Search Box

Thursday, May 15, 2014

The kiss


When Michael Sam first came out a few months ago, and I saw the photos of a clean-cut, rugged-looking guy, I thought, good for him, let him do what he wants. He can't help his sexuality, so why should he be discriminated against on account of it?

More recently, I saw that well-circulated shot of him embracing and kissing his boyfriend after being drafted:


My immediate, visceral reaction was, yuck, that's just not right.

I'm not seriously suggesting it isn't right, or that he shouldn't be allowed to do what he wants, or that he should in any way be discriminated against because of it.

I just want to point out that I couldn't help my reaction, any more than he can help his sexuality, and I don't think I should be discriminated against because of it.

You can accuse me of bad manners for having publicly described my reaction, and you'd be right. But if you accused me of discrimination, you'd be wrong, because I don't think he should be discriminated against. And if you accused me of being a hater, you'd be wrong again, because I don't hate Sam. In fact I wish him well.

I was just a little grossed out. Which, as far as I know, is not a crime.

10 comments:

Glen Filthie said...

Well John, you were grossed out because - it ISN'T right and you know it. You would respond the exact same way if you saw a man like that smooching a young child the same way.

Being grossed out to such a situation is a natural reaction to unnatural and degenerate behaviour. In fact, the only people that CAN watch something like that without being grossed out - are those that have successfully turned their gut level instincts off. This is antisocial and unhealthy behaviour. End of story.

Call it an educated guess on my part that those boys will be experiencing more unhappiness and troubled times ahead. And - they will blame everyone else for it too.

John Craig said...

Glen --
Well, it's not natural in the sense that it isn't an evolutionarily viable path, but I wouldn't say it's not right in any moral sense. He can't help that he's attracted to men anymore than you can help being attracted to women.

I try not to confuse my gut instincts with morality. I'm grossed out by really fat people too, but I would never suggest that being fat is in any way immoral.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is unsettling to see two men kiss because we typically don't see homosexuals kissing (at least in our everyday lives). It takes some getting used to. I wish this football player well.

-birdie

Anonymous said...

90% of men would be grossed out viewing these images.

Michael Sam was a fool for using his 15 minutes of fame to alienate 90% of football fans. If he wanted to capitalize on his notoriety and try and expand the public acceptance of homosexuality he should not have made out with his boyfriend in front of the cameras.

When I was in college in the 80s , they described homosexuality as a "sexual preference" , which I always felt was peculiar. It got me in trouble in class, as I mocked the idea of "preference" by stating my preference was to have multiple female sex partners (threesomes)

Wonder how the media would cover the situation if Michael Sam had "come-out" as polygamous and made out with 2 beautiful girls when he was drafted. Would the media still be embracing such diversity ? What if his sexual preference was to have a harem of 20 girls ? Would the media embrace this player for wing the first polygamous football player ?

Glen Filthie said...

It is a tough step to take for some John. It was for me too until my own daughter came out of the closet. (But don't say it that way because that's hurtful and offensive, you ignorant bigot!!!)

Not only are your instincts rebelling against the immorality of this - common sense should be too. If the gay agenda is so healthy and wholesome...why do they need to adopt fascist methods and propaganda to enforce just the mere "tolerance" of it? Because that is what political correctness is - light fascism. I see some other athlete is being fined now for being 'grossed out' or - dare I say it - OFFENDED - by this public expression of gay love.

This is the big problem I have with the homos and - worse yet - their sanctimonious straight enablers. When my daughter 'came out' (say it right, you cis-gendered male scum!) - she not only told me she was gay, she told me I was an ignorant bigot and, from here on out... she and her ugly girl friend would be my moral and intellectual superiors. They would tell me what I could and couldn't say and think, they would tell me what jokes were funny and which were not - and if I didn't like it I could go pound sand. I suppose ultimatums are an expression of gay love too? They seemed to have forgotten whose house they were in at the time - and I reminded them by throwing them out of it. Your moral and intellectual superiors in the gay community, the media and the gov't are treating you the same way.


Do mentally healthy people use these tactics? Why is it that the people that adopt and cheerlead for the gay cause are mostly marginal, ineffective people? How can you rail against 'political correctness' while giving its worst abusers a pass? Likening gays to fat people is either intellectually dishonest or fuzzy thinking, IMO. A better comparison would be to a patient with mental illness.


You need to think about this. We are culturally trained and indoctrinated to whitewash the gays and see them not as they are, but how we would LIKE to see them. But when you actually SAW them kiss - your mind revolted. Your mind can't white out something like that. Imagine them in the bath house - and your mind would rebel again.

That isn't only your gut speaking to you - that's your conscience.


For the record I don't like this either - but being a rational adult requires us to confront unpleasant truths, not accept them.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Yes, it's a little like seeing one of those gay pride parades with the guys dancing in their feather boas vs. just talking to the quiet, decorous, well-behaved man who is the local florist. He makes you more sympathetic, but the revelers at the gay pride parade are sort of revolting.

Anon --
You bring up a very good point. If one truly has a live and let live, to each his own, consenting adults philosophy, then one should accept polygamy, polyandry, and so on. (Personally, I think those should be allowed, as long as the participants are willing to take on all of the financial responsibilities of normal marriage.) But no, the politically correct types accept only their own form of perversion. (And anything which is not the norm IS, technically, a perversion, even if you feel, as I do, that the perverts should be given equal rights.)

John Craig said...

Glen --
I think your personal experiences with your daughter have colored your view of homosexuals. What if she had been really reasonable about it, and admitted to you in an embarrassed way that she was a lesbian, that she couldn't help it, and that she hoped you would still love her, as opposed to coming on as the thought police, as she did? Would you still feel the same way?

I agree with you that the thought police are a bunch of fascists. The idea that they can tell us what we should be thinking is at its core really repulsive, and the mark of people who can't think for themselves to begin with. What's funny is what makes you laugh, period, and usually what makes us laugh is what is, as some level, verboten.

But, once again, I don't think we can mistake our personal tastes for morality. Most peoples' personal tastes reflect instincts which have been bred into us by millions of years of evolution, so are healthy. For instance, when we see someone who has been badly mangled and crippled, we feel a momentary revulsion, because our evolutionarily-derived instincts are essentially warning us that that person is not someone who will in any way enhance our own fitness. But there's nothing moral about our revulsion.

Put it another way: the average male homosexual probably finds the idea of having sex with a woman somewhat repulsive. That's not morality talking, that's just personal taste.

Glen Filthie said...

Ya know John, I am calling this one a win for me. :)

The fact that you can even listen to my argument without flipping out and accusing me of bigotry, homophobia, and murdering puppies is a win - because that is usually what I get. People will go absolutely berserk in defense of queers, and I think that is the Pavlonian response of a non-thinker more than anything else.

Including my daughter I have known 4 lesbians. All of them have been intensely mean spirited and angry women... and with the exception of my daughter - they have all been very homely women to look at. You will laugh - when we hired a lesbian for a shipper/receiver here at work I told my intellectual and moral superiors they were stark raving mad to hire a homo. The ladies especially chewed me out and went PC on me. I was called a homophobic redeneck dipshit among other things. I would dispute the first two but not the last.

Time passed and one day one of the girls asked me to "run some paper work out to Danny" - the lesbian shipper. I did so and thought nothing of it...and when I got back to my office there was more paperwork for Danny. I ran that out too. Over the next couple days ALL the girls were after me to 'just run some quick paperwork back to Danny...' I got choked and refused. The order entry girl broke down in tears and then I learned that Danny was making inappropriate comments and playing grab-ass with the girls! And, I was forced at gun point to go back and talk to Danny about it! Who's the bloody homophobe? :) We fired her later when she swung at a truck driver, and he flattened her for her troubles.

No, my experience with lesbians and queers has not been good. I know there are 'good' queers out there, but the truth of it is most are not - in my experience.

Baloo said...

Thoughtcrime.

John Craig said...

Baloo --
Exactly.

Glen --
Not my nature to flip out, but happy to have you consider this a victory.

I actually agree that there is a not uncommon variety of lesbian who hates men just because they're men. That variety, I can't stand. On the other hand, there's another variety who are well-adjusted, and often more logical than the typical woman, and them I like. I've known both types, and always try to judge them as individuals.

Sorry your experience with lesbians has been so uniformly negative; mine has been more mixed. As a matter of fact, there was a lesbian who used to (and maybe still does) read this blog, and has written in a couple times to say that she's not at all offended by my characterizations of lesbians, as in "Lesbian chic." She struck me as a very reasonable, commonsensical woman. Her brand, I like.