Friday, May 16, 2014

If you didn't appreciate Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend on TV are you mentally ill or just immoral?

Okay, I'm trying not to get into trouble with the new Politically Correct regime here. I'm just attempting to make sense of all the finger-wagging that the new, self-appointed social and political hall monitors are furiously engaged in in regard to Michael Sam's being drafted by the NFL.

Sam is gay and so we must all get out the party whistles and celebrate it. And if we don't, there are people who will get in our face and give us earnest lectures running down our moral views in the name of Tolerance and rejecting our views in the name of Diversity.

Oh yeah: And calling us "homophobes."

So in the interest of helping me not get into any more trouble, maybe my readers could give me some advice here.

As we all know, being gay now confers a privileged status on an individual in today's society. So when Michael Sam gets drafted in the NFL, he is not booed or hooted at, he is celebrated.

So my first question is, why is Michael Sam being celebrated? First of all, in order for behavior to be praiseworthy, it must be voluntary. But, we are told, being gay is not voluntary. Gay people are born that way. You have the gay gene or you don't (We must accept this because, despite the fact that no such gene has ever been found, it is claimed by gay rights groups (even though it is rejected by many gay scholars themselves) and that is sufficient to establish it).

So he cannot be praiseworthy for being gay. Is there something else? Maybe Sam is praiseworthy for kissing his boyfriend on national TV. But why is that praiseworthy? Was it daring? Did it require courage to do? Why is it brave to do something that the media is going to fawn over, as it obediently did?

So I'm unclear as to what Michael Sam did that warrants praise in the first place.

Secondly, I'm unclear as to why it is that the people who were turned off by Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend are to be criticized. Michael Levenson at The Wire referred to them as "those homophobes who bristled at the kiss." Why are you a "homophobe" if you think kissing a person (or any number of other more intimate things two same sex people could do) to a person of the same sex is icky? Why don't we give them the same deference we are told we are supposed to give to anyone else who has a different opinion than ours and simply say, "Fine, as long as it works for you."

When calling these people "homophobes" are you issuing a psychological diagnosis? Are you mentally ill if you didn't appreciate Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend? Are people who disagree with the new Politcally Correct regime (like people in the old Soviet Union) to be committed to mental hospitals? Is disagreement now a mental disease? If so, can it be cured? Would electroshock therapy help people appreciate Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend? Perhaps removing the offending brain node from which such Intolerance emanates?

Or maybe you are being immoral if you did not like watching Michael Sam kiss his boyfriend? Is "homophobe" a term of moral opprobrium? If so, what moral standard are you appealing to according to which You Shall Not Think Two People Of The Same Sex Kissing Is Repellent? Is this written on a pair of stone tablets somewhere? From what Mt. Sinai was it brought down?

Surely there are answers to these questions. Otherwise we would be forced to conclude that the people now preaching at us about this issue would be no more than tiresome Politically Correct schoolmarms who really ought to get a life.

And we know that can't be true.

13 comments:

Paula Flint said...

If being gay is a natural state that one is born with...genetically created sexual interest in the same sex...then perhaps those who find it disagreeable are also born that way....and thus should be left to their beliefs without criticism.

Old Rebel said...

Dissidents in the Soviet Union were often shipped off to mental hospitals. Today, the other Evil Empire, in enforcing its official ideology of egalitarianism, brands all dissidents as mad dogs afflicted by "hate," "homophobia," or "xenophobia."

The bottom line is that anyone who fails to embrace such a noble ideology must be unbalanced.

KyCobb said...

Its simple Martin. You aren't mentally ill. You're just a bigot. You are use to gay people understanding they had to stay in the closet, and being able to say derogatory things about homosexuals for being homosexual. But now the rules have changed on you, and you are just as confused as the racists fifty years ago when they couldn't call a black man a n-word anymore. You don't have to celebrate Michael Sam; I didn't get out a party whistle. Just show a little decorum and don't be rude, or you'll be called on it.

KyCobb said...

BTW, don't you feel the slightest bit hypocritical that you think that you should be able to freely criticize Michael Sam for publicly kissing his boyfriend, but its oppression!! if you get criticized for your public behavior.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

But now the rules have changed on you, and you are just as confused as the racists fifty years ago when they couldn't call a black man a n-word anymore.

But I didn't call anyone names. You did: "bigot." I'm wondering how calling people names addresses this issue.

Why do you feel the need to call people who disagree with you names? Wouldn't it be more productive (not to mention civil) to just address the issue?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

BTW, don't you feel the slightest bit hypocritical that you think that you should be able to freely criticize Michael Sam

You really ought to be a more careful reader. Where did I criticize Michael Sam? I was criticizing the use the media was making of Michael Sam.

Sam has himself said that he just wants to play football and that it was the media that was making a big deal about his being gay.

So in that sense I'm actually agreeing with Sam.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

You think that homosexuals shouldn't engage in public kissing, an activity which heterosexuals engage in daily without any criticism. That is bigotry. If you kept your opinion to your immediate circle, no-one would care. You edited the Levenson quote to leave out "and complained about ESPN", meaning he was addressing people who publicly complained that homosexual kisses should be censored when our culture is saturated in heterosexual kissing. That is bigotry, and fair game for criticism.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You think that homosexuals shouldn't engage in public kissing, an activity which heterosexuals engage in daily without any criticism. That is bigotry.

I didn't say the "shouldn't engage in public kissing," I said if they did they shouldn't be lectured by the Tolerance Police about engaging in Thoughtcrime if they don't particularly enjoy the spectacle.

If you don't appreciate polygamous couples (or trios, or quartets, or whatever else they are) kissing with all their spouses on TV would you be a bigot for that reason as well?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Also, if you think conservative religious people shouldn't publicly express their distaste of acts they find objectionable on TV, are you a bigot?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

No-one is going to lecture you for your thoughts, and I don't think conservative people shouldn't publicly express their distaste for anything objectionable on TV. If they don't like kissing on TV, that's fine. If they just don't want homosexuals doing something they watch heterosexuals do every day, that's bigotry.

Martin Cothran said...

And what about the polygamists?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Those are just male-female kisses, so I'm not sure why the sight of them would bother you. Anyway nice try to change the subject, but polygamy isn't the same thing as same-sex marriage, despite the strenuous efforts of the Right to conflate the two. Bans on Polygamy don't prevent anyone from marrying a person they are sexually compatible with; it just limits them to one marriage at a time. Besides, conservatives should like polygamy; its so traditional, its Biblical.