Don’t ask me! Ask this lesbian and academic!

I dind’t say it! Don’t kill the messenger!

camille paglia“Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character Queer theorists – that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders – have tried to take the post structuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina; no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact.”

Read more here – this is only one web site that quotes her on that. If you are interested in the issue through her perspective you will have to check for yourself!

My point in publishing this here is, to my self-acknowledged ignorance of her work, and knowing that many of you are aware of her writings on the issue, and perhaps other articles are published about her in this and many other blogs, I didn’t know that within the “gay” campsite there was someone as “not so fond” of gay activist as I am. Note: I object to gay activism! All the accusations that I receive for saying this are a violation of the 9th Commandment and pure slander! I have stopped defending myself for my view both to the fundamentalist as well as to the activists, including some academics, since I get it from both sides. I just submit this for perhaps you will find that what activists proclaim (again, including some academics) about gays is still open for discussion; at least is still in the realm of theories, which is not and should never be a reason for Christians simply to bash a gay person whereas still debating the issue as they see through the perspective of their faith.

Refrain form primarily drawing and posting conclusions about my views in your comments. I pride in having a good record in dealing with persons and the issue. Deal with her view here as quoted in this doctor’s Web Site, which I used because I founded to be the less clouded and cluttered one. Comment at length but don’t kill the messenger just yet…

You Might Also Like

16 Replies to “Don’t ask me! Ask this lesbian and academic!”

  1. A fair number of true feminists – as opposed to much more common feminist groupies disposed to thinking of feminism as about equal rights – are academics. Many, if not most, are both lesbian and Marxist. Misandry is likewise rampant in their ranks. Not surprisingly, therefore, their arc enemies are conservative heterosexual males – especially those of a more orthodox religious persuasion. The two sides feed off each other’s more insane rhetoric.

  2. Why do we always have to ascribe one’s opinion to something other than what their consciences demand? To call “insane rhetoric” places on the caller court the ball of proving why it is so. Following the debate for so long, I don’t think anyone has proven anything, only that the argument will always, for no reason, be hot and awaken the worst in all of us, or at least the rest that had still been asleep! To expect a thoughtless and opinion deprived stance from humans is to deny their humanity; The Borg worked well for a while, but, unfortunately for them, fortunately for us, Captain Picard has beat them!

  3. Oh, Joel, I’d bet even knowing that Christians should not engage in betting, that she said some really hilarious things. Her feelings toward activists, as per my new found reason to read on this issue, has been taken very seriously by the activists!

  4. As I am labeled the “uncle Tom” of foreigners, she seems to the the equivalent to Lesbians… interesting!
    Aren’t humans fascinating!

    1. Proof only that there are a wide variety of opinions within every group of people. I find it hard to believe, amazing, oxymoronic, raises my blood pressure, how can they do that, “you name it”, whenever I see a Log Cabin Republican. How can a person be gay, and a republican. Inconceivable! But they do, indeed exist.

  5. Tammy Bruce comes to mind Gary. But I am very happy that you keep all these in the realm of “variety of opinions” and allow me to assume that “opinion” is a key word. That because there is another group of people that will call you all the short worded names in the book if you don’t agree that anything about gay is scientifically proven thus making the issue a matter of science. I’ve been called all kinds of names by this group, except “angel of light.” 😉

    1. Since you bring up science, how do you feel about babies born with both sexes present? Since that happens, extrapolate that to babies born with a messed-up hormone balance? This obviously happens in nature. Would you say they choose their sex preference, or they have it determine for them by their body? And I assume you believe God gave them their bodies?

  6. I have not said that someone is not born with unbalanced hormones that has the sexual organs of one but tends more to be and like things of the other, but to compare with the number of babies that are born with two sexes, or none as I have seen it, is ascribe the rarity of someone being born gay, and such rarity is more than gay activists want to accept… their numbers belie the rarity… That’s why I don’t use exception to make a rule and call it science. I am comfortable if someone tells me that they are born gay, but the gay activists are not comfortable with someone who used to say they were born gay and now aren’t anymore. I know is another issue, but if gay activists call this change from gay to “straight” (a misapplied term) “religiously forced” or “adaptation” why is it wrong to say the same thing about gays? We should move on to some other type of argument. The gays I know, whom I have lunch with regularly tell me simply, “I am gay, I like it, I enjoy gay sex, I have no attraction for women and if I was born that way good; if I learned it and adapted fine. I rebel against anything that want to prove anything about my gay experience, whether it be religion or gay activism. If religious people tell me I am going to hell, fine, I don’t care for them either and as long as they are with me it is hell anyway”. Anecdotal? Yes, very much so indeed, but, funny that no one includes these guys in any study! It is the same when a black person is Republican (the party that helped to end slavery). People ascribe all kinds of ulterior and/or mental motives. No, they like to be Republicans because of some reasoning. No one should impugn their motives and call them “uncle Toms” or the “house negro” as democrat blacks call them. That’s why I found it interesting that this lady thinks the way she does and have not ascribed to her any ulterior motive although as it was pointed out, she may have tons of it.

    1. Just one last comment for me. You said “black person is Republican (the party that helped to end slavery).” Please, let us not be stupid about history. The Republican Party under Lincoln was totally different than it is now. The Democratic Party, when I was growing up in the 60’s were dominated by the Southern Democrats, that opposed civil rights. Please do not bring up the Republican Party ended slavery, and try to imply that it is the same party of today. That is just plan stupid.

      1. Sure it’s the same Republican Party. The only difference these days is that Republicans are trying to free the master rather than liberating the slave.

  7. I will not debate politics here, man but I could write about… about… let’s say… zero lines on the accomplishments of the dems in favor of the black people other than use them for votes… I mentioned as an example. I have too much to say about that, but I have grown weary of debating reps and dems… I often fear citing because people have a lot of preconceived notions about any mention of parties.

    1. Just for the record, I’m registered as an independent. I don’t like the Lincoln Republican comment, because the last time I heard it, a registered “Wallbuilder” made it, saying he couldn’t understand why more blacks were Republicans, because, after all, it was the party of Lincoln. If you are not familiar with Wallbuilders, where I live, we are infested by them. 🙁
      Oh, and by the way, my old church sponsored the Wallbuilder presentation.
      I’m switching to Methodist, at least until they have Wallbuilders give a “history and religion” presentation.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.