Above, for your own verification is the first chapter of this book.
Kupelian's arguments against homosexuals made in the first chapter of his book completely ignore many aspects of the gay community, and rest on certain assumptions that don't reflect the culture against which he is arguing. This is similar to basing all your opinions of white culture on the white supremacist movement. Like so many pundits he makes a number of convincing sounding arguments that work just fine so long as you accept certain statements of "fact" without question, and just nod along, ideally throwing your own voice into the incessant rabblerabblerabble that this type of writing is intended to fuel. This is the written form of "Big Dittos from (insert location here)" as some of you may recognize from Rush Limbaugh's programming. Nothing quite so grand as vacuously agreeing with the opinions in a book that you've chosen to read because it was marketed to you as being exactly what you think in the first place. Here, I have addressed but a few of the concerning assumptions upon which the first chapter bases it's arguments.
The idea that all homosexuals engage in a multitude of sexual relations is no more true of homosexuals than it is of heterosexuals. I personally know of a number of heterosexual males and females who have new rendezvous every weekend, and AIDS can be and is transmitted by heterosexual promiscuity as it is by homosexual promiscuity.
Another logically unsound argument: the idea that Maryland Congressman Bauman's feelings of guilt because of his homosexual extramarital affairs were caused by the fact that those affairs were homosexual in nature. The sexual orientation of those acts has nothing to do with the guilt, other than the fact that it was even more socially taboo to be homosexual at that time. If he had been openly gay, and was married to a man, and did not have extramarital affairs, that is no different than if he was in a heterosexual marriage. The fact is, he broke the bonds of marriage, whether he did so homosexually or not, and that, and ONLY that was his moral crime.
Then his attack on the gay movement's need to change from "such ugly, indefensible tactics" to a more reasonable and better marketed attempt at social change completely neglects that fact that Martin Luther King had to discourage similar behavior in some members of the African American civil rights movement. The position this argument attacks is the pragmatic statement of the fact that if you act like a crazy, possibly violent idiot you'll get a bad reputation, and you need to have a marketing plan to succeed in a social movement. This is nothing more than a factual statement about the way political movements have unfortunately been made to run. When your politics are image based, than of course your ability to control the image you put forth becomes paramount so success. The very idea that the act of purposefully marketing an idea that people don't agree with in a positive way so that people change their minds is somehow evil, is absurd. If that were the case then Carl Rove is the essence of evil, as is every member of any campaigning politician's public relations staff.
I cannot imagine an entire book of this style of nonsense when the very first chapter is filled with failings of this magnitude.
No comments:
Post a Comment