It is a weakness for dick that will be our undoing

God damn it, I do not think that you glorify on public television homosexuality. The reason you don’t glorify it John anymore than you glorify, uh, uh, uh, whores. Now we all know people who have whores and we all know that people are just, uh, do that, we all have weaknesses and so forth and so on, but God damn it, what do you think that does to kids? What do you think that does to 11 and 12 year old boys when they see that? …

I don’t want to see this country go that way. You know there are countries – You ever see what happened, you know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates.

Tricky Dick (source)

I have to say, I wish we had a president nowadays as entertaining as Dick Nixon. I can’t imagine Obama saying anything half this funny, even if the humor was unintended. Even W., who was always good for a laugh or two, never really said anything this ridiculous—it was just his inability to string three words together without stammering like a moron.

Good thing we have Fox News and its viewership, then. I had the pleasure, over the weekend, of witnessing a conversation about how the public schools are now teaching about homosexuality and giving kids the impression that it’s perfectly normal for Kenny to have two dads, and, according to someone on Fox News, that this was being driven by a de-population agenda. (This last bit was followed by a shrug, as if to say: “Not sure if it’s true, but sounds plausible enough to me.”) So apparently Nixon’s fear of the society-destroying homo is alive and well in America.

I read a post on some blog recently that laid out the theory that most mainstream opponents of gay marriage aren’t motivated by a fear and loathing of homosexuals per se, but by resentment over the threat of losing one of their few remaining social privileges. I agree with the first part but I’m not sure about the second.

Yes, most of these people don’t care that there are men out there fucking other men—as long as we’re talking about a minority and their behavior, though maybe tolerated, is not really accepted. The fear is that once you start teaching it in the schools (tomorrow in sex ed class: the gay option) or “glorifying it on public television,” you’re basically opening up the flood gates and next thing you know the whole country is one giant bath house and no more children and, eventually, because children are the future, no more America. And all because you just couldn’t keep your hands off the dick.

3 thoughts on “It is a weakness for dick that will be our undoing

  1. Of course, the dual implication — that Straight had to be taught — assumes curiously blank slates of humanity for a segment that tends towards staunch creationism. But no one ever said reactionaries were logic wizards.

  2. You may be granting to corporate media sources too much honesty and credibility–e.g., if someone on Fox News (or a different televangelist’s program) describes why certain people have a problem with gay marriage, do we trust the veracity of that report and analysis? It’s easy to doubt Fox when the network reports their version of good news, but it may be, ironically, less easy to doubt their version of bad news: when they offer a perspective that’s abjectly disgusting, we might tend to believe in the reality of what we’re seeing, simply because we expect to be disgusted.

    Fox’s “disgusting,” though, is no more reliable than Fox’s “merely brainless.” There certainly are some people out there who have an actual stoopid problem with guy-on-guy, but the better part of the populace objects to “gay marriage” for more practical reasons: because they don’t want to have to pay for it.

    If there was currently no such thing as “straight marriage,” and celebrities and politicians began coming up with an idea to offer tax incentives and billions of dollars of publicly-funded family court systems to people who agreed to sign a contract that they would live together, you would see the same kind of visceral, defensive reaction from a lot of people–and it wouldn’t be because anyone gave a fuck about John and Mary having vanilla intercourse, but just because the whole “straight marriage” agenda represented another dumbass spending program conjured up in the wet dreams of starry-eyed liberals trying to create more bureaucracy.

    • I have no reason to doubt that the guest from Focus on the Family is really opposed to gay marriage on “moral” grounds, and likewise I have no reason to doubt my own dad’s honesty when he says “it isn’t the same as what we do” (i.e., procreate). You’re glossing over the very old and deeply ingrained cultural prejudice against homosexuality, as if it’s just something that was manufactured by the media last week. How many people even realize, or care, that marriage is subsidized?

      I do agree with you about not trusting Fox News and other corporate media in this sense: The point of the programming is to stir up “the base” and put on a show. The executives in the board room probably couldn’t care less about gay marriage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s