Reacting to homophobia

New to my blog? You may want to think about subscribing to be notified of new posts. Thanks for visiting!

On Thursday 28th November, Crikey published an article about the scandal surrounding the Government's choice of men's health ambassadors.

The article elicited the following comment from a reader the following day:

Michael Byrne writes: Re. "Roxon's ambassadors: homophobic, sexist and totally inappropriate" (yesterday, item 1). Is there a word, or does it require a phrase, to harness those who cast the epithet of "homophobe" against anyone who holds traditional views that homosexuality is an aberration of the natural order of sexual practice, as life source, and relationship? I expect Bernard Keane would wear the new badge with pride.

Bernard appears to be a member of the legion of anger merchants who see the world having begun in the 18th Century and has become complete in their own life time. Anyone who furthers, or more to the point, upholds their social progressive cause in full view of the barrenness of their social outcomes, is praised as a person of conviction. This angry legion labels those with a reasoned contrary conviction as wearisome cultural warriors. The angry legion render tenets, tested in time, as untenable. They worship their social progressiveness in tribunals and courts to silence and punish the ignorant, stupid and their modern day breed of the detached individual, as racists, sexists and whatever other "ists" they define in their dogma.

But I do write in gratitude.

I would not usually journey to the web sites of Marsh and Williams. They too have an angry agenda. However Bernard's reference to the document, 21 Reasons Why Gender Matter, has revealed an informative work with depth and indeed a reference to work with. I do hope there will be a solid rebuttal by Bernard, or other members of the legion, to add more depth to his summation of it as "vile and bigoted". My quickened perusal saw that it covers fundamental issues concerning parenthood and the sense of rightness and unity parenthood brings in such an embrace with nature for couples across continents, cultures, religions and class/caste.

Thank you Bernard.

It's a nasty little comment and I was surprised Crikey had decided to publish it, though they are usually pretty free and easy about giving people space to make a point. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to send in my own comment in response, which was published in today's edition:

Danu Poyner writes: I'm inferring from Michael Byrne's comments on homophobia that he holds the "traditional" view that "homosexuality is an aberration of the natural order of s-xual practice, as life source, and relationship". Michael is, regrettably, entitled to hold these views, but I'm disappointed in Crikey for publishing them and thereby giving both Michael and his views some sense of legitimacy.

It would be nice to be able to get through my day without being attacked, however vicariously, by others for what is an innate and, if you believe so, God-given part of my life and being. To be on the receiving end of such hateful comments is hurtful in and of itself, but hurts more when presented as a reasonable and legitimate viewpoint. I can't argue that it's traditional, but a quick look at other 'traditional' views over the ages invariably puts that idea in context.

Most of all, I resent having to respond to someone else's hateful prejudices. And yet I have to respond to it, because otherwise it goes unchallenged and gains further legitimacy. The burden of proof should be on Michael to support his views, not on those he is attacking to defend themselves. So please, Crikey, unless you think that discrimination and hateful, ignorant prejudice belongs in your publication, don't publish it in future. As for Michael, I have no idea what you have against homosexuals or why it affects you, but I'm happy to discuss it with you if you're interested.

It's a fairly small thing in itself, but I felt something needed to be said. I'm past the days of just letting things slide.