Gays World is brought to you by some Noah's-Ark Bullshit: Party on Gays.
(Turn the volume to a good reading level so the track can play like background music to the post.)
It's Tuesday, It's 11:30ish, it's time to party with your wack-cellent host the Catholic church and with them as always it NARTH. Party-on Gays, and Fuck-you NARTH.
In today's Star Tribune there was an article about how the Catholic church still hates gay people. I was not surprised to hear this. I was taken aback at the turn the Diocese' tactics have taken in channeling their hate and homophobia. This shit has most likley been standard policy for awhile - it doesn't sound like the kind of shit that you apply to your organization of billions over night - I've just haven't heard the Catholic™ brand of reactionary fear phrased like this before.
Basically the church says homosexuality is a disease (that's shit I have heard already) and that through therapy, confession, and prayer The Gays can "develop their heterosexual potential". That's the part that threw me.
Really? Develop their heterosexual potential? Schyah, right.
That soft fucking legal-eese, associated-press-approved, politically-correct language... Fuck. It gets me every time.
The Catholic church maintains that they aren't raging homophobes, they just like their gays like they like their priests: celibate, repressed and out of touch with their sexual selves, excepting children, of course. The Catholic clergy basically says, if you're a Gay, just don't be gay anymore.
Yeah, they're real creative.
The majority of the gay people that I know are down with Sigmund Freud, even if they don't acknowledge the fact. Freud maintained that the sexual self is the essential self - basically that your sexuality is a manifestation of your "true self".
Personally, I don't believe that shit - not whole hog anyway - but for many a gay, that shit is policy number one.
Ask a Gay to describe themselves. Being gay is usually pretty central to a Gay's identity (obviously there are exceptions ).
The Gays are a minority and get shit on by conservatives and religious fundamentalists just like every other minority. The way they defend themselves from bigotry and violence is through the solidarity of their comunity/subculture. The Gays' point of solidarity - being gay - is what unites them against crazies like the Pope, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman, and NARTH.
Which brings me to the obvious question that the Star Tribune article begs: If there is a NARTH - National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality - why isn't there a... NARTH - National Association for Research and Therapy of Heterosexuality (maybe they could find a different acronym).
But you get what I'm saying right?
If the extant NARTH is an "educational" "resource" for gays that want/are pressured by the Catholic church to try to act straight, why isn't there an organization for the heteros who want to get down with some homoerotica?
Think about it, by being straight you immediately eliminate half the market for sexing.
If the thought of having sex with another man is currently repugnant to you, but you have an open mind and like to fuck a lot, a class or organization that could "educate" you into finding men attractive might be right up your alley. (play)
Which brings me to this video from Illdoctrine about the use of the slang terms "pause" and "No Homo" in vernacular speech, specifically in Hip-Hop. That shit is way funny.
The salient point within JSmooth's analysis of the parenthetical use of "No Homo" can be found when he says, "... as a general rule, if you're not the original target of an insult, you cant be the one to reclaim it..." - as a general rule.
I interpret that shit to mean "If you aren't the original target of an insult, the only way you can reclaim it is with some creative linguistic acrobatics."
So, as a a straight guy, I propose that if one writes some ambiguous shit that could be construed as homoerotic and one does not give a fuck, the appropriate parenthetical addendum to said written shit would be either "play" (opposite of pause), "HOMO?" (if one wants to leave that shit ambiguous), or "YO HOMO" (If one want's to go for the gusto, "Yo" being snonomous with "Yes").
If there is going to be an "incitement to the proliferation of discourse", we are going to need some better/comprehensive/more robust linguistic options than are currently available,
Motherfucker.
No comments:
Post a Comment