MTV think they Slick:

Standard

Look Different

I find it very ironic that MTV slid in the Homosexual agenda, along with the issue of their recent Anti-Bias campaign. Oftentimes, too often, actually, members of the Homosexual-Community (LGBTQ if you will) attempt to equate Sexual-Preference with natural, normal, genetic-traits, like skin-color, etc., and/or to equate Sexual-Preference (context-clue hint: there’s a very important reason why “preference” is within the construct-phrase “Sexual-Preference” because “preference” means “choice”) with natural, normal, Ethnic-Background/Identity, as to state that Homosexuality is an “innate-thing”, that’s unchosen…well, that’s really not fair to couple Socio-Sexual Bias along with Socio-Ethnic Bias, because socio-ethnic biases are never correct; however, certain socio-sexual biases are correct. For example: If a Child-Molestor, or a Rapist, or one who indulges in Bestiality, etc., were advocating for acceptance, for their respective sexual-pathologies, stating that their respective sexual-pathologies were normal, natural, innate, etc., would anyone of intelligence/conscience take these types of individuals seriously?!!! Of course not. And, I, for one, deem it very pathetic when the Homosexual-Community often (again too often) compares discrimination against them, based upon their own personal-choices, based upon obvious desire-driven agendas, with factors of Human make-up, both genetic determined & Humanly constructed ethnically/socio-culturally. Besides, the Sex And The City actress, Cynthia Nixon, has already let the cat-out-of-the-bag, when she publicly stated that she chose to be Homosexual, and that’s why the LGBT lobby tried to pressure her to retract her statement, even to the extent of trying to sue her in Court, and had they won against her, that would’ve set a very negative precedent, in promoting an agenda that’s already been proven biased in Nature, because, Cynthia Nixon was black-balled by the LGBT (the victim of “Discrimination” & “Bias” if you will), simply because she was honest about the conversation.

Gareth Bryant/2014

One response »

  1. Hey Gareth, it’s Paul from Oxfam. I wanted to contribute some thoughts here. From the outset, I should say that I’m a committed Christian, and while many of the arguments you make have parallels in Christianity and while I do have a decent working knowledge of the Holy Qur’an, I can’t understand them from an Islamic perspective, because I haven’t been inculturated within Islam. Just as those raised in a tradition from birth feel and live and experience that tradition differently from those who come to it later in life, we all have slightly different orientations toward conversations such as this, but we can certainly still talk.

    That said, I want to begin by saying that I disagree deeply with your comments on homosexuality, especially as you’ve contextualized them within MTV’s recent anti-bias campaign. To stay on point, I’m going to respond point by point to your statement. My hope is, quite honestly, to deconstruct your argument and to offer another perspective on the questions you raise.

    1. I’m not sure what’s “ironic” about MTV speaking about homosexuality in an anti-bias campaign. For centuries, gay men and women have been slandered, beaten, and killed for their sexual attraction. Is this okay? Is it right to take the lives of those we view as “other?” Was the same not the case before the Civil Rights era? For Jews, persons of color, and gays in the Holocaust? It’s not the same. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying violence against anyone – especially violence resulting in death – is the more grievous sin.

    2. The way you construct your argument is unfair. You immediately refer to “the Homosexual agenda,” as if it’s some self-evident thing that exists outside of public discourse. You’re mixing your categories. We’re not talking about politics here. We’re talking about a campaign that aims to prevent bias and violence against people that are constructed as others within contemporary social and religious discourse. Those are two different things. Promoting acceptance is right; violence, again, is wrong.

    3. You make a similar rhetorical move when you add the “if you will” after your hashtagged LGBTQ comment. You immediately move LGBTQ persons into another realm of discourse, one that you’ve already decided with your “if you will” not to take seriously. Why is Homosexual-Community hyphenated?

    4. As I said above, I’m NOT equating the things you say that are being equated here. They’re different struggles with vastly different issues and incarnations. I am, however, contesting your construction of the problem. By saying that skin color, etc., are “natural and normal” you have already biased yourself (hey, MTV!) AGAINST those who live lives that you don’t think fit the bill of “natural” and “normal.” You’ve made a decision to bias against – to exclude – before airing the evidence. That doesn’t work, Gareth. And why is Homosexual-Community hyphenated? Interesting linguistic strategy.

    5. Preference is one option, but there are others that don’t imply choice: orientation, sexuality. In fact, preference is a dated term in the discourse, because most people don’t think it’s a preference anymore. Further, while you rightly mention that “Sexual-Preference” is an (again-hyphenated) “construct-phrase,” you don’t take into account the implications of the word “construct.” Yes, this phrase is CONSTRUCTED? By whom? By those with power. And generally speaking, those in power (the whites in the pre-Civil Rights Era, slaveowners before the Civil War, misogynists before Women’s Suffrage, the British before the American Revolution) like to maintain the status quo. So, preference is a loaded word. Your own use of “construct” deconstructs your argument.

    6. Likewise, you mention genetics in passing. Just to be clear, there NO scientific evidence that homosexuality is NOT genetic. It might be. It’s just that scientists have decided that there are more important battles to fight: the battle against Alzheimer’s, cancer, Down’s Syndrome, and myriad other genetically-influenced disorders that shorten people’s lives or make them less able to flourish as humans in the world today.

    7. In the latter part of this sentence, there are a lot of words that sound intelligent, but I’m struggling to find what they actually mean. As I said, there’s no evidence that homosexuality IS chosen or unchosen. From a scientific standpoint, the jury is still out – and most scientists don’t care, because homosexualities are able to function fully and capably and happily and lovingly in contemporary society. If there’s nothing disordered about their ABILITY to function in the world, why do we need to talk like it is?

    8. Then you say we can’t couple the two biases, because certain socio-sexual biases “are correct?” If you’re talking about pedophiles, rapists, etc., I absolutely agree. No one is advocating for their acceptance, because those practices ARE inherently flawed on the grounds that they destroy life. But wait – WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THEM!

    9. Yes, THESE social-sexual biases are correct, but they’re not directed at homosexuals. If you intend to equate homosexuals with these others, you are sorely mistaken. Homosexuals are those whose attraction, like heterosexual attraction, leads them to flourish in relationships with persons of the same sex. These are consensual relationships, LOVING relationships as good as and often BETTER THAN many heterosexual relationships.

    10. And so I ask: What’s worse for society? A happy, loving, flourishing gay couple or a heterosexual couple engaged in an adulterous or physically/sexually/emotionally abusive relationship? Which one deals the greater death? Which one holds the greater sin?

    11. And if it’s “pathetic” that homosexuals compare discrimination against them, I ask you how such a horrible statement can stand in the face of the abuse and murder of such persons. Would Allah stand for that? Would Allah tolerate the extinguishment of life on the basis of a human fear of what seems abnormal? Even if it were abnormal, are lifetaking and public protests at the graves of fallen soldiers with signs that say “God Hates Fags” – signs intended to demoralize and destroy – somehow justifiable?

    12. This point stands even IF – and I think I’ve made the point that this is an open and generally unpursued question – homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. Lifetaking is never right. It’s horrific. It stands against everything that people know to be right. And in this post you are ENDORSING it. That’s unjust, and if one person grows in hatred as the result of your post (and please don’t make a holy hatred argument), where is the sin, then?

    13. In the last bit, you take the example of one person, Cynthia Nixon, and use her to represent 10-15% of the world’s population. Are all Muslims the same, Gareth? All Christians? All Jews? All persons of color? All Africans? First, Cynthia Nixon is ridiculous. She’s getting attention. Yes, you’re right: it would set a negative precedent. But it’s equally if not more likely that those questioning her statement did so NOT because they were protecting some “gay secret” – that being gay is a choice – but because a public figure made a senseless statement that contradicts everything the majority (and I say majority, not all – no universal statements from me!) of homosexual persons know from their own experience. It’s idiocy to spin her statement in one way without properly evaluating the other side: the side with millions of persons with narratives CONTRARY to her statement. Maybe it was a choice for her. But it’s not a choice – or even perceived as a choice – by most.

    14. In short, you’re making one woman represent millions of people. What about the millions of people? Shouldn’t we be listening to them? She was honest about HERSELF, not about the conversation. She’s no expert, and I’d venture to say that you’re not, either.

    15. And so I conclude with this question: You go to great, albeit unsubstantiated lengths to argue that homosexuality is a choice and that bias (implicitly even that which results in bigotry, abuse, and murder) is somehow okay. Well, if bigotry, hatred, and violence are possible outcomes of being gay – and if there are people out there writing things like what you wrote against people who have for SO long lived in fear, even to the point of death – why on heaven, in hell, or on earth would ANYONE choose to be gay? Why would ANYONE choose the most socially unacceptable way of living possible, especially given the pressures that people face in society every day? I don’t think they would.

    If they did, it’d be stupid, to say the least.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s