RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Voices from our pro-equality future (present?) » Anti-gay orgs continue to offend children of single parents, gay parents, more » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/24/2009

Video: You don't 'understand' us? Well here, let us translate: , ♥, =

by Jeremy Hooper

A big fan of Obama who's no fan of gays. A familiar, frustrating story:

It's always astounding that heterosexual people think they should "understand" our sex lives or speak for our our hearts and minds. Do they not realize how foreign, unrelatable, and unappealing so many of us find the forms of sex that we do not enjoy or desire?! Yet we have no desire to "explain" away the many, many, MANY complexities of human biology that don't apply to our own lives. Why the obsessive need for our opposition to cut us out of the human fabric?!

Of course that's a rhetorical question, as we all know the motivation is the cherry-picked interpretation of one certain, man-written book. But of we don't encourage the expansion of the answer-collection process, who will?

**UPDATE: From a reader:

I wrote to this vlogger, in private, via my YouTube account. We had a productive exchange. In each of my three messages I asked him to kindly take down his video as everything that we say and do has an effect on others in this world. I informed him of the grave dangers that we queer people face daily, of violence we are subjected to indirectly and directly, and of our struggle for basic respect and recognition. I told him that contrary to his preconceived ideas, gay sex (for gay people) is very satisfying - everything fits just right! I encouraged him to read up and learn more about the complexities of human sexuality by heading to his local library first and asking the librarian where to start. His replies were considerate and respectful, although full of gross misinformation and the standard bunk served up in heterosexist circles.

One may presume that something in that exchange got through to him, for he has now taken down his video. It would be very interesting to see if he ever puts up another video about his views on gays. Let us hope they are already changing.

This is why we speak out.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

He's quite convincing in his delivery. I can tell he's a minister.
"I don't see how homosexuality is supposed to be natural."
But isn't sexual pleasure minus procreation just as pertinent to the theory of evolution? The female orgasm has nothing to do with procreation. The location and innervation of the prostate has nothing to do with procreation. Sexual pleasure is quite natural.

Posted by: Ashton | Nov 24, 2009 2:41:36 PM


With tortured, convoluted illogic like that, I'm guessing that he is unlikely to understand much of anything that's reality based. I think he's trying to justify his bigoted views by vocalizing his own brand of "logic." He sure seems pleased with himself at the end.

Posted by: dave b | Nov 24, 2009 2:58:35 PM

If only all citizens voting against our equality were as devoted to using reasoned arguments for coming to his/her conclusions. It is clear that this minister struggles to understand the concepts of evolution and natural selection; but I appreciate his willingness to set aside traditional dogma and evaluate his position. These are the people we can convince to see our equal humanity.

Posted by: Tony in WeHo | Nov 24, 2009 3:33:11 PM

interesting point raised by Pastor R.D Weekly
"Men have a prostate gland that aids in the secretion of semen. It also contains muscles that help to expel semen during ejaculation. What many people don't know, however, is that the prostate, when stimulated, provides sexual pleasure similar to that experienced by women's 'G-spots'... It can be stimulated by no other means except an anal probe"

Wrong by design?

Posted by: Really | Nov 24, 2009 9:12:02 PM

I guess he doesn't own the t-shirt that says "It's a Black thing, you wouldn't understand."

Posted by: gleeindc | Nov 25, 2009 6:45:20 AM

Did I hear him correctly? Is he espousing evolution while denying it? He talks about not believing in evolution, then says that if being gay were "natural" then our bodies would have adapted to some sort of same-sex procreation. He then gives the example of a giraffe, stating that a giraffe's neck wasn't always that long; that because their food was so high, giraffe's necks evolved to become long enough to reach the food.

is there no cognitive dissonance for this man as he's making this stupid analogy?

Posted by: keltic | Nov 25, 2009 9:34:58 AM

Keltic, one recent hypothesis suggests that the same genes that cause same-sex attraction (at least male same-sex attraction) also causes women to become more fertile. And therefore those genes continue to get replicated in the population, not because they cause male homosexuality, but because they cause women to become more fertile. There is some anecdotal evidence that seems to support the theory, but as yet, I don't believe that any effort has been undertaken to identify any specific genes.

http://sify.com/news/why-homosexuality-hasn-t-become-extinct-news-national-jegrAGaaghg.html

And, you're right: the lying liars will absolutely abhor anything "sciencey" if there is any chance that it undermines their lies. But then they'll jump aboard wholeheartedly if they can twist some scientific theory enough so that it "supports" their lies. It's a classic example of duplicity. And, for them, the good thing is that they don't need any "evidence" to support any of their claims.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 25, 2009 11:37:06 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails