‘Homophobia’ is the wrong term…

‘Homophobia’ as a term/Limits of tolerance 

When Morgan Freeman, an acknowledged authority as an actor, recently said something like: ”Homophobia’ ? You’re not afraid of it. You’re against it!”, I certainly felt like registering my disagreement on this virtual sheet of paper.

Of course, I’m not afraid, at least not ‘phobia’-wise afraid – so far Mr. Freeman is quite right. Instead, my natural reaction to manifestations of gay passion in public, can better be described as something closer to nausea. I’m hardly a homophobe and I wish their community all the luck with their social recognition, marriages,  etc. Two objections though, – their marches could have been much quieter and they should not try to recruit minors.

Back to the term which has been utterly inacurate from the moment of coining. I’m not sure I approve a hetero couple kissing passionately in public either, however, to witness the same thing coming from two men is quite different. It upsets my stomach and therefore the term should rather be ‘homonausea’. It is distinctly my natural reaction, not a chosen attitude and I can’t help it – pretty much like in sneezing.

Come to think of it, should they feel the same way about a hetero-kiss? And keep quiet about the suffering involved too?, poor lot.

When I said earlier that I was homo-tolerant, I was only 90% honest. How all those posh children’s rights societies can close their eyes in front of the adoption of pre-school age kids into gay households, is beyond me. That’s the limit. Or rather, that should have been the limit. Unless we welcome the homo movement to take over one day and self-apocalypse?

There was once a smart comment on the gay adoption issue: ‘No problem if they adopt kids, the law must merely state that it should be the kids coming from homosexual families’.

Somehow, I never sneeze watching lesbian girls embrace.

uldis on April 8, 2013


Atheism diluted?

Atheism/Associations thereof/Argument quality

Watching all those panel discussions and debates on religion available nowadays on the youtube, I often catch myself wondering if the very term ‘atheist’ is a happy and apt choice for the rather complex state of today’s human awareness. History books remind us of many movements and revolutions that have strayed off the intended path merely because the interpretation of its cause had become vague or misleading.

My impression is that quite many of those who find themselves hesitant when considering the atheistic option, are somewhat confused by and, perhaps, even wary of the associations that the word ‘atheist’ implies nowadays. And I don’t mean the various degree of either agnosticism or militancy in the ranks. In view of the approach widely observed in foreign policy, where ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, atheists are no longer alone in being called ‘enemies’ of the Church. Today’s atheists could easily be perceived as either ‘also gays’ or ‘pro-abortionists by persuasion’ or ‘communists on the side’ or ‘the over-the-limits filthy joke pushers’.

I find the atheism idea becoming a bit distracted (if not diluted or, god forbid, even hijacked). Quite a few celebrities, while speaking on TV as atheists, will sooner or later tend to stress their being gay. I happen to represent none of the abovementioned hidden side agendas and to emphasize this ‘purity’, am ready to come up with a new description for myself – ‘Stratheist’. To those who are still clueless, it implies – Straight + Atheist.

Was it Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher quoting him, who said that ‘you can’t reason them (christians) out of their faith if they entered christianity not by reason’. I suggest that a proven old method of arguing be brought into the debate, namely that of exclusion. I believe it would have its merits against the clergy’s claim over the morality monopoly:

1. Even a die-hard religious fundamentalist would feel obliged to acknowledge the immense contribution to human welfare, development, culture, health care etc., that science has made possible through the centuries. How about the Wikipedia’s 233 (!) Nobel Prize winning atheists listed in the Science and Technologies category alone? If by the Holy Bible atheists are destined to be sent to burn in hell eternally, would it not be at least slightly embarrassing for the all-loving Almighty and his followers?

2. How come the least religious states like Estonia, Sweden. Norway and Denmark are also the least corrupt ones in the world? It is hardly a secret that in those Gallup revealed 100% – 99% religiosity soaked third world non-democracies corruption remains a daily name-of-the-game reality.

I will end with a quote from Luis Bunuel, the cinema great: ‘Thank God I’m an atheist!’

atheism by uldinch on 04/04/13