Monday, October 18, 2004

Bronson: Torn?

I got a request to comment on Bronson, so I shall meet that request.

After reading his column yesterday I was torn on what to think about it. On the surface I was impressed with Bronson's approach to the issue of gay rights by meeting with several homosexual couples. I was impressed with his half-assed agreement that the Article XII repeal is not bad. I was still dismayed by Bronson’s overall anti-homosexual stance.

I am still flabbergasted by his bigotry and his unfounded views on homosexuality. He has gall, but no shame. I don't expect bigots to feel shame for being bigots, that would mean they had a conscious on the issue. From the column:
I argued that gay marriage would destabilize society, by undermining families. The unintended consequences could be devastating - especially for women and children - if marriage is remodeled to add a new bedroom for gays and anyone else who wants to move in.
Once again, as Bush does, Bronson chimes out his claims as to what Gay Marriage will do. He can't seem to describe how his claims would occur. Some empirical examples might just go farther than trite myth. What is missing is fact. We know hard right Christians are anti-homosexual based solely on a few passages in the Bible. From that they build a whole panic and fear about an issue that, well, was not even important enough to make the Top Ten Laws of their religion.

What are threats that homosexual marriage poses on heterosexuals? Will Bronson suddenly divorce his wife after reading a gay marriage announcement in the Enquirer? Will Gays try to stage a revival of the Newly Wed show? Will children of divorced parents seek out married homosexual households because they are more stable than single parent households?

What Peter showed most was his homophobia. He did it when he mentioned "especially for women and children." This is the sign that I think most male homophobes give away. Men like Bronson fear gay MEN, not women.

They fear either being raped, or being hit on and somehow they could be "turned gay." Laugh if you must at what I agree is a bit a hyperbole, but for what other reason would Bronson claim that women will be hurt by gay marriage, but not men? What about lesbians? Will they not hurt heterosexual marriage as much as two gay men being married? I guess Peter does not mind Lesbians. I will admit that the thought of two women going at it is something that most men have been culturally trained to find appealing. Gay men are what anti-homosexual men fear. They fear other men being stronger than they are and forcing them to be gay. These same men don't fear women, so the same fears are not there. As for anti-homosexual women? Well, I can’t figure out women when it comes to romance, so I don’t think I will have much luck here. I would surmise it would be similar to what motives Bronson’s bigotry, but from a perspective I can’t speak on with the same insight.

Mostly this column being written at all struck me as strange. I guess I don't like it when the Enquirer has a theme day. I like the coverage of gay rights issues, but I don't like it when columnists are assigned topics. Let Bronson and Downs write what they want. I don’t need 10 articles on one issue jammed into a single issue or week. I would like to read about these issues on a regular basis, not just as titillation.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.