Moral Offense
Moral stuff has entered the Foley mess. Pretty offensive. Nothing brings out the stupidity vapors more than public people taking a public position on homosexuality. Public figures fear homosexuals, they fear the homosexual lobby, they fear their own hypocrisy and hide as far as they can from honesty. They become their own internal islamofacists, scared to death that they're going to blow themselves up.
I'm not a public figure. For the record: I consider homosexuality to be a perversion of nature, and for the record: I can see absolutely nothing wrong with what Foley expressed in those emails and IMs. He's a homosexual for God's sake; within that context what he expressed is normal. If you accept that homosexuality is in anyway protected, then that expression is protected. It was not a public indecency, it was private.
And for the record: The truly and only moral man is the one who marries his highschool sweetheart, himself still a virgin, has six kids by that one wife, and never looks at another woman. That includes exactly zero of my friends. If I want to have friends, live with myself, and appreciate people in regard to their true worth I have to recognize that sexual imperfection is universal but that there are degrees of both excellence and failure and that there are other values as well.
It's said Foley wrote emails that are "creepy". You've got to be creepy to read "creepy" into those emails. It's true they might contain a cast of expression that is not strictly heterosexual but to me they sound very much like an older man struggling to find something to say in reply to a very young man who had written him first.
The IM's are disgusting. They are sexual. They're homosexual, of course they're disgusting. But I'll note that any verbalized intimate sexual expression is disgusting if it's not my intimate sexual expression because it's private! If you don't think there's some difference between private and public try doing your toilet business tomorrow in the middle of a stadium and tell me you don't feel embarrassed.
Foley is described as "warm and caring". Is that to count for nothing? Hey all you God awful Christians out there. Tell me, does being warm and caring count for nothing? I'm a Christian, and I tell you that it does, and I tell you that caring is something that should be honored. But you stuck your face in his private parts and you find it disgusting so now you want him destroyed. What vile Christians you are.
"But I didn't stick my face in there, he dropped his pants." He did...? Those were private communications. Who put those communications out in public? Who painted that portrait of Foley sitting on a toilet in the middle of a stadium? I tell you, it is natural to find homosexual sexual expression disgusting, but he's not the one who made himself a spectacle.
"But the boy was young." So? Boys are young, old men like boys. It's called being homosexual.
"But he was innocent." My God it is getting thick. He was answering those IMs.
"But he was being exploited by power." He was an ex page.
"He was damaged." He was a homosexual. Within his context he was being as natural as Foley.
So anyway, all this righteous outrage by Christians and other decent people who really ought not be such slime bags really turns my stomach. Either you condemn homosexuality per se as being unnatural, or you accept that in this instance there is only one man who has been truly wronged and that's Representative Foley.
And what a strange position for me to be in. I do condemn homosexuality as being a perversion of nature, and yet I end up defending what I find disgusting because within the context of what is now legally protected what he was doing was totally normal.
My own feeling is that homosexuality ought to be illegal but ignored. That's a continuation of a credo I developed when I was seventeen and first discovered this odd aspect of life: You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. The only reason you make it illegal is so that in a situation like this you don't end up being a hypocrite, just vicious.
Go after the real people who need to be condemned, the people who set this thing up and leaked it.
I'm not a public figure. For the record: I consider homosexuality to be a perversion of nature, and for the record: I can see absolutely nothing wrong with what Foley expressed in those emails and IMs. He's a homosexual for God's sake; within that context what he expressed is normal. If you accept that homosexuality is in anyway protected, then that expression is protected. It was not a public indecency, it was private.
And for the record: The truly and only moral man is the one who marries his highschool sweetheart, himself still a virgin, has six kids by that one wife, and never looks at another woman. That includes exactly zero of my friends. If I want to have friends, live with myself, and appreciate people in regard to their true worth I have to recognize that sexual imperfection is universal but that there are degrees of both excellence and failure and that there are other values as well.
It's said Foley wrote emails that are "creepy". You've got to be creepy to read "creepy" into those emails. It's true they might contain a cast of expression that is not strictly heterosexual but to me they sound very much like an older man struggling to find something to say in reply to a very young man who had written him first.
The IM's are disgusting. They are sexual. They're homosexual, of course they're disgusting. But I'll note that any verbalized intimate sexual expression is disgusting if it's not my intimate sexual expression because it's private! If you don't think there's some difference between private and public try doing your toilet business tomorrow in the middle of a stadium and tell me you don't feel embarrassed.
Foley is described as "warm and caring". Is that to count for nothing? Hey all you God awful Christians out there. Tell me, does being warm and caring count for nothing? I'm a Christian, and I tell you that it does, and I tell you that caring is something that should be honored. But you stuck your face in his private parts and you find it disgusting so now you want him destroyed. What vile Christians you are.
"But I didn't stick my face in there, he dropped his pants." He did...? Those were private communications. Who put those communications out in public? Who painted that portrait of Foley sitting on a toilet in the middle of a stadium? I tell you, it is natural to find homosexual sexual expression disgusting, but he's not the one who made himself a spectacle.
"But the boy was young." So? Boys are young, old men like boys. It's called being homosexual.
"But he was innocent." My God it is getting thick. He was answering those IMs.
"But he was being exploited by power." He was an ex page.
"He was damaged." He was a homosexual. Within his context he was being as natural as Foley.
So anyway, all this righteous outrage by Christians and other decent people who really ought not be such slime bags really turns my stomach. Either you condemn homosexuality per se as being unnatural, or you accept that in this instance there is only one man who has been truly wronged and that's Representative Foley.
And what a strange position for me to be in. I do condemn homosexuality as being a perversion of nature, and yet I end up defending what I find disgusting because within the context of what is now legally protected what he was doing was totally normal.
My own feeling is that homosexuality ought to be illegal but ignored. That's a continuation of a credo I developed when I was seventeen and first discovered this odd aspect of life: You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. The only reason you make it illegal is so that in a situation like this you don't end up being a hypocrite, just vicious.
Go after the real people who need to be condemned, the people who set this thing up and leaked it.
posted by mouse at 9:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home