The above post appeared on a secular group in Facebook dears. This is a homophobe trying to claim they are not a homophobe by denying their own homophobia. It is the sexual politics equivalent of “I’m not a racist, but…”
So let us just take a look at the writer’s claims and break them down.
“moral objections to homosexual sexual activity are not “prejudice”, as they specify clearly the offending action, and do not rely on spurious generalisation.”
Firstly, where exactly do such objections specify cleary the offending action? If the writer is basing his objections upon the Bible, then it merely says
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22, KJV)
“Lie… …as with womankind” Well maybe it’s just little me being naive dears but that does not clearly specify any sexual act. For all we know, it could mean just as it reads – lying together.
All right, I’m being naughty and playing with words. Let us assume however, that the verse means what most religious people opposed to homosexuality take it to mean. And look out, I’m going to say it; gasp, shock, horror, anal intercourse.
So now we have to look at what the commentator says in the above article.
The writer states that they are opposed to “homosexual sexual activity” which here is defined as anal intercourse. However, it is known that there are women who enjoy anal intercourse with male partners. It is equally known that there are gay men who do not practice anal intercourse. And then there are men who like their female partners to practice anal intercourse upon them with a strap-on, some of whom are bisexual, and others who are actually heterosexual.
The writer therefore in assuming that anal intercourse to be “homosexual sexual activity” is making a wholly inaccurate generalisation about all gay men and the act. They not only assume that all gay men practice anal intercourse but by referring to it as a “homosexual sexual activity”, they further assume it to be exclusively so, which as I have illustrated, simply is not the case.
Anal intercourse is no more a homosexual activity than oral sex or masturbation. Okay, I too make assumptions but I’ll assume that most sexually active heterosexual women practice and enjoy oral sex upon male partners, just as there are men who enjoy practicing cunnilingus (no dear, it’s not an Irish airline) on women. There are men who have oral sex with other men, and women who do it with other women. Likewise women masturbate men, men masturbate women, gay men masturbate each other, as do lesbian women. And of course, the overwhelming vast majority of us all masturbate ourselves. Interestingly enough solo masturbation could be accurately described as homosexual sexual activity. Yet we all do it (yes you do – you can fool yourself all you like but you can’t fool me) and it was even considered normal everyday behaviour until Samuel-Auguste Tissot (another puritanical religious interfering busybody) published his anti-masturbation book L’Onanisme in 1790. And then there are people of all sexualities and gender identities who do not partake of oral sex, masturbation, or anal sex for that matter.
Short of same-sex genital to genital contact, such as “docking” between men or “scissoring” between women, there is actually very little could be accurately described as “homosexual sexual activity”. And even then, not all gays and lesbians practice the above. In sexual intimacy it is very much “horses for courses” dears and what gets one individuals, or couples, blood pumping will leave others quite cold. I for one do not understand why some people get a kick out of wearing rubber body suits and it’s not something I would ever do. But hey, I like to tuck my willy into frilly panties, so just what right exactly do I have to judge? None whatsoever, and nor do I. It’s their life, and as long as no-one is hurting a child, anyone else vulnerable, or an animal, then the watchword in any aspect of the many facets of sexual activity is if it feels good, if it feels good, do it!
If you actually break the word homosexual down, then you find that it’s root does not actually pertain to sexual intimacy at all but merely to gender. Homo meaning “same”, it literally simply means “same sex”. In that context two people of the same sex embracing, kissing on the cheek, or even just phoning, contacting online or merely talking could accurately be described as “homosexual activity”. In which case the sexual aspect becomes redundant and thereby becomes an “irrelevant secondary feature”. So another of the writer’s myths busted.
Homosexual in the modern sense does of course mean being physically attracted to someone of the same sex, which is of course “homosexual sexual activity”, just as being physically attracted to someone of the opposite sex is heterosexual sexual activity. And both are equally normal, as there is not one wholly straight not wholly gay. To be a “real man / woman” is a biological impossibility (and if any guys out there doubt that, consider that not only do you have nipples, but also that they grow erect when excited or cold). We are all somewhere on “the spectrum” of sexuality. Given that fact, the writer should have no problem with homosexual physical attraction, or indeed any relationship which springs from that. Especially as one of the places you will find a particularly touching example of such is in, ermmm, the Bible.
The narrative of David and Jonathan is one of the most moving stories in the Old Testament (so refreshing from all the slaughter and bloodshed). Recorded in the Books of Samuel, it tells of how the two were competitors for the crown. Yet when David came before King Saul, his son Jonathan took an immediate liking to him and the two “form a covenant”;
“And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father’s house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.” (1 Samuel 18:1-3)
As the story continues, being a rival, David is pursued by Saul. War ensues and before they have to part, David and Jonathan renew their covenant. Eventually, David and Saul are reconciled but sadly Jonathan is killed in battle and David laments his loss;
“O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2 Samuel 1:25-26, KJV)
The official, theological, line of course is that this was no more than a Platonic relationship, or a “romantic friendship” as some would have it. Hold on a minute tough dears. Let us go back to what else the First Book of Samuel says
“And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.” (1 Samuel 18:4)
Now, if Jonathan stripped down, as described above, he would then be stark naked in front of David. The theologians can say what the want lovies but when a man tells you he loves you and strips naked in front of you, one can be fairly sure of what is about to happen, and we can easily assume it is going to be somewhat more than a little elaborate than a firm handshake.
Therefore, assuming that David and Jonathan existed – and I see no reason to doubt that – it is fairly obvious to me that the two were indeed not only sexually attracted to each other but did indeed share sexual intimacy. And the later narrative, in which David sadly laments his dear Jonathan, and how his love was greater than that of women, speaks for itself. Every time I read it I picture David playing his harp softly and singing sadly, pining for his lost love, which has me welling up every time I read it, just as I am right now.
Of course, I doubt it but I could be wrong. Perhaps it was indeed a Platonic romantic friendship. But then, if it were, then the fact of Jonathan stripping off becomes an “irrelevant secondary feature”. Whichever, what David and Jonathan did in their relationship is no damned business of the writer’s, just as anyone’s relationship, gay or straight, is none of his damned business.
As with so many others of his ilk, therefore, the writer of the above piece has indeed generalised about gay men and what constitutes “homosexual sexual activity” and in doing so builds up a mistaken stereotype based upon ignorant assumptions.
The writer states, “moral objections to homosexual sexual activity are not “prejudice”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word prejudice as “dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions.” I have clearly illustrated above that the writer’s views have derived from preconceived and unfounded opinions, and therefore are indeed prejudiced. Given that they are prejudiced against gay men, such views are indeed homophobic, no matter what the writer attempts to claim in the second paragraph.
I cannot say if the original writer of the post is a Christian but assume so. I know for certain that the person who posted it in Facebook certainly is (and I am not convinced they are not one and the same person). Claiming moral indignation, he is merely trying to justify his own ignorant bigotry by hiding behind one verse from the Old Testament in the Bible; a book which continually contradicts itself, and as we can see in the narrative of David and Jonathan, does not even support the ignorant prejudices of homophobes.
Xandra 