Saturday, December 21, 2013

Seeing the LGBT Footsoldier's Approach in Action

A recent Getreligion Thread on the Duck Dynasty fiasco lended itself to an unintentionally educational experience. I want to share this because it's important - even for the few people who read this blog - to understand a real, real common culture warrior tactic.

Someone had commented, objecting to Getreligion's coverage of the event, and explained in crystal clear language exactly what was wrong with Robertson's words:
What really happened here is this: the guy compared two women who love one another with a guy humping a donkey.
Man, that's a terrible thing isn't it. I won't mince words, because everyone can tell from the previous post - it's not true. Not at all. Robertson didn't say this at any point. He didn't mention women, or 'two women loving each other', period. Not even indirectly. What he did talk about was sex. Acts.

But, here's the thing: the entire advancement of the LGBT cause has largely come from getting way, way the hell away from any talk of 'acts' at all. Instead, the focus is on people and 'love'. Rather abstract love at that. Very clean, very crisp. Perfect for a Hallmark card.

So when someone criticizes same sex acts, it's treated as important to get the hell away from that subject ASAP. And if that means you lie about what someone said, well, then you damn well lie.

I point this out:
Never happened. Not once. He did no such thing.
He compared same-sex sexual relations in general, to bestiality in general.
Emphasis: sex. Not 'loving one another!' Sex. He was in fact pretty explicit about the act in question BEING sex.
The fact is, GLAAD and the HRC are lying about what Robertson said, every bit as much as how the above - 'Two women who love one another and a guy humping a donkey' - is flat out dishonest. Read the interview: this doesn't happen.
I made an error there, by the way, which you'll see in a moment. But still - Robertson did not say that. He was talking about acts, and GLAAD and HRC are lying about what he said. Just as this person is. Their reply?
Um, yes. That's right. He compared same-sex relations to bestiality as you said. There's the problem. Don't worry about my rephrasing. That comparison is about as demeaning as you can get regarding someone else's lover.  
What I love: 'Don't worry about my rephrasing.' Honest to God: does this work on people? This kind of jedi mind trick of 'Okay, so I lied, but let's not talk about that anymore.'

And there's the nice, sterilized reply. 'He compared same-sex relations.' Pardon my french, but does anyone fuck anymore? I mean it's weird how I go through my day talking to people - they talk about their porn, the fucking they saw on a TV show, the fucking they're looking forward to later that night... but somehow when the cameras come on, no one's fucking. They're having relations with their significant other in a way that gives them both a sense of self-fulfillment and encourages an emotional bond between them. Turn the camera off and the lights down and they're talking about fucking again.

But, I digress.

So, okay, he's backing off. But it's STILL terrible. Because Robertson compared 'same-sex relations' to bestiality. Obvious problem, so I reply:
Take a nice, long look at the full quote:
Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.
So he grouped homosexual sex with bestiality. Oops - he also grouped it with heterosexual sex. Idolatry. Prostitution. Greed. Drunkenness. Slander. Swindling.
Don't worry about my rephrasing 
No, let's worry about your rephrasing because it was dishonest. The issue was not 'two women who love one another' and how that is equivalent to having sex with a donkey. Also? Two women loving one another is not condemned in Leviticus, and it's not condemned in the CCC of the Catholic Church.
Sexual acts, are. Which is what Roberston zeroed in on. GLAAD and the HRC is dishonest in their portrayal of what Robertson said.
That comparison is about as demeaning as you can get regarding someone else's lover.
No, because it's not 'the lover' that's being criticized but 'the act'. Particularly, sexual acts. 
Like I said - minor event on a minor blog, but it's instructive. Pay attention to what was done here - not just the fact that Robertson's words were warped, but HOW they were warped. Because that provides a microcosm example of the LGBT's campaign, and it illustrates how to handle this when you discuss it with others.

They want to avoid talk of sex acts at all costs. They want - they desire - for the conversation to be an attack on persons, not an attack on acts. The moment the conversation is 'It's the acts, not the person' and 'It's the sex, not the love', things get vastly more complicated for them. Keep this in mind, be attentive, and respond accordingly - if you're at all the sort of person given to debate.

There are other pitfalls to watch out for here too as far as language goes, but this is one of the key tricks that are both absurdly common yet ignored by quite a lot of social conservatives.

1 comment:

malcolmthecynic said...

Hoooo boy, that Brian guy is a piece of work.