissing men is heterosexual, not homosexual — indeed, it is the opposite of homosexual. You'd think Logo would know that. You'd be wrong. Logo is utterly, utterly confused.
+
Logo broadcasts a travel show that employs foreigners, even in segments made in the United States. This is an American cable service paid for by an American company supported by American cable subscribers, but it hires foreigners, so American gay people can't even find work on their own network!
+
That travel show goes way out of its way to point out places of interest to lesbians. In one recent show, the (fruity) host intoned a script that told viewers of places for lesbians only and for both lesbians and gay men together — but, curiously, mentioned nothing for men only. Men, you see, are not important to Logo. We're only the bulk of the potential audience, with the bulk of the disposable income. Why would they want to appeal to or inform us?
+
Logo also broadcasts some music videos and concerts. The videos I have seen have had no apparent relevance to homosexuality whatsoever. They are not of men singing love songs to men. The images are not homosexual but neuter or heterosexual. Or the songs are performed by mixed-gender (heterosexual) groups or women alone.
+
The concerts are overwhelmingly female, hours and hours of Melissa Etheridge, Kylie Minogue, and Sarah McLachlan. PlanetOut.com says in so many words that "Sarah McLachlan is not a lesbian". Nor, apparently, is Kylie Minogue. So why does Logo broadcast their concerts? Well, they're women, and Logo loves women — straight, lesbian makes no difference. They'll put any woman on because Logo loves women. It doesn't much care for men.
+
Oh, there was a Morrissey concert, but he's not gay. A VH-1 bio says he sang one vaguely gay song in his 23-year career (to date), "'Hand in Glove,' a love song filled with oblique references to homosexuality". Oblique references. Not good enuf. Worse, the same bio speaks of Morrissey's "self-proclaimed celibacy in the wake of much speculation about his sexuality." So he isn't gay, his music isn't gay, his band isn't gay, and his lyrics aren't gay. Why was he on Logo? Is there really no openly gay male musician Logo could present?
+
Gay men aren't even to be accorded the dignity of sexual privacy. Logo aired a hideous standup comedy concert by the maladjusted heterosexual loser Margaret Cho, who admits in that performance to one lesbian incident in her entire life and then makes explicit, obscene remarks about her heterosexual activities and talks about watching gay porn! I turned off. How dare she! And why would she watch men, who want no part of women , having sex with men? Because she's insane, that's why, as Logo is insane.
+
An original Logo series, Open Bar, concerns a maladjusted homo only recently out of the closet who decides to open a 'gay' bar/restaurant in West Hollywood, even tho he knows nothing about the business. Instead of opening a comfy little neighborhood place and learning the business over time, he rushes into creating a large and hugely expensive 'destination' establishment, to be called ICandy ("eye candy"). He partners with a straight man whose architect's drawings show lots of women scattered throughout the place — an oddity that even the macho recent convert comments on. But then this maladjusted loser goes out of his way to hire women to tend bar, wait tables, and even co-manage the place! Yes, gay men in West Hollywood all want to look at women behind the bar! Of course. Gay men love to stare at and flirt with barmaids and waitresses! Women are "eye candy" for gay men. Oh. No. That's wrong.
+
The maladjusted loser who is doing all this is still living in his straight-boy frat days. I have seen quite enuf of that series, just enuf to come to hate that guy with a passion and hope he fails miserably and loses everything he and all his investors expend.
+
Viacom does everyone extreme disservice with a single missconceived (no typo) cable network directed to four different audiences: lesbians (first and foremost), gay men, "bisexuals" (a mythical creature), and "transgendered" people (an even more pernicious myth, self-despising, gender-confused lunatics who should be in mental institutions until cured of their delusions).
+
Gay men do not want to watch lesbian TV, but Logo tries to force them to.
+
Lesbians should not want to watch gay men's TV, but I'm not persuaded there really is such a thing as a lesbian. Lesbianism may be an urban legend, referring only to man-hating women who wish they were themselves men and avoid intimacy with men — when they do — only because being naked with a man strips them of their delusion that they are themselves men. The great preponderance of "lesbians" have had a lot of sex with men, and perhaps most have even had children the old-fashioned way.
+
In a mixed gay-lesbian bar (the Townhouse of old, in 1970s Manhattan), gay men had the second floor and lesbians the third. As the nite wore on, more and more "lesbians" would drift down to the men's floor, because they preferred to be with men.
+
"TV's" (transvestites) must hate all 'TV' except drag shows. And "transgendered" people (transvestites with pretensions) are too lost in a world of delusion to be of any value to any advertiser, in part because many of them are unemployed and unemployable — as well they should be.
+
If Viacom is to salvage anything positive for gay men from its Logo monstrosity, it will have to either dump all the craziness and lesbianism, speak with a male voice, and create tons of original programming fit for well-adjusted gay men to watch, or create separate channels for its separate and mutually incompatible audiences, say, Logo 1 for gay men and Logo 2 for lesbians and people who identify as women. Alas, I suspect that if Logo were to be parted in two, Logo 1 would be designated for women — somehow lesbians aren't offended by "ladies first" when it comes to pride of place in the "lesbigay" world — and gay men would at best get Logo 2. If Viacom created four separate channels, one for each of its audiences, gay men would almost certainly be put dead last, in Logo 4.
+
For my part, I'd rather watch well-adjusted straight TV than lunatic "lesbigay" and 'TV'-TV. If you would too, write to the head of Viacom to tell him that Logo is a monstrosity that must be reformed: Mr. Sumner Redstone, Chairman, Viacom, Inc., 1515 Broadway, New York, NY 10036.
