Men and Women
NY's Carl Paladino stepped on a landmine this weekend by, as WaPo puts it, refusing "to step back from his inflammatory comments disparaging gays." Referencing his opponent's decision to march in a gay pride parade with his child, Paladino objected that, where men wearing only women's bikini underwear are "grinding at each other and doing these gyrations, I certainly wouldn't let my young children see that. Young children should not be exposed to that at a young age. They don't understand; it's a very difficult thing."
If you've ever seen a gay pride parade, you know that you'll be exposed to things you shouldn't have to know about until you're in prison. If parents acted in a similar manner in front of their kids at home, authorities could remove the kids on cause of obscenity and mental abuse. It's the equivalent of taking your child to a burlesque cabaret or X-rated film.
Nonetheless, Paladino committed the media sin of prioritizing parenthood above gay rights. Further, he stated that he didn't want his kids "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is acceptable." And therein is the reason he was roundly denounced by the usual suspects as "hurtful and dangerous," "preaching hate," "stunning homophobia and a glaring disregard for basic equality."
If any other group wandered into the streets dressed and behaving as those in gay pride parades, they would be arrested. If nearly any other group (Muslims immediately spring to mind) demanded that all others approve their lifestyle and branded all dissent as bigotry, they would be admonished for devaluing free-speech, individuality and diversity.
Could the homosexual lobby please practice what they preach and tolerate those with whom they disagree? Is it really an extreme proposition to object to kids being taught that running around in the street, in someone else's underwear, pretending to masturbate or have sex, is acceptable behavior? American's aren't Islamophobic for not wanting a mosque at Ground Zero, and they aren't homophobic for not wanting homo-erotic obscenity in the streets. It's just common sense decency in a pluralistic society.
On the other hand, Cuomo stated that Paladino's views "make it clear that he is way out of the mainstream and is unfit to represent New York." If that is so, it speaks more of New York than "the mainstream" or the GOP candidate.
I have mixed emotions about the issue you raise regarding common decency and outward displays of sexuality. I'm gay, and while I've never marched in a parade, and I don't really go to all that many Pride events, I agree with your point while mourning the increasing loss of a distinct culture.
As we have blown the closet door door off its hinges, married, started raising families, gentrified the the inner cities through "gay ghettos," moved to suburbs and exurbs in search of space, and seen the chain bookstores supplant the gay bookstores while Blockbuster and Netflix brought the end of the gay video store, we've assimilated into the larger American culture. Pride parades are simply the remnant of what used to be distinct; they are now a celebration of that part of us that we kept secret for so long.
After the news of the past couple of weeks as relates to gay students being bullied and in some cases beaten to within an inch of life, I think it's good to see just how far we've come. One day a year is filled with the kind of outlandish behavior that is routinely on display during the week before Ash Wednesday and is celebrated as Carnival or Mardi Gras. Perhaps neither is appropriate for children, but both have their place.
Very well put, Sam.
However, I think that gays like yourself arguably have a civic duty to exert at some level in some way a "push back" against the dominant narrative adopted here by the core gay activists, such that they would come to respect and in some way acknowledge your "mixed feelings" about these displays, as well as (here's the hard part) the similar feelings towards them held by many heterosexuals. The ridicuous pattern now well-established of those spokenpersons presuming to categorize such feelings as hate and homophobia simply does need to be resisted, and stoutly.
Of course, the above is far easier said than done.
It could be argued that (certain) Americans ARE homophobic if they allow, approve, and mainstream sexually-oriented behavior (or even simple "sexiness") in so many ways and so many places when it comes to heterosexuality but the same people suddenly turn puritan when they see gay guys do their version of Lady Gaga's dance moves.
I predict we'll see Paladino explaining some Larry Craig-like behavior of his own within 6 months.
I don't know whether self-righteousness on behalf of disgusting behavior is worse than the disgusting behavior, so I'll just punt. Most tiresome is the silliness of equating disgusting homosexual behavior with disgusting heterosexual behavior, as if normal people, viz., decent heterosexual people (deal with it) are obliged to defend carte blanche the disgusting behavior of heterosexual people. The righteous speech of the Craig Scanlons of the world is the cutting edge of the descent into the gutter, maintaining that anyone who objects to it is a bigot. Of course, it is difficult to "legislate morality," the superior method being well-established customs that have the effect of legal statutes. One thing is certain: the more normal people (still dealing with it?) tolerate disgusting behavior, not to mention the specious rationalizations for it, the more disgusting behavior there will be. The GOP candidate is one of us, and his viewpoints are morally superior to those who rationalize or exhibit disgusting behavior. Normal people of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but common decency if you don't.
"...as if normal people, viz., decent heterosexual people (deal with it) are obliged to defend carte blanche the disgusting behavior of heterosexual people."
If that's your take-away from my comment, then I think your reading comprehension issue is going to stymie any attempt I make to further clarify (that which was already pretty clear - and didn't infer what you say it did).
"the same people suddenly turn puritan when they see gay guys do their version of Lady Gaga's dance moves."
Do you have difficulty reading what you have written?
No, none at all.
The first part of that - which you left out - is crucial:
"...(certain) Americans ARE homophobic if they allow, approve, and mainstream sexually-oriented behavior (or even simple "sexiness") in so many ways and so many places when it comes to heterosexuality but..."
IF.
If that doesn't apply to you, then there's no problem.
and nothing I wrote infers that anyone is "obliged to defend" anything, carte blanche or otherwise...
Whether you realize it are not, you are asserting equivalency between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Just because some straight people approve of, or raise no objection to, unwholesome sexuality betweent the sexes, does not make them puritans if they disapprove of flamboyant homosexual behavior. Everybody draws the line at some point. The abuse of a good thing is not good, that is certain. The indulgence of a bad thing is worse. But I will grant you this much: the sexual revolution began with the loosening of moral standards among men and women. It has now gone farther to legitimate homosexuality. The first mistake begat (so to speak) the second. The genuine sexual constitution, as George Gilder put it so well, is the natural relationship of men and women.
To the extent that heterosexuality and homosexuality are sexual orientations, I see some equivalence, sure, but obviously they are also different.
Is it that you consider homosexuality in and of itself a "bad thing", or "flamboyant" homosexuality a bad thing?
I presume you have some Bible-based reason for this view?
It's become glaringly obvious over the last decade or so why so many politicians (usu. GOP) and preachers are obsessed with gay sex (esp. the various acts) - they are having it, and hate themselves for it.
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not just different; the former is natural and the second is unnatural. Once biology settled this question but liberation theology has denied nature.
It is true that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but as Ty Beeson, the Lancaster, California pastor who made the video of gay pride parades back in 1993 when President Clinton called for repealing the ban on sexual perversion, said to me after he gave a rousing sermon in a local church against homosexuality, "You don't have to read the Bible to know that homosexuality is unnatural." As with so many moral issues, those of a religious and those of a philosophic bent agree.
Hypocrisy is no argument against sensible moral principles. Indeed, as Chesterton wrote, "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And the anus is an exit not an entrance.
The gay lobby is nothing if not adept. They have managed to turn many among the helping professions, the apparat of the mainline protestant denominations, the press, the judiciary, and now elected officials into dancing bears. They have done so even though their public mouthpieces are among the least winsome of any pressure group you see today. Schoolteachers are sometimes confronted with a godawful brat whose mother is vigorously inclined to excuse said youngster and then place blame on the authorities. It seems as if the elites in our society are in a similar dyad with the homosexual population.
Well, that didn't take long. Perhaps our moral guardian Paladino might have reacted differently to the idea of a gay parade if someone would have mentioned the possibility of some lesbian action - like that in the video he forwarded to a bunch of people, along with his own "awesome!" tagline. So maybe what he meant to say is that the lesbian stuff is natural enough for him to enjoy, he just doesn't get into the guy-on-guy business. Why didn't he just say so??
Apparently this man with the principled commitment to tact, decorum, and civilized behavior also enjoyed sending around erotic lactation videos and racist "cartoon" depictions of President Obama.
https://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/14/2010-10-14_more_salacious_carl_emails_outed_on_the_web.html#ixzz12LvUbsJw
Mr. Scanlon, you love to linger on alleged hypocrisy, but you have trouble dealing with moral issues that matter. Is it wise for individuals to defy nature, or for the nation to indulge them?
really ,the only genuine natural sexual belonging can only be had between to sexually isomorphic pair,heterosexuality is an amplification of homosexuality,there is no such such thing as heterosexuality,but preference toward consuming sodomy or lesbianism.the morality of two people whose organs are different,that resorts to pseudohomosexuals act in order to procreate,and who suffer from the mental disease of heterophilia which in my book is a sister of tetarophilia and acrotomophilia is very dubious ,how it's it possible that homosexuals don't have a clue what heterosexuality is like and heterosexuals can know very well either of the two distinct sorts of monosexuality.? how is ti possible that two sexually dimorphic dichotomous "pair" don't have a clue what their partner feel like inside,and what about the perversion and aberration of using non reproductive body parts not belonging to one's own sex such as breasts filled up with baby milk as LEGITIMATE sexual organ. what about if the nasty sexual dimorphism that morphologically distinct "pairs" where to increase ? waht about the mentally unhealthy practice of swallowing vaginal secretion and pus,blood and even infections.and what about the holy morality of not being disgusted with what the opposite sexual group finds nasty,putrid ,stinky,hahaaha yes the preference for other types of exotic stinkiness.good look with your morality remember never ever ever will a homosexual accept any form of depraved sexual actsw involving arousal with exotic and distinct body parts,such such clitoris,vulvas, uteros, breasts,this sort of putrid physical characteristic can be only had and enjoyed by those who have the stomach get pleasure form such a decadent mental behavior.
the breast are for breastfeeding newborns or as a non reproductive sexual organs to LESBIANS,males inclined toward lesbianism will only experience the sort of sexual deviancy that you enjoy so much,nature created adam isomorphic and equal to steve,adam can only belong naturally to another male like him father,any other relationship is political and social not naturally made,if it were naturally made males and females would have sexual belonging and they don't have any.they have to fake it.if homosexuals were to accept the morality of sexually dimorphic "pairs" we would also have to accept an increase in sexual dimorphism as something mentally healthy which is not.a pair of isomorphic individual breed intelligent with another morphologically different pair. that's the eternal psychophysical moral law.