Friday, December 4, 2009

We Are All Homosexuals Now‽

I use the interrobang in the heading of this post to use both the question mark and the exclamation mark at once. That is its purpose, after all. We are all homosexuals now‽

Now, I'd like to ask a question: how many of you would hear something coming from human rights defenders, if we said that spitting on the roadside should be made illegal, and that “aggravated roadside-spitting” should be punishable by death? Maybe we'd hear nothing.
But if we heard anything, it would be “spitting on the roadside is a human right!”, but is it?

In short: in as far as human rights allow us to do anything we please, then some (perhaps most) human rights must be suppressed. (Here, a bit of narcissism is in order.)

I bring this up in light of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, upon which I've dwelt before here recently (and in the comments of the follow-up post that GUG made). This is not to equate homosexuality with spitting by the road-side; I just got an example that suffices for my purposes. (That I have to use this disclaimer all the time is a good indicator of how powerful the denouncers have become. If I didn't put it there, I'd quickly be covered with claims that I hate homosexuals, and I called them “evil, vile, live road-spitters” and so on.) This particular post is also agnostic about whether spitting on the road-side and/or homosexuality, among other practices, are human rights.

Anyway, now that I have finished that preamble, I have three points to make. As is my style, that doesn't mean that I'll make much sense. But we all try, don't we?

First of all, as I explain in the comments here, I think that just as the homosexuals can say that they are being oppressed, so can the homosexual-haters. This trope has been used from time immemorial to seal off a group into a situation where it can be oppressed with impunity. You can bet that only a few witches would have been burnt, if people hadn't thought that the witches were oppressing them. Yet we now see that episode as a witch holocaust of oppression—they saw it as a victory over their oppressors.
This trope works well enough to have been repeated all the time, from Jews in Europe to African slaves in America. If it worked for Hitler, it should work for us. (Disclaimer: that's a joke that notes a trend, for all you on-edge people who get so excited at a chance to be offended. A persecution complex is where you persecute yourself. Stop it.)

Second, in the same comments I say that if, as it always was, homosexuals just exist, rather than march bare-chest on the streets in ridiculous clothing, there would be less impetus among non-homosexuals to have them killed. (This ties in with point one: the marching can be construed validly as oppression. Not that there would be zero homophobes, of course, since even baby-killers exist, and babies don't march.) I don't support being in people's faces about who you fuck—if I did the same, I'd never stop marching!
(Another disclaimer to the Homosexual Anti-Defamation League: This isn't limited to homosexuals; I am also against people marching about their favourite drink in ridiculous clothing, where the clothing appears.) Each one of us has a habit that, if he/she marched half-dressed down the road singing about it, most otherwise-good people would want him/her killed dead.
And, whether we like the sound of it or not, it is true: homosexuals and people who eat taboo things are supposed to be mild, at most, about their particular inclinations. (Disclaimer to booger-eaters and mainly to homosexuals: I'm not equating your two groups, just drawing a comparison between two things that are done by a few, and reflexively scoffed at by most others.)

Third and most important, the reason for the post. I have stated this point elsewhere, and here it is again.
Even if you find homosexuality repugnant, you should oppose this attempt to create too much punitive power over the issue.
The reason is, in short, because anyone can claim that you are a homosexual. After all, what does it take to arrest a homosexual? Merely a claim by someone that he is. And so, we are all at risk. If there is anything to learn from the recent spate of preachers using this denouncement—“Homosexual!”—to tackle rivals, it is that the tool is going to be grabbed and wielded by the most-dangerous, people we have among us: Pharisees. Who needs a gun, when one accusation can get the job done? You'll be surprised how far people can go with such power in their hands.

So, oppose the bill, because otherwise I'll get you jailed with much ease. I will. Just you let the Bill pass and you will see.
(But I still maintain that, for as long as this is not purely a local consideration, and there are all these imperialists telling us what to do, then support the bill as a duty to your freedom. No, things aren't quite so black-or-white.)

Labels: , ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Ashy said...

LOL! This is actually hilarious.

December 5, 2009 at 2:40 AM  
Blogger gayuganda said...

Hmmmmmmm!

I am almost thinking of forgiving you.

almost.

But, see, homosexuals are some very special people. So we all cannot be...

Just a few special nuts like me. Seriously...! But, I do get your point.

December 5, 2009 at 4:49 PM  
Anonymous k said...

i do respectfully disagree with your point that homosexuals are supposed to be mild about teir particular inclinations. regardless, i applaud your position. here in the U.S., we are watching what is happening in uganda with great sadness..

December 8, 2009 at 7:29 PM  
Blogger Henrique Abrantes said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 14, 2009 at 1:08 AM  
Blogger bathmate said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 28, 2009 at 7:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home