If one thing has proven true over the years when it comes to religion and politics, it is that those who most ardently decry homosexuality as abnormal and represent themselves as paragons of “christian” family values often are themselves seriously repressed when it comes to their own sexual preferences. Be they Tories in the UK, Republicans in the US and preachers, priests, mullahs and rabbis the world over, these closet hypocrites go to great lengths to hide their “baser” urges, to include engaging in contact (!) sports and other “manly” activities like game hunting, entering into heterosexual marriages, having children, advocating for corporal punishment and loudly and obsessively condemning “deviant” sexual behavior and the gay community and feminists for a myriad of sins against the “natural” order of things.
Their self-loathing is such that some even practice how they walk and talk so as to appear more Roman than Greek (I am using the terms loosely here, as both Romans and Greeks accepted the “baser” urges as a part of life and are differentiated more by the class, gender and age element in them). Some go to great lengths to dress and act acceptably “mainstream” (according to how they perceive the mainstream). The more strident of the closet prudes threaten and bully those who question their public stance as well as their private desires.
Given its egalitarian and tolerant reputation, it would be a real shame if such people were a significant part of the New Zealand political, religious or social elite. Given demographic probability, chances are that there might be a few.
Which raises the question: does Colin Craig share that Larry Craig wide stance?
Colin does have a rather minimalist adams apple and with his boyish figure could certainly do a better job on the catwalk than our flabby â€œprime mincerâ€ John Phillip Key.
But a full blown repressive? Mr Whalespewâ€™s junior stasi tipsters or other paps may tell us soon enough if there is more to this meat roasting daughter whacking conservative.
Not sure about Mr. Craig’s Adam’s apple bing indicative of anything, but the behavioral precedent is there. As for WO, it appears he has someone close to him who is gay (a child?), something that may have prompted his support for gay marriage, but he clearly struggles to contain his loathing of male homosexuality.
I figured that some sensitive soul would find something to object to in the post that was unrelated to the main point. Congrats, you are that person.
But if you can offer a word or phrase that better represents sexual hypocrites who publicly say one thing and secretly do another I am all ears.
Here’s a tip: When a queer person tells you that you are being homophobic, listen.
Do not dismiss them as “sensitive souls”.
Homophobic? Crikey. Not only do I have to divine your orientation from a comment, but you apparently can divine my “true” attitude from a post decrying homophobia. Brilliant.
Did you read the link? If so, which of its points do you disagree with, and why?
PS: I don’t believe I said anything about your “true” attitude so I’m not sure why the quotation marks.
I make a point of not arguing about diversions from the thrust of the post. The post was about sexual hypocrisy in politics and religion, not homosexuality per se.
The linked post offers a critique about generalizing that all homophobes are gay people “in the closet”, which I do not do. I did not say that all homophobes are closeted gays, just that some in religion and politics are (which the author of the linked post agrees with). My use of closet also refers to the secret heterosexual adulterers and all others who preach family values and the “natural” order of things while behaving differently in private.
You call me homophobic, which is what you apparently believe is my “true” attitude based on my use of the term closet–a term used by many in the gay community without people impugning their motives.
As I considered the possibility of your type of objection when writing the post, it reminded me yet again that all too often people choose the wrong battles and lose sight of the common enemy. You may think that I am that, but if so then you have misidentified the target.
There is a difference between being a homophobic person, and doing homophobic things. Very few people are the former but the latter is very common. I’m commenting on what you are saying, not who you are.
I honestly don’t know how to read the first paragraph of your post other than to imply that most homophobes are closeted homosexuals.
‘hose who most ardently decry homosexuality as abnormal and represent themselves as paragons of â€œchristianâ€ family values often are themselves seriously repressed when it comes to their own sexual preferences’
Seems pretty clear to me.
I saw 8 comments, but got a 500 internal server error. I come back to try again, and…. oh well.
“Given its egalitarian and tolerant reputation, it would be a real shame if such people were a significant part of the New Zealand political, religious or social elite. Given demographic probability, chances are that there might be a few.”
Well, the history of the Christian Heritage Party seems relevant – always on the margins, making enough noise to get noticed, but not getting enough notice to ever win a seat in parliament, and it turns out it’s leader… fell into that old pattern of those who preach loudest having some nasty skeleton rattling around in their closet. I seem to recall United Future having teamed up with a would-be successor to CHP, getting a few MPs into parliament, but otherwise that kind of politics doesn’t seem to have much of a market in NZ. Of course, after all these years away I could easily be unaware of some shift in the NZ political landscape, but I find it hard to imagine Colin Craig becoming a significant player in the political landscape, or ever rising above CHP-style sideshow status.
“Often” does not mean “all” or “most.” I take your point about the difference between homophobic people and homophobic things, but we simply disagree on whether my choice of the term “closet” is the latter.
The bigger issue is that, as Tiger Mountain pointed out, we have a very popular PM who engages in gay stereotyping (as well as casual sexism) on a regular basis who now sees an anti-gay conservative bigot as a potential ally. The fact that this is possible in contemporary NZ should be a concern for both of us irrespective of our differences about my choice of words.
To me it is all one issue – the presence of homophobic words and actions in our society. Perhaps Pablo your own words do not carry as much societal weight as Key’s or Craig’s but they can still be hurtful. And respectfully, I am not sure that as a straight man you really have the authority to say that queer people should be more concerned with Craig’s or Key’s words than yours. Actually it is not an either/or proposition, especially since it is perfectly possible to criticise what they have said without buying into the “homophobes are closet homosexuals” narrative which, I will say again, is itself homophobic.
Pabolo is correct to draw attention to the truism that those that decry loudest and longest about homosexuality, and evince sordid fascination with the subject beyond what any self-respecting fag (like myself) would consider normal, then those people tend to be gay themselves.
Psychologically speaking, some men (including gays) in order to draw perceived attention given by strangers and family/friends away from their sexuality will engage in diversionary tactics – beating up gays, calling for violence against gays, etc. The only problem is that very behaviour is a strong pointer to their own sexuality, and their own gayness (or alternative sexualities outside of the binary heterosexuality – such as being sissified, or wearing panties, or having straight BDSM fantasies, or wearing leather, etc).
This truism tends to apply to those people who are loudest or most violent. To wit, the big queen in the Russian Parliament who sponsored the anti-gay bill passed by Putin. A fag if ever I saw one.
On TV Tropes: Sex Is Evil and I Am Horny
I really cant understand the attitude presented by Pablo. Ok there are some in society who make public claims about all sorts of things, but do the opposite – and its more common in corporate behaviour than it is among the Tories in the uk, etc.
The saying “never discuss politics or religion with friends or in polite society” is very well based – they are subject that seem to get everyones back up.
But why i dont know. I just cant understand why so many people have got the hump with Colin Craig. I mean if you realy want to get excited about society – then one should be really alarmed about things like meals in schools. Porgrammes like meals in schools are much more insidious and dangerous than anything colin craig says or believes. Giving meals to kids at school teaches them several thinhs.
1. It tells the kids that when they grow up and have children of their own, that they dont need to feed them – or look after them – because someone else will do that.
2. It teaches the parents that they need to do even less for their children – because if things get bad enough some agency or group in society will eventually step in.
3. It tells parents of higher income kids that they may as well make use of this programme – after all theyre paying for it in the form of taxes.
Now – we have the state making available early education – which will probably be compulsory within 10 years.
Next we have the state feeding the kids.
The only step not there yet is the housing of these low decile kids.
We are only this one step away from what they used to do in communist russia? And with CYFS taking hundreds of kids off hopeless mothers at birth, and with caretakers getting fewer and fewer – whats the option but for the state to house them. And with our ‘we are all equal’ attitude – it wil be slowly but surely extended to all.
And thus we would remove all responsibility from parents…….
Yet all we see in the social media & blogs are the complaints about colin craigs attitude to gays and queers. Im persoannly tired of hearing about some new sports person or media personality who have decided that they are queer – we have more important things to worry about.
Can I gather from your remarks that you are not too fussed about my use of the term “closet?”
Pingback: The Daily Blog Watch – 24/25 February 2014 « The Daily Blog
This whole post is SOOO silly.
You are all BARKING mad.
paysan: If you have nothing positive to contribute, please refrain from commenting. This is your only warning.
There is a good chance that Colin Craig will take the East Coast McCully seat Pablo, time will tell, but if it is necessary it will happen
PM Key has to give an electoral seat somewhere. ACT really got lost inside incest, a fatal mistake, Winston is running out of puff, its a tough decision