Long title:
If You Are Using the Word "Homosexual" (as Well as Derivatives, Positive, Negative or Other, such as "Gay" and "Fag" etc…) — by that very act — You Are Already Losing the Battle.
What battle?
A battle in the alleged war against homosexuals, or perhaps that, more general (and more real), against liberals and the left?
No.
The battle to see the truth, pure and simple, and to (warning: gay double entendre ahead) get to the bottom of things.
And it applies to whether you are pro-gay, anti-gay, or neutral; and whether you are conservative, liberal, of independent.
It sounds extreme, doesn't it?
Surely in this day and age, just about everybody would agree, the terms gay and homosexual are part and parcel of modern-day discourse, and should thus be accepted. No?
One (straight) pickup artist's approach technique involves asking a girl whether she is: a folder, a roller, or a tosser. Wondering what identity of hers he is asking about gets the conversation going (it concerns how one… packs ones clothes in ones suitcase!) — which is the whole point, needless to say. A whole conversation begins and continues forever — just as it has, on a nation-wide scale, on a worldwide scale, regarding oppressed homosexuals, oppressed African-Americans, oppressed women, oppressed individuals who pour hot coffee on their laps at McDonald's, etc etc etc…
The other day, I was telling a liberal how I was sorry, but — compared with their lot in foreign countries — blacks and the poor have perhaps not suffered as much in America as they like to think…
He immediately interrupted me: "You've never been black!"
Of course, his being a close member of my family, he wasn't black either and had never been so either.
But that is of no matter, needless to say, because he is of the tolerant-generous-humanistic-new-agey sort and so he empathizes with minorities and wants the government to interfere on their (alleged) behalf.
Another time, I was told — by leftist Jews — that I was not a Palestinian and could not comment on the conflict because I had no idea of their suffering at the hands of Israel.
The answer to all those issues is, I am a human being, and therefore I can understand (or make a decision to refuse to understand) blacks (black human beings), Palestinians (Palestinian human beings), women (female human beings), etc, etc, etc, as well as homosexuals (gay human beings)…
Wouldn't this seem to go along with Martin Luther King's "Judge them not by the color of their skin but by their character"?
And so we get to "homosexuals" and to "their [gays'] dignity as human beings"; "recognizing the gay and lesbian population in the United States is a contemporary civil rights issue."
No, it's not.
To put it simply:
Homosexuals do not exist.
Really. It's true. Gays, or gay people if you prefer, do not exist.
Nor do lesbians.
Never have.
It sounds radical, doesn't it? Extremist, even.
Retarded. Obtuse. Dense.
To tell the truth, it sounded so to me too a month or so ago when the thought first popped into my head.
Actually, it is neither extremist nor dense. Nor is it hate speech or anti-gay (nor is it in any way pro-gay, for that matter).
It is simply a fact — a neutral, objective fact: Homosexuals do not exist.
What passes for////as (a) homosexual is a particular person's search for a particular pleasure. (A pleasure which, most of the time, is different from the mainstream's.)
Most people, gay or other, would probably laugh or snort if I said that homosexuals do not exist, meaning homosexuality does not exist, and they could then, say, link to a gay sex site and ask what kind of dork says that this (pointing) does not exist?!
But this entire post could have been written without once addressing gay themes, and being entirely focused on conventional (mainstream?) heterosexual (man-woman) sex.
Because heterosexuals do not exist, either.
A man's pursuit, or a woman's pursuit, of (what we might call) hedonistic pleasure — or of any pleasure at all — should not be the way we identify him, or her. Nor should his or her particular pursuit of pleasure (hedonistic or other) — i.e., homosexuality — be used to classify that person's activity.
By speaking about homosexuality, we extend it to a given person's identity as a homosexual and classify him as such, whether in positive, negative, or simply neutral terms. He or she is different. And lately, he or she deserves special privileges.
All the debate about homos is one way of elevating (what ostensibly is) a private activity, a way of seeking pleasure (perverted or other, in or out of the mainstream), into a personal identity. As it happens, this is no more wrong than identifying "normal" people as heterosexuals, i.e., elevating "banging chicks" (for a male) into a personal identity — or even refraining from sex (for reasons valid or other) into an identity (a non-sexual?).
For centuries, people have been primarily identified by their occupation — what they did for the benefit of their community (soldier, farmer, worker, CEO, plumber, etc) — and not what they did for leisure, "for fun", for themselves, whether in the bedroom or elsewhere (certainly not in the privacy of the bedroom) — unless, of course, they were a prostitute (but in that case we would indeed also be speaking of that woman's, or that man's, occupation).
Just as we should not be identified, primarily, with our skin color, or with our nationality, so we should not — any of us — be identified with (the amorphous and ill-defined concepts of) sexual orientation and gender identity. Or indeed, with attraction or with pleasure-seeking of any sort of all. Whether homo or hetero. Leisure, within the bedsheets or outdoors, is not our primary identity. It is not his — or her — true self. (Unless it is a person's occupation, such as a prostitute or — I am not saying they are the same — a musician or a professional baseball player.)
You might ask (indeed, you might sneer), who are you, Erik, who are you conservatives, to tell me how I am to identify myself, who am I to describe myself.
And that, whether you are gay, straight, man, woman, "African-American", white, Palestinian, Scandinavian, or other.
You may identify as you wish. Absolutely.
Just as I may not choose to identify you as other than a human being.
Indeed, isn't having all members of a country identified equally the meaning of republic? Not as part of subsets, and subgroups?
What the problem here is, is asking, requesting, the government, and the authorities, and the culture, that it, and that we all, identify you as such.
So, to the question, Why should this be of any business of mine?
The answer is: The issue is not me, us, refusing something to some minority: it is gays and their sympathizers imposing their will on us, with the backing of the government — and on the laws of the land (see bakers and photographers, not to mention the Ku Klux Klan — more below).
Because we have not taking a step forward — for gay rights or for rights in general — nor have we come out of the dark ages.
No. We have gone 2,000 years back in time.
We have gone back to the time when the Republic of Rome was transformed into the Roman Empire.
To build on the words of Benjamin Franklin, the citizens of the Republic could not keep it (their Republic).
The Empire came during a time when government took care of the citizens' private pleasures, such as with the public building of immense bath houses and huge coliseums, along with free circuses, and when citizens became contented as long as they had their "bread and circuses" (not to speak of the famed Roman orgies (straight or other)), i.e., as long as their private pleasures, as their sensual pleasures, were taken care of.
This post could end here.
But if you have time, let us look more deeply into two areas.
First, we will see how the gay rights issue turns into a mental obsession
Second, and more important, we will see how the new ---------, far from advancing rights, gay or other, on the contrary kills liberties — for all of us.
Many of the examples involve straight sex (and sexual orientation), because I said
To show that this post is not about berating homosexuals, let us turn to a Robert Stacy McCain post (thanks to Instapundit) which has nothing to do about homosexuals and addresses only heterosexuality — along with feminists (in addition to Miley Cyrus’s "exhibitionistic perversion" and "her acts of self-degradation").
Psychologically healthy people don’t do such things, and the unraveling of Miley Cyrus’s broken mind — she apparently no longer has any sense of personal dignity — is painful to watch. But this is just popular entertainment “in a society that has lost interest in the future.”
Sex is naturally about the future.
Procreation is the biological purpose of sex, after all, and as the Contraceptive Culture encourages us to have unnatural sex — to thwart the natural purpose of sex — it also disconnects sex from love, marriage and parenthood, so that sex becomes a meaningless recreation of no more ultimate consequence than a video game.
Like the pornographic career of “Belle Knox,” the weirdly sexualized performances of Miley Cyrus in some sense express the inherent nihilism of what sex becomes when it is treated like a commercial commodity, a leisure amusement or — as with Miley’s “suck my fat dick” gesture — a competitive sport with winners and losers.
Feminism encourages and celebrates this meaningless kind of sex, telling women that motherhood is oppressive and that abortion is therefore a “right” essential to women’s “liberation.”
Whether or Robert Stacy McCain or I think this is perverted, or disgusting, or — why not? — sexy and arousing (!), is immaterial. It's none of our business.
But the problem is that
This column could have addressed "our sexual identities" without going into the sub-subject of gayness
In fact, whether or not it addressed sexual matters at all, this column could in both cases have been written by a flaming pansy.
This column could as well have been written by a man faithful to his wife (or a wife to her husband) as by a person (male or female) sleeping around with members of the opposite sex or with members of the same sex.
The problem is when the culture, and behind it the government, makes our sexual identities our primary identity.
an increasingly sex-positive culture (by The Atlantic's Julie Beck, who in an article on toilets and on the necessity of "eas[ing] bathroom tension" manages to find "homophobia" in the fact that men (gay as well as straight?) would prefer other men "not use a urinal directly next to someone else" !).
"transgender people"
2.
The main problem with "gay rights" is that it does not give rights to anybody. It takes away liberties. For all of us.
We have already seen how will make us less free
xxx anti-gay xxx
In one paragraph: photographer, baker,
Well, first of all, there is the double standard problem; gays have no problem, even feel heroic doing so, denying service to people they disapprove of.
Secondly, what does this do for “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service”? Doesn't this mean that businessmen can no longer refuse service to potential customers because of the way they are (un)dressed?
Thirdly, the example of the Ku Klux Klan,
A Georgia court has ruled in favor of Marshall Saxby, the Grand Wizard of a local KKK chapter, in a lawsuit stemming from two years ago when a local bakery denied him service.
The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization’s annual birthday party.
(mentioned by Phyllis Schlafly in a different context)
The point is not that Christians shouldn't mind (as Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt concluded). The point is that the power of the government will acquire more power and use that power to force one set of people to do something against their conscience. In a sense, it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is involved or not
As Professor Bainbridge
writes, if we do not fight back,
the day will come when [the PC thugs] and their ilk will have successfully silenced the rest of us.
On campuses, meanwhile, absurd sex rules are becoming the norm, as Cathy Young writes (thanks to Instapundit).
Whether the affirmative consent standard will be enough to satisfy the activists--or preclude accusations of nonconsensual sex--is far from certain. A list of clarifications as to what consent is and isn't, which comes from educational posters used on college campuses, stipulates that "If they don't feel free to say 'no,' it's not consent," which means that at least in theory explicit verbal consent could always be retroactively revoked. And a new campus campaign in Canadawarns that "if it's not loud and clear, it's not consent--it's sexual assault," using posters with the words "fine," "okay," and "sure" in tiny print to convey the idea that someone who expresses consent in a "muted" or "uncertain" way is not really consenting. Perhaps eventually, someone will calculate the appropriate decibel level at which "Yes" becomes valid.
It's bad enough when these rules are imposed by colleges and universities; with the California bill, we now have a state legislature effectively mandating how people--at least, college students--should behave during sex. (If you prefer what one sexual assault counselordisapprovingly calls "the blind give-and-take of sexual negotiations," you're out of luck.) Whatever happened to getting the government out of the bedroom?
Guess what,
As Reason's Cathy Young
points out, regarding "the moral panic" of California's SB-967 bill, it
does nothing less than attempt to mandate the proper way to engage in sexual intimacy, at least if you're on a college campus.
… One would think that the California legislators would have some second thoughts about endorsing a bill that essentially redefines some 95 percent of human sexual encounters as rape (including married sex, since the bill specifically states that a prior relationship creates no presumption of consent). Even the Los Angeles Times, usually strongly supportive of the anti-campus rape campaign, criticized SB-967 in an editorial noting that "it seems extremely difficult and extraordinarily intrusive to micromanage sex so closely."
… the bill … brings the government into the bedroom in a far more drastic and coercive way than abortion regulations.
[Therefore, it] deserves attention as an alarming example of creeping Big-Sisterism that seeks to legislate "correct" sex. While its reach affects only college students so far, the precedent is a dangerous and potentially far-reaching one.
This all comes from the highly-vaunted 1960s revolution for freedom, sexual freedom, and against taboos.
We have become a nation of voyeurs, which is bad enough. But we have legislated that the bureaucrat be a voyeur and that the common citizen help the bureaucrat as he joins in the voyeurism against his neighbor(s).
The way
More to the point,
In California, "transgender kindergarteners" will be allowed to pick which bathroom to use.
As Breitbart's Robert Wilde writes sarcastically,
We will all sleep a little better at night knowing that students in grades K-12 who identify as transgender will be able to use the school bathrooms of their choosing as long as it is “consistent with their gender identity,” even if it is different than their gender at birth. Students will also be able to select whether they want to be on the boys team or the girls team based on their “gender identity.”
Or, as Stephen Baskerville warns, the Sexual Revolution’s promise of a new age of freedom is already manifesting itself as a new form of tyranny.
… determined, disciplined, and organized activists can seize power by wheedling their way into key institutions, such as the police, justice system, penal apparatus, and military … New gender crimes and new forms of criminality, based on sexual relations, are rapidly debasing our understanding of justice and criminalizing our population. … The reality of the witch hunts thus bears no necessary relation to what is suggested by the inflammatory language and jargon:
“rape” that includes consensual relations and in most instances is no more than that;
domestic “violence” that involves no violence or any physical contact or threat of it;
sexual “harassment” that can mean anything from simple flirtation to unauthorized opinions about morality or politics;
“child abuse” that is routine parental discipline, or homeschooling, or concocted altogether to win advantage in divorce court;
“bullying” that involves criticism of the homosexual agenda or other differences of belief and opinion;
“that is forcibly divorced fathers trying to see their own children;
The above, as you can see, all have to do with straight sex (and to repeat what I was saying at the outset of this post, this entire post is neither pro- nor anti-gay per se, it could have been entirely on the subject of straight sex — something we must stop defining ourselves by).
What all the leftist agendas have in common, basically, what they all share — whether sex, straight or otherwise, is involved — is the shaming, the demonization, and the criminalizing of the average citizen (mainly male). (Hence the need for an élite to rule over the clueless dorks, in order to bring "progress" and to drive society forward.)
FLIP TWO EXAMPLES, ABOVE 'N' BELOW
xx comprehensive sex education
xx
whether it's the Heather Has Two Mommies book or 11-year-olds' homework assignment to draw an erect penis ejaculating
But the basic news is that now, we are being described for our for the pleasure(s) and for the "kicks" we seek out our entire lives — even as early as kindergarteners, at a time when sex is the furthest thing from (most of) our minds!
Meanwhile///Indeed, over in Kansas (aka BOOK TITLE), parents were surprised (to say the least) to learn that a poster with a list of sex acts was part of their 13-year-olds' curriculum — including "Oral Sex, Sexual Fantasy, Caressing, Anal Sex, Dancing, Hugging, Touching Each Other’s Genitals, Kissing, Grinding, and Masturbation."
Hocker Grove Middle school's response? To say, matter-of-factly, that "the teaching material" is "a part of our [Shawnee Mission School] District-approved curriculum" and "aligns with national standards" — as if that makes it alright; moreover, it "should never have been left up after the lesson ended", so Mark Ellis's daughter could not have photographed it and told her parents about the lesson.
In other words, it is our mission to teach youngsters (among other things) that people — all people, including underage individuals — are defined by their sexual acts, and if adults are against it, well, we will teach their kids this stirring "truth" behind their backs.
When a New Hampshire father complained to Gilford school members about a Jodi Picoult book — 19 Minutes “reads like a transcript for a triple X porno movie,” said William Baer — he was actually arrested for exceeding his speaking time (two minutes!) and driven away in a patrol car. Obviously, parents are treated like the children they (also) are — given two minutes' speaking time! — and the parents, those doofuses (in the enlightened schoolteachers' view), are only being humored by being asked for their (clueless) opinions, which are going to be ignored anyway, once the meeting is (thankfully) over with and in the past…
Meanwhile, over at Michigan's Romeo High School, a father finds out that biology homework includes a DNA question concerning the state taking a blood test of potential fathers for a young woman's baby. “Based on the information in this table, why was the baby taken away by the state after the test?” "As if that question isn’t tacky enough," continues Mara MacDonald's WDIV4 news report, "look at the list of possible fathers: Bartender, Guy at the club, Cabdriver and Flight attendant."
Incidentally — well, not so much — opposing the school when issues like this is a step forward, and a necessary one at that, but does not go to the heart of the issue; which is, the attitude permeating the public school system in any country.
obsessed with sex, as sexual harassment//misconduct charges get filed against kids of all ages, for things as innocent as kissing a girl on the hand.
Michael Graziano tells about his six-year-old kid being first accused of inappropriate sexual behavior (masturbation) and when that cleared, of "sexually assaulting other children" — for playing zombies (thanks to Instapundit).
Within two hours of the inspector informing the principal that our family was cleared, she abruptly changed tack. Instead of accusing us of abusing our son, she now accused our son of sexually assaulting other children. The principal called me at work shortly after lunch that day and told me to collect my son.
books like It's Perfectly Normal in Obamacare's sexuality education. (No wonder why, in this sex-laden environment, teacher after teacher — often female — is charged with, sexting, having intercourse, or otherwise engaging in sexual activity with minors.)
Indeed, it turns out that Kids are 100 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in public schools than by priests, as Tom Hoopes writes in an article asking why is the Church the only institution under the microscope? (thanks, again to, Instapundit):
"[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?" she said. "The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
So, in order to better protect children, did media outlets start hounding the worse menace of the school systems, with headlines about a "Nationwide Teacher Molestation Cover-up" and by asking "Are Ed Schools Producing Pedophiles?"
No, they didn't. That treatment was reserved for the Catholic Church, while the greater problem in the schools was ignored altogether.
… The media have left many with the impression that sexual abuse is a Catholic problem — as if Catholic beliefs and customs make sex abuse inevitable. Church teaching for its part is clear: Sexual abuse of minors is always wrong. A more likely culprit would be a non-religious ambivalence about the pedophilia, as seen, for instance, in the media's refusal to broaden its scope to include teachers when considering the issue.
nnnnn
xxx the outing of an allegedly "gay" congressman xxx
“We’ve been so effective at convincing everyone that outing people is a crime against humanity, that we’ve made it impossible for any network or news organization to talk about this ‘hypothetical’ gay republican congressman and his hypocritical vote against gay rights,” added … former CBS News contributor Itay Hod, who also contributes to Salon, TMZ, Out Magazine and the Daily Beast.
They are selfish.
They are not selfish by virtue (so to speak) of being gay; they are selfish
This applies to "heterosexuals" as well. Men and women who are obsessed with a private pleasure of theirs.
Check out the feminists (gay or otherwise):
Feminists are called out by fellow "warriors" for one ideological offense after another
(via Instapundit):
In January, the actress and activist Martha Plimpton tweeted about a benefit for Texas abortion funds called “A Night of a Thousand Vaginas,” sponsored by A Is For, a reproductive rights organization she’s involved with. Plimpton was surprised when some offended Internet feminists urged people to stay away, arguing that emphasizing “vaginas” hurts trans men who don’t want their reproductive organs coded as female. “Given the constant genital policing, you can’t expect trans folks to feel included by an event title focused on a policed, binary genital”
Obsession on
In addition, you often hear homosexuals, or read, of their contempt for their country
lots of spies have turned out to be homosexuals
This justification is selfish.
Some years ago, a group of conservatives was told that we couldn't understand the Palestinians because we weren't Palestinian. (They weren't Palestinian either. But because they .)
The truth is I can understand everybody because I am a human being.
Regarding "homosexuality", there is a difference.
Interestingly, a report 50 years ago by the permissive Swedes shows that they were not always so:
— The cause is a recent petition to the government signed by the King’s physician, Dr. Ulf Nordwall, and 140 other eminent Swedish doctors and teachers in which they expressed concern over what they described as sexual hysteria among the young. The petition followed a report last month [January 1964] by the Board of Health that contained a sharp warning against the practice of bombarding schoolchildren with sexual instruction for which their immaturity ill fits them. The result of this bombardment has been an unnatural over-sexualization of youth, the report said.
Indeed, now Barack Obama seems to have called homosexuality nothing less than one of America's — and the world's — fundamental freedoms.
Reports Bonnie Ramthun:
Common Core is a federal takeover of the public education system, where a single set of learning standards is intended to replace each state’s curriculum
… The Common Core reading materials are filled with graphic pornography cloaked as literature. The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison, is what your teen will be forced to read if your school accepts Common Core. The story includes descriptions of child rape, incest, and molestation. The pedophile in the novel is portrayed with sympathy and Morrison reportedly wrote the story so the reader becomes a “co-conspirator” with the predator.
The book Monster by Walter Dean Myers includes a description of a homosexual gang rape and the use of a butt plug. In New York, a Common Core education portal encourages teens to visit a pornographic sex survey site where they are asked if they want to participate in a threesome or a gang-bang, among other acts.
The novel Black Swan Green features a 13-year-old boy who graphically describes his father’s genitals and then a sex act. Dreaming in Cuban contains teen sadomasochism. In Kansas, a father discovered a Common Core poster in his daughter’s class titled “How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings?” with items such as “anal sex,” “masturbation,” and “grinding” as examples. Our young people are being deliberately exposed to graphic sexual material in schools that accept Common Core.
… Once young people are separated from parental influence, they are increasingly vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
Sexting turning adolescents into criminals
RIDDING THE GAMING COMMUNITY OF ‘misogyny, sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, ageism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia and other types of social injustice.’
(thanks to Glenn Reynolds)
Stephen Baskerville
1.
As it happens, the problem is not only
Radical egalitarian ideologies, with their collectivist conceptions of identity-group rights, [which] demand a conformity of opinion that makes a mockery of liberal chatter about “diversity.”
— Robert Stacy McCain mentions the "thought crime" of a gay (!) writer (Ezra Klein's employee Brandon Ambrosino), who dares suggest that being gay is a choice and is thus opposing "the autocratic forces of the Official Gay Movement."
It is simply the very extent to which everybody is obsessing about sex — gay sex, straight sex, ----, etc, etc, etc…
Check out Michael Schulman's New York Times article to get an idea of how ----- people (gay and other) get when obsessing over how a person gets ones pleasure and how "debate" and "discussion" lead to an idée fixe — all this unawarely to the New York Times or to their holier-than-thou readers (gay or otherwise).
In the opening sentences, we hear this about an English celebrity:
“Of course I still fancy girls.”
Those six little words, tossed off like a request to please hold the mustard, were among the most deconstructed in Tom Daley’s YouTube video last month, in which the 19-year-old British Olympic diver announced that he was dating a man.
Then we hear how gay rights advocates the world over are cheering:
“But, I mean, right now I’m dating a guy, and I couldn’t be happier.” Mr. Daley’s message was sweet and simple, and gay rights advocates seemed thrilled to welcome an out-and-proud athlete into their ranks.
In the very next sentence, we hear that amid the cheers, their are the sounds of smirks and snorts:
(The cattier comments came later, when the “guy” was reported by numerous tabloids and blogs to be the screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, who is two decades his senior.)
Then we hear how "the cheers were premature, or at least qualified."
Despite the trending Twitter hashtag #TomGayley, Mr. Daley never used the word “gay,” and there was the matter of his still fancying girls.
This leads to a bevy of questions, discussions, and debate (or what is called discussions and debate).
Was it a disclaimer? A cop-out? A ploy to hold on to fans? Was he being greedy, as some joked? Or was he, as the video’s blushing tone suggested, simply caught up in the heady disorientation of first love, a place too intoxicating for labels?
Then comes the whopper: a number of homosexuals do not believe in bisexuality, and believe that those who so identify are being dishonest to others — and to themselves. (Indeed, it leads to their… discomfort (!), no less.)
Whatever the answer, Mr. Daley’s disclosure reignited a fraught conversation within the L.G.B.T. community, having to do with its third letter. Bisexuality, like chronic fatigue syndrome, is often assumed to be imaginary by those on the outside. The stereotypes abound: bisexuals are promiscuous, lying or in denial. They are gay men who can’t yet admit that they are gay, or “lesbians until graduation,” sowing wild oats before they find husbands.
Well, when heterosexuals (here I am — again — temporarily giving in to the fashion du jour (or of the past few decade) to have people's identity defined according to their sexuality, according to their way of seeking pleasure) question homosexuality — as being about promiscuity — it is
“The reactions that you’re seeing are classic in terms of people not believing that bisexuality really exists, feeling that it’s a transitional stage or a form of being in the closet,” said Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah who studies sexual orientation.
It gets better: now we hear that the poufs (hat tip to Monty Python) are showing disdain.
Male bisexuality, by contrast, is more vexed, and much of the skepticism comes from gay men. … The gay conservative [sic] pundit Andrew … Sullivan’s brushoff echoed the knowing disdain that many gay men show toward their bisexual counterparts, particularly younger ones. In a sense, they’re right: Plenty of gay men, especially in less tolerant decades, have used bisexuality as a “rest stop on the highway to homo,” to borrow a punch line from “Will & Grace.”
Then we get to the extent that all this focus on sexuality (on the very private act that sexuality is and, according to many, should be) is getting people (gay as well as other) to mix into a sphere (the private lives of others, gay or otherwise) that is really (wait for the stunner) none of their business — indeed, they think that what is none of their business is nothing than a perfectly valid topic of discussion, even a deeply profound one in this day and age:
Lesbians are not immune to this kind of wariness. Even after [Chirlane McCray] married [Bill de Blasio], some of her “lesbian-separatist friends,” as The New Yorker put it, refused to accept her new life in Park Slope.
Indeed, now we come full circle — to a (get this) phobia (!) within the homo community, leading them to be… "hurtful, cruel and insulting".
Such thinking has irked bisexual advocates, who see bias within gay circles as evidence of “biphobia.” The claim has been lodged repeatedly at the sex columnist Dan Savage. In 2011, the blogger Chris O’Guinn accused Mr. Savage of saying “blatantly hurtful, cruel and insulting things about bisexuals”
Indeed, here we have the type of people whom "nobody likes".
…the actress Maria Bello … was content to call herself a “whatever.” … Cynthia Nixon, who married a woman after having children with a man, told The Daily Beast in 2012: “I don’t pull out the ‘bisexual’ word because nobody likes the bisexuals. Everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals.”
Here is an original thought: how about getting your head out of your ass (your own ass) and stop obsessing about sexuality and private lives — your own as well as that of others?
Oh, that thought is not original? That is how most of humanity, in the West as well as around the world, used to function for centuries?
Ah? But this was hypocritical? Puritanical?
Maybe it was, but whether it's an academic journal named Porn Studies
or what Roger Simon calls the "anaphrodisiac obsession with gutter sex" (thanks to Instapundit), it has gotten out of hand,
or someone like Amanda Chatel saying something as seemingly uncontroversial as "We are all sexual beings"
Have you heard the smirk that inside all straight men, there is a gay wanting to come out? Sounds like a show-stopper, and indeed (like all leftist one-liners), it is supposed to be the final line in a discussion. There. We nailed it. Period. End of discussion.
Okay, maybe it is true, at least for some people, but why shouldn't the opposite be true as well, even more true, if not for all gays at least for some gays? Inside all all gay men, there is a straight guy wanting to come out?
As it happens,
Meanwhile, we have "a" lesbian wanting to "educate" people about what lesbians do in bed while a Rachael Sacks (thanks to INSTAPUNDIT) goes berserk over a piece in which her "sexual identity" was not mentioned:
"While my sexuality is irrelevant to the topic of my article, it still is part of who I am and should not be ignored," she wrote in her latest rant.
Sacks goes on to say that "any discussion within the liberal media outlets ... has to be supportive of the LGBT community."
"If they were to atta