| Gay Republican’ Oughta Be An Oxymoron
by Allen Snyder
opednews.com
Long before reading David Brock’s book "Blinded By The
Right", his exposé of the GOP anti-Clinton impeachment machine, I’d
often wondered how any gay person could support a political party that so
openly hates them. The Christian Right, at all levels of the GOP, are
forever crusading to deny gays basic civil rights, vilifying and
condemning them to an eternity of hellfire as dangerous moral, social, and
sexual deviants.
How could any self-respecting homosexual overlook these constant
attacks and rationalize continued GOP loyalty? Can Republican views on the
economy, education, or guns ever be attractive enough to trump issues of
sexual identity? How? How can hating people for who they are be a lesser
evil than exploiting them for political gain?
The total non-response to #3 Senator Rick Santorum’s (R-PA) rant
likening homosexuality to bestiality, incest, and pedophilia speaks
volumes about the GOP party elite’s real mentality. While Trent Lott was
skewered and roasted for his remarks about the joys of racial segregation,
the bigoted Santorum emerged from his fracas relatively unscathed.
Add to this volatile mix same-sex civil unions, TV show ‘Queer Eye
For The Straight Guy’, the attempted Episcopalian priest promotion
kibosh, and the GOP-sponsored Marriage Limitation Amendment and it’s
pretty clear what these compassion-less and soulless ‘conservatives’
(read: fascists) are all about.
Bush’s latest line is to respect homosexuals as people, but believe
‘homosexual acts’ to be immoral and ‘sinful’. It’s OK to be
gay, but not OK to act gay. You can have gay feelings, but you can’t
love, be loved by, or make love to any other gay person. Keep your asses
firmly locked in the closet.
Firmly embedded in this Neanderthal view is the Christian Right mantra
that homosexuality is a choice, a free autonomous act of the will for
which one should be held morally responsible.
You remember ‘moral responsibility’, right, Mr. Bennett? It’s
when we assign moral value to people’s actions and praise or punish them
accordingly - a game that works only if we act freely. That’s why being
black, Chinese, or female can never be morally wrong. No free choice;
therefore, no moral responsibility.
While the scientific jury may be out, all the smart money’s on
sexuality being no more a matter of free choice than skin color, ethnicity
or gender. Rest assured BushCo will simply ignore any scientific evidence
supporting that view. They still ignorantly deny global warming and
evolutionary theory and think abstinence-only makes for good sex ed.
Since the Christian Right is so adamant about validating Biblical
ambiguities, punishing gays for their heinous sins, and saving their
pitiful souls, we’ll likely have to pry the ‘gay-as-choice’ idea
from their cold dead brains. If being gay is like being white or Indian,
homosexuality is value neutral and gay-ness is not immoral, the mere
thought of which makes a Fundamentalist’s cranial veins pulsate
dangerously.
Luckily for us sane people, a bit of common sense is all that’s
needed to see the ‘gay-as-choice’ argument for what it is - total
right wing bullshit.
Just apply some soothing reductio ad absurdum reasoning.
Let’s suppose homosexuality is a free choice - a function of the
autonomous rational will. Everyone knows how badly homosexuality is
stigmatized, what the prevailing attitudes are among many Americans, and
the piss-poor treatment gays get, both violent and not (think of Matthew
Shepard and ‘Will & Grace).
There’s overt discrimination, gay-bashing red-necks, and intolerant
morons to contend with daily. Picture closeted gay people awkwardly
laughing while pathologically homophobic Santorum-types tell fag jokes
about pecker-puffers and butt-pirates, collectively cleansing their
consciences by trumpeting at cocktail parties that some of their best
friends are gay.
Why would anyone make such an obviously counter-productive and
potentially life-threatening choice when ‘choosing’ heterosexuality
would be so much easier? It’s simple - they wouldn’t. Outside
the ultra-denial ‘gay recovery’ groups sporting ‘born-again’
heteros, no one has ever touted gay-as-choice with a straight face.
Common sense - 1. Christian Right - 0.
Let’s again suppose gay-as-choice is true. That means at some point,
homosexuals make a conscious decision to be homosexual - to be attracted
to and have sex with same-sex members. Logically, then, heterosexuals must
also make a conscious decision to be attracted to and have sex only with
opposite-sex people. What’s good for the gays, you know. Problem is, no
one makes any such choice.
Righties would undoubtably argue the decision gays make is to deviate
from the norm - choose to change God’s default settings, as if we were
all born heteros. Funny how this reasoning necessitates using the same
science Righties abhor when it doesn’t suit their purposes.
Common Sense - 2. Christian Right - 0.
So, let’s do ourselves a big favor and give this ‘gay-as-choice’
nonsense the indecent burial it deserves.
In the meantime, there’s plenty of room for gays on the left.
Allen Snyder is an instructor of Philosophy and Ethics. He can be
reached at asnyder111@hotmail.com
This
article is copyright by Allen Snyder and originally
published by opednews.com but
permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so
long as this credit is attached. |
