Tolerance part #1

Good citizens vs good communists
The Principles of Bullspeak

2012-06-03 intolerance-Will-Not-Be-Tolerated

I am not a native English speaker which makes me sometimes humbled, sometimes puzzled.
I wonder how a culture can allow so much abuse to its language, the most important pillar of its existence

As the recent debates in Ontario and in the US demonstrate, gender identity and its related debates are getting seriously out of hand. Why? Because we allow the activists to define the debate through their own interpretation of simple words. Let’s try to look at the words ‘tolerance’ and ‘normal’ then a somewhat more complicated one: ‘homophobia.’

What is tolerance?

The word tolerance implies dislike. Voltaire expressed it best saying “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

According to the dictionary:
a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
b : the act of allowing something

In their efforts to become accepted, homosexuals (and especially their political organizations) are becoming increasingly intolerant. Vehement attacks on anything that may imply the slightest disapproval of anything they do. Demanding special privileges. Gay organizations, for example, would argue that public decency statutes should not be applied to them. Dragging people through human rights courts for expressing their believes.
Homosexuals seem to be intolerant of other people’s ideas and morals. What homosexuals are asking for is not tolerance, but unconditional acceptance. Again, tolerance implies dislike. Tolerance is a fundamentally moral stance as it represents the recognition and acceptance of differences DESPITE personal tastes, preferences and even convictions.

What is ‘normal’?

Homosexuals are going to great lengths to argue and to push for being accepted as normal.
Sorry guys (or gays (and gals and its)), but you are not. Not in any reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the word. Not biologically, not statistically. The fact that homosexuality is natural, does not make it normal. No species can survive if fully homosexual. Only heterosexuals can ensure the survival of a species. Homosexuality may be nature’s way to control population. Natural, not normal.
Statistics about homosexuality in human populations vary according to studies between 1-3%, with claims seldom going above 6%. Even six percent is just a deviation, not the norm.

Why is the push? EXACTLY because it is not normal. Gay activists are trying to make it ‘normal’ by fiat while they are also promoting it aggressively, hoping that they can make even the numbers ‘statistically normal’ if they can persuade enough sexually inexperienced but curious youngsters that it is biologically ‘normal’.

 What is ‘homophobia’?

Again, according to the dictionary:
Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture

First known use of the expression was 1969 and the sloppiness of the definition shows it.
We can start with the etymology. Homo – phobia actually means irrational fear of humans, not of homosexuals, but never mind the stupidity for now. The fuzz gets into the picture with the definition.

What makes an aversion irrational? What differentiates it from a rational aversion? Or just a legitimate emotional one? If you are molested by a pedophile as a child, would that make your aversion rational?
At what point does fear become irrational? What is the meaning ‘discrimination’ in terms of a single person?  If I prefer the company of straight people, does that make me a homophobe? Let’s suppose that I am desperately desirous (really horny) for both members of a lesbian couple. My chances are zero, but since I want to get laid, I will discriminately look for the company of straight women. Am I, in this case, discriminating rationally, or am I a homophobe? When that guy in my past started aggressively fondling me, was that an irrational aversion or was it OK to protect myself?

Who can be the judge to answer these questions? Even if the answer is yes and we determine that the person is a homophobe, so what? What can we, society, rationally do about it? We (meaning gay activists and their allies) cow them, ostracize them, penalize them, in the end, one way or another, we just shut them up. But if this is truly a phobia (a mental condition) then wouldn’t they need therapy instead of a fine levied by a Human Rights commission? We teach arachnophobes to handle spiders to overcome their fears. Maybe what a homophobe needs is a good blowjob from a man. As a therapy. Two months after I came to Canada, I was working in my first job midtown Montreal while living at Pont Papineau about 13km away. We had a transit strike, I finished after midnight, I had no choice but to hitch-hike. A gay cruiser picked me up, trying to convince me to let him blow me because he can give a much better blowjob than any women. Maybe he was right. I’ll never know. Maybe I could have been cured and now I could cruise happily looking for young men to pass on the torch, so to speak.

Why is this all so important?

Because intolerance begets more intolerance. The intolerance of the gay community toward any disapproval of whatever they do cannot possibly create a genuinely tolerant society. Trying to shut up or even criminalize those who disagree with their political aspirations is not very conducive to the creation of an atmosphere of live and let live.

Do they really think that coercing someone to pretend to like what they clearly dislike will help that person to like them? (Think of the expectations on politicians to embrace gay parades)
Do they really think that antagonizing religious institutions will gather them more support? (Think of suggestions to dismantle the separate school board for their refusal to embrace gay straight alliances)
These battles are no longer about equal rights. Not for a long time. Gays want to go from ‘bottoms’ to ‘tops’. From victims to rulers. From the ones who get screwed to the ones who screw us. From being subjects of the agenda to the ones defining it. In many ways the strategy is succeeding. Next to an idea with an environmental concern, selling a gay project idea is the one with the best chance to get a grant. The success of gay politics already far outweighs their share in society.

All of which only bothers me to the extent any similar identity politics does, but the question is not what do I like or dislike. The question is how far can this go without a backlash? It is not a very good strategy to antagonize the whole of society for petty and momentary political gains.

Am I a homophobe?

(In the popular, widely used meaning of the word)
I would like to think that I am not. I don’t particularly like it, but I don’t fear it in any way. Apart of the half a douzen passes that were made on me when I was young (one of which I physically had to fight off), I don’t have the experience.  Sorry guys, but I love the gals. I can’t help it. I was born this way. There is nothing against you in it.
I dislike gay politics – but it would be too long to explain here why.
I find guys speaking with the lips amusing – just as I find the mannerism of several other subcultures funny.
I don’t like gay parades. I think they are vulgar and boring. But I don’t like parades in general.
Do I have a problem with gay relationships? No.
Do I support gay marriage?  – I am a libertarian, I don’t think any kind of marriage is the state’s business.

Do I think homosexuality is a sexual deviation? Yes. Do I think it matters? No. Deviations are natural parts of statistical distributions.
In the list of atypical sexual behaviour, homosexuality is far less strange to me then a whole lot of others. I find homosexuality far more understandable than fetishism. Or S&M. Or some extreme role playing.
Two guys giving each other physical pleasure is more normal in my eyes that an adult putting on diapers to be treated as a baby before he can get a boner. Or a heterosexual couple pissing on each other to get aroused. I do consider homosexuality perfectly acceptable, but I should not be expected to say things about it that I do not believe or not to say what I do.

Just like any normal adult, I have my likes and dislikes. I am tolerant, but I do not tolerate intolerance too well. If you cannot accept who and what I am, how can you expect the same from me?

Guys – I mean GAYS! People like me should be your most valuable allies. People who disapprove who you are, but will defend to the death your right to be that way.
When the Muslims come for your heads, you will need us. Well, when they do that, we’ll need each other. Maybe we’ll even hug.

A miraculous Mandarin (or what am I)

Let me tell you about the one time when this war on normal, healthy human sexuality really pissed me off.
The 1992/93 season of the Canadian National Ballet included the staging of Béla Bartók’s Miraculous Mandarin with the choreography of James Kudelka. I saw it in what at that time was still called the O’Keefe Centre.
The story for which the music was written is a beautiful allegory about the power of passion. Kudelka turned this glorious and universal message into a homosexual coming out of the closet story. Just to make it contemporary. In the final scene of the play, we see grandma giving a blowjob to grandpa, daddy fucking mommy on the kitchen table while the Miraculous Mandarin ascends to stage-elevator heaven with his newly ousted gay lover. It was such a revolting travesty, such a disgusting misrepresentation of the original intent that I am still fuming about it.
Does my disgust over the gay agenda distorting this beautiful work makes me a homophobe?

Let me frame my last question:

An older guy is sitting in a bar somewhere in the west sipping his beer. He has jeans, boots and a cowboy hat. A woman in a suite with a brush cut comes to the bar and sits down next to him.  “Tell me” – she says – “Are you a real cowboy?” The guy thinks a little then says – “Well, I was born and raised on a farm, I spent my whole life around horses and cattle, so I guess yes, I am a real cowboy. How about you?” The woman says provocatively – “I am a lesbian. I love women. I cannot help but to think of pussy all the time” – then she storms out of the bar. A couple comes in, sit down next to the guy.  The woman turns to him and asks – “Tell me, are you a real cowboy?” He answers – “all my life I thought that I am, but I just found out that I am a lesbian.”

So my question is this: can I be a homophobe if I am also a lesbian?

2 replies on “Tolerance part #1”

  1. David Strutt says:

    The answer to your question, Zork, is this: In colloquial terms, no, you cannot be. In absolute terms, the answer is the same.

    I agree that language is the pillar of our society and I am certain that English is the most useful and articulate of all languages on this planet. English is a language that has evolved from so many others because, by its very nature, it is flexible. But that may also be its bane because we allow, nay, invite, so many infractions. We also allow many of our most popular words to hijacked for alternative and offensive use by illiterate barbarians and those who hate our culture.

    When I was young, the word “gay” was quite normal for describing folks who loved to frolic. The word “freedom” did not imply radical, fringe political tendencies, when I was in the military. The word “homophobic” did not exist, of course, for the very reason you so accurately pointed out; it isn’t an English word and it makes no sense.

    Our governments and, especially, our schools are the most culpable in the crimes perpetrated upon our language. I need go no further with this because anyone with half a grain of intelligence knows how badly our education system is failing. (Refer to the teacher in Alberta who may lose his job for failing students who refused to do the work. Don’t fail the students – fire the teacher. June 2012)

    I am “tolerant” and the proof lies in the fact that so many despicable cretins who have harmed me and my loved ones are still walking around.

    I am not “normal” because I am a social and fiscal conservative who is willing to die for the freedom of his people and his country.

    I am not a “homophobe” because I love mankind for all the quality it possesses and the beauty it can create. I do, however, find homosexuality repugnant because I am biologically “normal” … but then again I am “tolerant”.

    Your article is another excellent one and clearly illustrates the stupidity of the current sociopolitical structure in Canada (and elsewhere). The good thing is that it always changes and we can coach those changes along should we care to do so.

    Stupidity is another of those juggernauts that crushes everything in its paths. I have, so far, managed to dodge it.


  2. zorkthehun says:

    A friend sent me two e-mails about this post. Then he called. Why didn’t you post it, I asked. Because he did not want to embarrass me in public for being wrong about something.
    Folks, please! If you think I am wrong, let me know. You CAN do it publicly.
    I was contemplating his suggestions but in the end decided that both are marginal in significance to the point of the post so even if I concede to his points, this should not warrant a change in the post itself. Both of his arguments are contentious.
    He pointed out that the word ‘homo’ in homophobia has nothing to do with mankind, homo-phobia cannot mean “irrational fear of humans” as the part ‘homo’ in the word is the Greek root meaning ‘same’ and NOT the Latin root meaning human. This assumes that whoever coined the word in 1969, consciously created the word by the shortening of the word homosexual and adding phobia.
    The word homosexual translates literally as “of the same sex”, being a hybrid of the Greek prefix homo- meaning “same” (as distinguished from the Latin root homo meaning human) and the Latin root sex meaning “sex”.
    What we end up with is a most curious word with two Greek parts, actually meaning “irrational fear of sameness”. We can have several interpretation – and in the case of this made up word I can consider them all valid. They are fear of humans, fear of sameness and fear of homosexuals.
    Add to this the fact that the word homosexual (with its mixed roots) is also fairly new (first use 1868) It was coined as an attempt of PC language, to create a new expression without stigma.
    We could discuss this subject endlessly – the history of the phenomenon, our treatment of it and the language we use to describe it. My last one point could take us into a serious discussion about the relationship between language and reality and the futility of PC language. If we find something repugnant, whatever word we use for it will eventually become stigmatizing.
    I included the reference to fear of humans because it is a serious part of the discussion about the word on the Webster web-site
    His second objection was even more interesting. He pointed to Jonah Goldberg`s new book, “The Tyranny of Clichés.” Click on “LOOK INSIDE” and start reading the introduction. His first target is the quote attributed to Voltaire (I did not know ‘till now that it wasn’t really his).
    I agree with Jonah Goldberg 100%, but what the hell does his point have to do with mine?
    I hope I was able to do more than a glib comment with my post. Maybe I did not succeed, but I definitely tried to make a point. A point, by the way, that was questioning the limits of the support. My message was: Don’t push your luck and try not to alienate those whose good will and protection you may need in the future.
    What was the original intent, the circumstances under which the quote was borne or how it is abused by others today is immaterial to its function in my post.
    I stand by it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.