| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
You Like Tomato and I Like Tomahto
"In 2004, a statement implying that an individual is a
homosexual is hardly capable of a defamatory meaning." ---
U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner as she threw out a lawsuit by
a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was
libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book
about Madonna, under a picture of Madonna walking with a
gay man.
Call me ignorant, call me bigoted, call me "homophobic,"
but if my name or picture turn up in a book along with a claim
or declaration that I am homosexual, then I am going to be
dismayed, mildly angry and bucking to sue if a correction isn't
made, pronto.
Judge Gertner, who would almost certainly label me a bigot,
also said this: "In this day and age, recent rulings by the
Supreme Court . . . undermine any suggestion that a statement
implying that an individual is a homosexual is defamatory. In
fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires
this Court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that . . . have
plagued the homosexual community."
What the judge is saying is that in her self-esteemed opinion
there is absolutely no legitimate reason--that is, no reason
other than prejudice and bigotry--why a person would
stringently object to being falsely portrayed as a homosexual.
Well, the good judge needs to get over herself. No judge can
tell me I can't be offended by something just because my being
offended might offend her or some victim group du jour. Why
do my feelings of offense matter less than someone else's? Isn't
the whole purpose of politically correct ideology to avoid
offending certain groups or classifications of people? Then
what about me and my group (heterosexuals)? Why should we
not be allowed the same opportunity to redress our
offendedness?
Judge Gertner is no doubt basking in smug self-satisfaction
over her magnanimous and ultra-politically correct ruling
designed to protect gay sensibilities and single-handedly roll
back the Dark Ages once and for all. But the fact is that most
people these days already seem to be quite tolerant of
homosexuality and have no inclination to mistreat gays in any
way.
This is probably because they have come around to the idea
that it is not a deliberately chosen state of being. The
reasoning is that just as heterosexuals don't just roll out of bed
one day (or maybe roll into bed) and decide to become
heterosexual, neither do homosexuals. They just are what they
are for whatever inexplicable reason. And if they can't help
being that way, and if it is done between consenting adults
without coercion, and if nobody is hurt by it, then why should
they be mistreated because of it?
That doesn't mean, however, that tolerant heterosexuals
necessarily believe that the difference between homo- and
heterosexuality is of no more consequence than the difference
between Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey and Cherry Garcia ice
cream flavors. Nor that it's as harmless as the lyrics from a
light-hearted Gershwin tune ("You say homo and I say hetero
. . ."). If you just want to call the whole thing off after being
wrongly labeled homo, you shouldn't then be labeled a bigot as
well.
Whether her honor likes it or not, you're not going to find
very many heterosexuals who are perfectly willing for the world
at large to falsely believe they are homosexuals. Why? Because
homosexuality, whether her honor likes it or not, is still
considered by the majority of people to be an abnormal sexual
practice and those who aren't thusly abnormal generally
prefer, and have every right, not to be perceived as such.
And why is it considered abnormal? Because most people
understand that the ultimate and most fundamental purpose
of sexuality is to perpetuate the species. They believe that is
what nature and/or God intended. Since homosexuality is
inherently and utterly incapable of doing that, and since it is
practiced by a tiny minority of the population, it is perfectly
logical to consider it abnormal.
There is no doubt that heterosexuals have become far more
tolerant of homosexuality than ever before, which is as it
should be. On the other hand, many heteros are disturbed by
attempts to declare what appears to be an aberration of nature
as being totally equal to that which nature and/or God
obviously intended. Consequently, they are getting a bit tired
of being told that the homosexual community requires nothing
less than society's total affirmation.
You see, a lot of very tolerant heteros have serious concerns
about the natural order of things and of possible negative
consequences to society if we begin to affirm all sorts of
abnormal behaviors. That being the case, it is simply too much
to ask of most heterosexuals to repudiate their most basic
beliefs about life, nature, God and civilization. To write off
these kinds of concerns that people have as mindless bigotry is,
if not bigotry itself, then at the very least a kind of arrogant
thoughtlessness.
It may very well be that this lawsuit brought by Madonna's
ex-boyfriend has no merit on the grounds that it is trivial or
whatever else. But Judge Gertner's reasoning that to find in his
favor would be "to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that . . .
have plagued the homosexual community," is politically
correct nonsense and yet another blatant case of a judge
imposing her personal beliefs from the bench.
"In 2004, a statement implying that an individual is a
homosexual is hardly capable of a defamatory meaning." ---
U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner as she threw out a lawsuit by
a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was
libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book
about Madonna, under a picture of Madonna walking with a
gay man.
Call me ignorant, call me bigoted, call me "homophobic,"
but if my name or picture turn up in a book along with a claim
or declaration that I am homosexual, then I am going to be
dismayed, mildly angry and bucking to sue if a correction isn't
made, pronto.
Judge Gertner, who would almost certainly label me a bigot,
also said this: "In this day and age, recent rulings by the
Supreme Court . . . undermine any suggestion that a statement
implying that an individual is a homosexual is defamatory. In
fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires
this Court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that . . . have
plagued the homosexual community."
What the judge is saying is that in her self-esteemed opinion
there is absolutely no legitimate reason--that is, no reason
other than prejudice and bigotry--why a person would
stringently object to being falsely portrayed as a homosexual.
Well, the good judge needs to get over herself. No judge can
tell me I can't be offended by something just because my being
offended might offend her or some victim group du jour. Why
do my feelings of offense matter less than someone else's? Isn't
the whole purpose of politically correct ideology to avoid
offending certain groups or classifications of people? Then
what about me and my group (heterosexuals)? Why should we
not be allowed the same opportunity to redress our
offendedness?
Judge Gertner is no doubt basking in smug self-satisfaction
over her magnanimous and ultra-politically correct ruling
designed to protect gay sensibilities and single-handedly roll
back the Dark Ages once and for all. But the fact is that most
people these days already seem to be quite tolerant of
homosexuality and have no inclination to mistreat gays in any
way.
This is probably because they have come around to the idea
that it is not a deliberately chosen state of being. The
reasoning is that just as heterosexuals don't just roll out of bed
one day (or maybe roll into bed) and decide to become
heterosexual, neither do homosexuals. They just are what they
are for whatever inexplicable reason. And if they can't help
being that way, and if it is done between consenting adults
without coercion, and if nobody is hurt by it, then why should
they be mistreated because of it?
That doesn't mean, however, that tolerant heterosexuals
necessarily believe that the difference between homo- and
heterosexuality is of no more consequence than the difference
between Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey and Cherry Garcia ice
cream flavors. Nor that it's as harmless as the lyrics from a
light-hearted Gershwin tune ("You say homo and I say hetero
. . ."). If you just want to call the whole thing off after being
wrongly labeled homo, you shouldn't then be labeled a bigot as
well.
Whether her honor likes it or not, you're not going to find
very many heterosexuals who are perfectly willing for the world
at large to falsely believe they are homosexuals. Why? Because
homosexuality, whether her honor likes it or not, is still
considered by the majority of people to be an abnormal sexual
practice and those who aren't thusly abnormal generally
prefer, and have every right, not to be perceived as such.
And why is it considered abnormal? Because most people
understand that the ultimate and most fundamental purpose
of sexuality is to perpetuate the species. They believe that is
what nature and/or God intended. Since homosexuality is
inherently and utterly incapable of doing that, and since it is
practiced by a tiny minority of the population, it is perfectly
logical to consider it abnormal.
There is no doubt that heterosexuals have become far more
tolerant of homosexuality than ever before, which is as it
should be. On the other hand, many heteros are disturbed by
attempts to declare what appears to be an aberration of nature
as being totally equal to that which nature and/or God
obviously intended. Consequently, they are getting a bit tired
of being told that the homosexual community requires nothing
less than society's total affirmation.
You see, a lot of very tolerant heteros have serious concerns
about the natural order of things and of possible negative
consequences to society if we begin to affirm all sorts of
abnormal behaviors. That being the case, it is simply too much
to ask of most heterosexuals to repudiate their most basic
beliefs about life, nature, God and civilization. To write off
these kinds of concerns that people have as mindless bigotry is,
if not bigotry itself, then at the very least a kind of arrogant
thoughtlessness.
It may very well be that this lawsuit brought by Madonna's
ex-boyfriend has no merit on the grounds that it is trivial or
whatever else. But Judge Gertner's reasoning that to find in his
favor would be "to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that . . .
have plagued the homosexual community," is politically
correct nonsense and yet another blatant case of a judge
imposing her personal beliefs from the bench.