Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Biz ([info]bizzle) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2009-08-13 07:49:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
But what are your thoughts on homosex?
Sci-fi writer John C. Wright does not approve of the Sci-Fi channel's apparent pandering to the "homosex" crowd.

The head of Sci-Fi channel has contritely promised to include more homosex in future shows, and to do it nonchalantly, just as if this abomination is normal and natural and worthy of no comment. The shows will not actually come out and say sexual perversion has no bad side effects. They won't actually lie and tell you homosex won't destroy your life. But they will imply the lie. They will play along.

Homosex. It's almost kind of catchy!

I'd like someone, anyone, to explain to me how my culture reached a position where a public entertainment company can be criticized for failing to contribute to the moral decay of the land, and that the criticism would be taken seriously, and the company would cringe and promise to do better.

Someone explain to me by what series of events persons with serious sexual-psychological malfunctions would somehow be awarded the status of moral arbiters, something like priests and confessors and sages -- except that the passkey to being a guardian of public conscience in our age is the absence of moral value, not the presence.


Explain they do. As soon as the post is referenced in a MetaQuote, the dissenters are off to reply to Mr. Wright. The initial reaction is small, but promising. Most responses are rational and non-inflammatory. Others are quite succinct and curt. A number of users coming in presumably through MetaQuotes announce Mr. Wright's loss of a potential customer, as long as Mr. Wright does indeed use their filthy, filthy Leftist dollars.

Come, my liberal leftist comrades! You openly boast of your superior intellectual power and more profound moral sobriety than we mere working Joes of flyover country (including working Joes like me with a doctorate in law who works in DC). You have anointed yourselves our superiors: that means you are smart enough to explain it. By what logic is the sole and single standard of virtue in your world view an absolute devotion to vice? By what logic is the sole and single sin the sin of having standards of virtue, what you call being intolerant?

'dem sure be fancy words.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]julian_black
2009-08-13 08:28 pm UTC (link)
I don't find 'homosex' funny because it dehumanizes actual GLBT people and refuses to acknowledge the complexity of their lives. By using 'homosex' to refer to any portrayals of GLBT people on TV (whether explicit sexual activity is involved or not), he's identifying gay-ness as nothing more than a set of aberrant, disgusting sexual practices. In that view, GLBT people aren't born as they are; they don't have deep and genuine love lives; they cannot possibly be happy (because they must, by the very nature of their 'perversion,' be self-destructive). They are no homosexuals; there are simply morally bankrupt individuals who choose to engage in (or support) the 'abomination' of homosex.

My God, what a stunted, ugly soul that man has. And after watching his wife slop her own blight of both mind and spirit out on her LJ post-Worldcon, I can only shake my head in dismay.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eldritch
2009-08-13 08:45 pm UTC (link)
Yes, this. You put my scattered thoughts on the matter into a coherent whole.

God, between him and his wife, I... I don't know. I guess there's truth in the saying that there's someone out there for everyone, but, well. The idea that they might reproduce just horrifies me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sionja
2009-08-14 02:08 am UTC (link)
They have three kids, according to his wiki page.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eldritch
2009-08-14 02:24 am UTC (link)
Why did you tell me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ecchaniz0r
2009-08-14 04:05 pm UTC (link)
if it's any small comfort, all three kids will probably freak out at their parents' stupid and rebel in glorious style once they hit their teens.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

*puts on the serious hat*
[info]tofuknight
2009-08-17 08:46 pm UTC (link)
For me, the whole "homosex" thing was funny. Because he couldn't be bothered to type another three letters, because of it's relation to buttsex, because his arguments are basically of the "It will lead to sins that get me off at night!" type, I found it fucking hilarious. But other days, it would make me cry or scream with rage. I totally agree that it's a real life problem, because of all the things you said about defining people by an act and denying them personhood or happiness, etc.. But here it was funny. I'm sorry it wasn't for you; it might not be to me tomorrow.

I don't really have a point other than the it's ok, and advice to just not read if it's upsetting. But over half the time, I can't follow that advice either, so. I hope maybe it's funny to you later? Or that you find more funny elsewhere?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map