Thursday, March 08, 2012

Limbaugh, Gays, and the Left Hand

I have been hesitant to comment on the recent Limbaugh controversy because I don’t like the aura of uncleanliness that surrounds it, the sense of having to roll around in the slime with the fat sexist toad of talk radio. Most everyone seems to be upset by Limbaugh’s vicious attack on an innocent young woman, calling her a slut and a prostitute, according to Fatty, “because she wants to be paid for having sex,” which had really only an incidental part to play in her concern. For Limbaugh to claim she wanted to get paid for having sex is, of course, a deliberate and completely untrue characterization of her concern, to say nothing of being an absolutely disgusting remark about a completely respectable young woman. But truth never has anything much to do with what the hate merchant is about. Personally, I am nowhere near as concerned about his name calling as I am about his unhealthy voyeurism. He wants to watch her having sex! He said clearly that if we (he) had to pay for her to have sex he wanted her to make videotapes so he could watch! That he could even say such a thing to a perfectly decent young woman represents a depravity far beyond decency. This, in my opinion, is far more slimy and disgusting than his unwarranted attack on her. I have no trouble whatsoever imagining Limbaugh spending his spare time engrossed in pornography, hunched over the computer or television vicariously watching others doing what he probably can’t accomplish himself without his Viagra and artificial stimulation. Let’s face it, Limbaugh is a disgusting creep that should have been chased off the air years ago, a cheap hate merchant of the worst kind, a bigmouthed liar with a complete lack of even the most basic common decency, a slobbering fool drooling over the possibility of degrading others by watching their private moments. Yeah, I know, he’s a shock jock, an entertainer, that’s his job, and blah, blah, blah. His job ought to be cleaning outhouses or sewers where he could truly be in his more natural element.

Someone named Kirk Cameron, who I gather is some kind of actor and Evangelist, has taken it upon himself to announce that homosexuality is “unnatural.” My childlike brain (still with me in my dotage) immediately screams out, “What is natural?” Of course there is no hope of answering this question but I couldn’t help thinking about it. Of course it is “natural,” probably some 3 to 8% of the human population is born with a preference for the same sex. You may not like it, but it happens. Homosexuality is also known in animals, many different species apparently, and certainly occurs in sheep. To claim it is unnatural is basically a desire to deny it happens, or should happen, and must be somehow a mistake. God made a mistake, or nature made a mistake, or it is a statistical aberration, or it is somehow not “normal.” Sorry, it is just a fact of life, as natural as the majority created as heterosexuals. And no, it can’t be “cured,” although it can be denied, covered up, and repressed, but only at some psychic cost. Many Gay men marry and have children but they still remain Gay and sometimes “come out” at some point later in life, especially nowadays as being Gay is beginning to lose its negative connotation.

But, then, how about cleft palates? One in one thousand to 2.5% of newborns are born with cleft palates. We have no problem considering this unnatural. But it is merely a physical abnormality and can often be corrected by surgery. Being Gay might well involve some genetic factor but it cannot be corrected (at least not now). But why should it necessarily even be corrected? Being Gay is no longer considered a mental illness as it once was, it doesn’t harm anyone, Gays can marry and raise families just like others do, if, that is, society does not condemn them and make a big deal about it.

Being Gay is much more like being left handed than it is like having a harelip. Some 8 to 15% of the population is born left handed. Is this unnatural? Of course not, it just happens. There was a time, and perhaps still is in some cultures, when children born left handed were encouraged, even forced, to use their right hand like “normal” people. Sometimes they more or less succeeded but not without some psychic damage, stuttering or some other problem.

This whole problem seems not to have anything to do with what is natural, but, rather, what is considered normal. Most people are right handed, most people are heterosexual, most people do not have cleft palates, that does not make others unnatural, just different from the norm. It all comes down to matters of opinion, personal preferences, value judgments. But what is the point of most value judgments, especially when it comes to the question of what is natural? I believe having brown eyes is natural, blue eyes not so much, but so what? Being a White Western-European I think White is natural, Black and Brown not so much, so what? Nothing that occurs in nature is any more unnatural than anything else, it just happens naturally. What we make of it is another matter. Personally I think Evangelicals are unnatural as they are made rather than born and believe in utter nonsense. No one is born hating others, you have to learn to hate. We seem to be much better at teaching hate than the opposite. That too, it seems to me, is unnatural, but perhaps not.

I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am.
Joseph Baretti

1 comment:

price per head service said...

Hi, great article. The way you explained it is really awesome and makes every one to read till the end. keep posting..