Hello all. I recently received the following e-mail in response to my article about "brokeback mountain." The writer thought that I was being hypocritical. The reality is that I haven't quite made up my mind entirely about the whole issue of homosexuality, so I figured I'd have a stab at it here in response to this e-mail. But first of all let me just say that I'm not out to whitewash this person. This was a fairly respectful e-mail so I'm going to respond to it in kind...fairly respectfully:

I found a tinge of hypocricy in your "hump-butt" article; the rest of your site comes off as fairly left-wing and accepting of diversity/progression, yet, for whatever reason, this article is dripping with some sort of offence from gays or gay-culture to the extent that you're advocating Catholic perspective. For someone who takes offense to the word "nerd," you aren't very open-minded towards a group of people who have been stigmatized by conservative groups as a result of their propensities, which, by the way, hurt noone (barring rape).

I suppose your crusade against everything American doesn't fear contradiction; kinda like the Bible.

First of all, let me just say that I don't categorize myself as "left-wing." I'm an Iconoclast, if you don't know what that means, go and look it up. A lot of "left-wing" policies really piss me off. The only reason I haven't been harping on them is that we've currently got an asshole conservative in the whitehouse fucking everything up with his asshole conservative ways. That's the issue that needs to be addressed at the moment. When we get an ashole liberal in the white house I'll start bitching about how asshole liberals fuck everything up. It's the principle of moderation. Everything gets fucked up when taken to extremes.

But in terms of how liberals piss me off, I just saw a movie called the "Family Stone." It was about a bunch of asshole liberals who rudely mistreat everybody who doesn't espouse their own belief system. Somehow the critics generally liked it even though they totally overlooked the fact that these jerk-wads were in no-way expressing the "tolerance" they claim is their fundamental function. But it's hard to avoid hypocrasy, just ask Walt Whitman. "Do I contradict myself, very well then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." That's from Leaves of Grass by the way.

Another argument against pointing out when people contradict themselves as a way of discrediting their argument is the concept of relativity. The validity of your acts is dependent on your reference frame, and Einstein proved that at speeds approaching the velocity of light, the rules of the universe change. If the whole fucking rules of the universe aren't always consistent, how do you expect a mere flesh and blood human being to be?

But getting back to homosexuality, let me just make one thing clear. I don't believe that homosexuals should be persecuted for their behavior. I DON'T believe that they should be rounded up and executed. I also DO NOT believe that they should be treated any differently than anybody else. But what everybody seems to inherently miss in that statement is that I DO NOT BELIEVE that I personally should have to accept homosexuality. I don't think I should have to embrace their lifestyle. I don't think that I should have to see it on TV. This doesn't mean that I don't think it should be broadcast, it just means that if it is broadcast I would like to retain my right to turn off the TV.

This is the crux of the problem. Our society is going from a general acceptance of homosexuality to an enforced one. Why is it not acceptable for me to say that I'm personaly not interested in homosexuality? I think it's disgusting to see two men kiss each other (Two women kissing each other is a different matter...if that seems like a contradiction, well, I don't have an explination). But if you're homosexual I don't have a problem with it, just don't kiss anybody where I can see it, and this isn't really hypocritical because I don't like seeing anybody kiss anybody in an excessive way in public. I think that's disrespectful.

The reality is that there is one group in the US that is getting oppressed more than any other, do you know what it is? The man's man.

I'll pause to let you finish laughing and hope that in the interval you'll allow me to present my argument before you pass judgement.

The prejudice against men in the US is beyond belief. How many times do you see men ridiculed on TV shows like Oprah, or Dr. Phil? How often does Dr. Phil say that the problems in the show are the woman's fault? Never, and why, because American's have the mentality that men are somehow less than women. It goes back to nursery rhymes. What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice. What are little boys made of? Sticks and snails and puppy dog's tails. Imagine if the genders of those lines were reversed? Imagine the outcry there would be. In fact, do that little experiment on any TV sitcom where the man is treated portrayed as an asshole. The king of Queens, According to Jim, Everybody loves Raymond, in every one of those the man is portrayed as a slothful glutton or a weakling who is constantly beaten on by his wife. And what is the wife? Some sort of intelectual goddess who is constantly right. What happened to shows like Father Knows Best? The reality is that it's pretty damn tough to find any positive depiction of a man anywhere in the modern media. That's not fucking right.

And if a man is shown to be somehow "good" or allowed to give the punchline of a joke rather than be the punchline, what can you assume? Yep, the man is probably gay. Now we have shows like "queer eye for the single guy" that run around and basically show how the gay perspective is somehow superior to the traditional male role.

Sorry, but that shit pisses me off. Not because of the homosexuality, but because it's an attack on basic masculinity.

And look, masculinity is just like anything else, when taken to the extreme it becomes bad, just like extreme femininity. I hate macho assholes who beat up their girlfriends or whatever just like anybody else, but I hate super effeminate women who cash in on their sexuality too. And I really dislike effeminate homosexual men. Those people are engaging in a super irresponsible attitude and, I guarantee this, that life philosophy never produced great art or great ideas. Sure there have been great homosexual thinkers, but not the excessively effeminate kind.

We live in a culture in which everything male is bad, and the level of prejudice is so high that when you say you didn't like a movie that shows two men cheating on their wives with each other, the knee-jerk, socially injected reaction is to say your reaction is prejudiced, or hypocritical.

But I got news for everybody. I don't have to like homosexuals and that doesn't make me a bad person. But it's not that I don't like homosexuals, I just resent when their lifestyle is accepted socially while mine, a more macho lifestyle, is discredited. I am the victim of prejudice, where is my guest appearance on Dr. Phil or on Oprah? Fuck it, I don't want it, I am a man, I'm used to solving my own problems rather than crying to the whole fucking world about it. I'll just carry on that fine tradition which has, incidentally, brought about 99 percent of all the great scientific and artistic discoveries in human history.

Oh, and one last point. Homosexuality does hurt people. It's no secret that AIDS was spread by irresponsible permiscuous homosexual men. Anal tissue is fragile and tears and anal sex provides the statistically higest chance of the transfer of HIV, so don't tell me that homosexuals have never hurt anybody. We have to call a spade a spade and mention this. Of course, this isn't the whole homosexual culture, but just a small irresponsible sub-sect. Still, this is a fact that shouldn't be ignored. Just like the fact that women are statistically more likely to kill their own children.

Yeah, maybe men aren't so bad after all.

The End