"Gay activists are outraged after Xavier High School, a Catholic school in Albury, Australia published an anti-gay piece by a former student in its alumni newsletter. "Writing in a letter to the editor in the newsletter, former Xavier student Matt Price entreated “a world free from homosexuals”, who he said lived lives devoted to drugs and sex.
His letter called for businesses not to employ homosexuals, with Price revealing that he lobbies CEOs with his message." http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2009/07/australian-high-school-publishes-piece.html
Firstly, "drugs and sex"? Well I must be doing something wrong because since coming out, the only "drugs" I have ever been on is hormones, and as for sex, well... if that was why I came out then I should ask for a refund - and maybe submit myself to an I.Q. test.
Secondly, if this person was ever really gay as he claims in his letter, the implication is that despite his baneful remarks and deplorable sense of propriety and human rights or decency - he still is. You see, if you are gay, it means you are born gay - and that is no "choice" by any stretch of the imagination. He could no more stop being gay than I could stop being transgender - and as such, if he is now claiming to be straight as a result of any fraudulent so-called "ex-gay" "therapy", he is lying - while dragging religion into his deception - like all the other proponents of that snake-oil peddling industry.
Thirdly, this letter was made pubic - and yet the response in this case, as in others was "gay activists are outraged".
They would be of course, because no-one else would be outraged at such a blatant piece of poorly conceived and misdirected slander. Yes, sarcasm fully intended.
This point makes me think about perception. It reads "Gay activists are outraged". "Gay activists"? Only the "gay activists"? Were the objectors affiliated to an advocacy group that they are specifically called "activists"? What about the other gay people? What about people who are "straight but not narrow"? Were they not outraged? Were all the other gay people only mildly upset by such mindless and hateful statements? Were they even consulted?
Or is the deeper meaning of such a statement that any gay person making known their displeasure about such an attack upon her or his person or dignity nowadays is automatically judged to be a "gay activist"?
Is that in any way related to the fundamentalist view that all gay people or activists are "militant"? Or that angry gay people really have nothing to be angry about?
What does that make the gay people who keep silent about such things?
A statistic?
More food for thought.
______________________________________________________________
If you would like to know more about Christina Engela and her writing, please feel free to browse her website.
If you’d like to send Christina Engela a question about her life as a writer or transactivist, please send an email to christinaengela@gmail.com or use the Contact form.
All material copyright © Christina Engela, 2019.
________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment