Homophobia In Denial

I think I was being too subtle.

Queerest Thing Happened? What does that mean?”

Let me see if I can explain this to the slow of mind.

People used queer to describe homosexuals because the idea of homosexuality scared them.  This fear is born of latent homosexuality, fear that you are homosexual.  Ergo calling something gay because it upsets you means you experience latent homosexual feelings.

To put this bluntly; if you are a man, you like to look at other men’s butts. No point in denying it, we’ve caught you looking, so just admit it and we’ll get on to the next point. 

You’ve been taught that there’s something wrong with finding other men…
(or women, if you are one. Not as much of a problem with women, so I understand.  Being a man I don’t want to speak out of turn, so I’ll offer this up as an explanation of my sexism on the subject)
 …attractive.  Consequently you think that there should be some kind of punishment involved for people who find members of their own sex attractive enough to actually engage in sex acts with them.

This isn’t about christian teachings. I know it’s not about christian teachings because, as Jim Wright points out here, the law that mentions homosexuality is 39th in the book of Leviticus,

No Messy Hair is more important than don’t have gay sex – seriously, go look at your bible. It’s right there. The fact that you own a fucking comb is more important to God than not having gay sex.

Stonekettle Station

It’s 39th, and almost none of the other rules are things that christians feel the urge to make laws about.  No wine for Catholics and no dogs as pets.  I just can’t see that list as being anything worth losing any sleep over.

Having a verse in your holy book to point to that explains your reaction does not lend credence to your latent homosexual fears. It just makes you look silly when the other laws in the book are things that you’d either get awards for today (sex with three generations of the same family, here’s your trophy) or laughed out of culinary school for proposing in the first place.  Much less follow them yourself, privately. Go ask any number of prominent church leaders who lead closeted private lives about it if you don’t believe me.

It is a fact that a small percentage of the population are afraid of the biological imperatives that they feel. In some cases that’s a good thing.  You really shouldn’t go around murdering people who call out your latent homosexuality just because you feel an overwhelming desire to do so.  Some of those feelings are harmless, however, and mean nothing. Indulge them or not, it really makes no difference.

It was accepted tradition in Western society that there was something wrong with homosexuality.  It wasn’t just laws in the bible, because the tradition predates the christian church. When civic law became a thing, that law was adopted because of the tradition. And why not? Look at the way they live, there’s clearly something wrong with them.

Never mind that ostracizing individuals causes the very problems that are attributed to the behaviors in the first place.  Research has shown, time and again, that creating an outgroup leads to the kinds of behavior patterns seen in the homosexual community. So it’s not them, it is the rest of us. It is us and our need to see ourselves as better than them.

My daughter, very rightly, pointed out that not everyone who uses the word gay to mean bad is a homophobe. I get that as well. Not everyone who thinks that there is something wrong with homosexuality is actually afraid of finding other men’s butts attractive.  The vast majority of us really don’t notice. We just accept that the things we’ve been taught are true, even though they aren’t. Contrary to popular belief, there’s nothing wrong with being a homosexual, if that’s what you want to be, if that’s what you are. There is no clinical evidence that shows harm in just being a homosexual. There is no social reason why homosexuals would be any different than the rest of us, if they were simply accepted as part of the ingroup.  The majority would be ok with that, if we simply knew the truth.

Homophobes are a tiny little subset of the larger whole.

You know the kind of group I’m talking about, a minority that wants the rest of us to behave the way they feel comfortable. So the next time you misuse the word gay to mean bad, ask yourself if you actually like that guy’s butt or not. Because that is the signal you are sending. The next time you stand up and denounce homosexuals ask yourself if that guy over there (you know who he is) doesn’t actually turn you on and that scares you.

Because if the answer is no, then you aren’t a member of that group, and you really shouldn’t be doing their work for them.  Let them haul their own baggage. Put the shoe on the other foot. Perhaps it’s time that we call out the homophobic for the sick individuals that they are, and prescribe for them some of the treatments that they have demanded we subject others too. Ostracise them, see how well they fare without the rest of us.

With the shoe on the other foot, maybe we can finally put this contentious issue to rest.

Bake for them two, the image (and the article) said. The SCOTUS came to the opposite conclusion. I’m beginning to see a pattern here. In hindsight, there were more articles about the art of cake baking than there was about the issue of whether homosexual couples have a right to exist in the world today, able to buy the same things that everyone else buys. Apparently they aren’t allowed to buy the same things the rest of us do. Please explain to me how this totals out as equality, because I’m seeing a deficit in at least one column.

Author: RAnthony

I'm a freethinking, unapologetic liberal. I'm a former CAD guru with an architectural fetish. I'm a happily married father. I'm also a disabled Meniere's sufferer.

Attacks on arguments offered are appreciated and awaited. Attacks on the author will be deleted.

%d bloggers like this: