The National Organization for Marriage’s Jennifer Roback Morse has been talking her little Christian lips off about the difference between immutable race and "mutable" homosexuality in a truly infuriating manner.
I too have said that "gay" references a behavior rather than a personality, and a result some of my readers have asked how I am any better than this Morse bitch. So, I want to reply to them and to Mrs. Morse, being as intimately familiar as I am with one's capacity to switch between sexual behaviors.
I think "gay" is a word that helps Morse because it labels a personality based on a behavior - it assumes that homosexual attraction is perfectly correlated with homosexual activity. I can attest from personal experience that it is not. Mrs. Morse assumes, however, that because one can "switch off" the activity, one can also switch of the attraction and consequently be perfectly happy in this new, "switched" state. Whether we act on our attractions is always a choice, whether we'd identify as queer or straight. Ask the two wanks convicted last this week of raping an unconscious drunk girl - they made a choice to act on their attraction to her, and they paid the price they deserved to pay.
But, while I must make a conscious choice to have sex with a man or a woman, there is one thing I cannot choose: who I find myself naturally attracted to. I can't help that I am attracted to women. I also can't help whether that attraction is so strong that I cannot be fulfilled as a person without expressing it through sexual activity and lifetime companionship with women. This is where Morse and the whole "gay is a choice" camp and I part ways. You can turn off your attractions such that you don't act on them, true, but you can't necessarily be truly happy after you do. This is why I instead advocate a new definition for "queer" that contemplates the majority of the population having SOME attraction going both ways. At that point, we'd be talking about denying 80% of the population the right to marry as they choose rather than the 10% or so that fall into the "totally homosexual" category, and our fight gets much easier.
By the way, Morse, have you ever tasted a pussy?
I think "gay" is a word that helps Morse because it labels a personality based on a behavior - it assumes that homosexual attraction is perfectly correlated with homosexual activity. I can attest from personal experience that it is not. Mrs. Morse assumes, however, that because one can "switch off" the activity, one can also switch of the attraction and consequently be perfectly happy in this new, "switched" state. Whether we act on our attractions is always a choice, whether we'd identify as queer or straight. Ask the two wanks convicted last this week of raping an unconscious drunk girl - they made a choice to act on their attraction to her, and they paid the price they deserved to pay.
But, while I must make a conscious choice to have sex with a man or a woman, there is one thing I cannot choose: who I find myself naturally attracted to. I can't help that I am attracted to women. I also can't help whether that attraction is so strong that I cannot be fulfilled as a person without expressing it through sexual activity and lifetime companionship with women. This is where Morse and the whole "gay is a choice" camp and I part ways. You can turn off your attractions such that you don't act on them, true, but you can't necessarily be truly happy after you do. This is why I instead advocate a new definition for "queer" that contemplates the majority of the population having SOME attraction going both ways. At that point, we'd be talking about denying 80% of the population the right to marry as they choose rather than the 10% or so that fall into the "totally homosexual" category, and our fight gets much easier.
By the way, Morse, have you ever tasted a pussy?
No comments:
Post a Comment