Gay All Black wanted – to help tackle ‘bigotry.’
KELSEY FLETCHER at Fairfax NZ News reports, ”Gay Advocates are calling for an All Black, past or present, to out himself and act as a role model to fight bigotry. It comes after English football star Matt Jarvis, married and straight, featured on the cover of the UK’s best-selling gay magazine Attitude last week to fight homophobia.
Yeah, because TV celebrity validates everything.
I’m sorry, but this story is sad. It seems to suggest we need celebrity – specifically a muscle-man who can run with a ball and bash into others – as some kind of endorsement or validation of homosexuality. I also find the tone of the story biased. The old ‘homophobia’ ‘bigotry’ tired semantic bully words (I applaud the editor who had the balance to put the word in quote marks, meaning ‘so-called’). Those who disagree with gay politics being constantly thrust at us seeking to redefine foundational cultural frameworks, are frequently defined as “bigots,” and ”homophobic.” People have a right to disagree with or oppose these things, but politicised homosexuality being the anxious little upstart it is, rounds on such people, and attacks, bullies and demeans anyone who disagrees with their liberal worldview. It’s like they can’t handle a counter view. People will always hate homosexuals, and Christians, and rich people – get over it Gaydom. Join our pluralistic marketplace! Homosexuality, veganism, Christianity, classical music, stand on their own merits, not appropriated famous-ness to make them more “valid.” Being human, we will aways appropriate celebs as our ‘super-humans’ to make our tribe look bigger and better than others. The Church has done this too: claiming celebs as ‘converts’ (Constantine self-appropriated).
But actually putting out a casting call for an All Black to be a gay ‘role model’? Pah-leeease. No wonder all All Blacks have left this alone. I can see it now, a ‘Dan Carter’ standing there in tight undies sporting his bulge – some sort of gay ‘role model’?
How is an All Black a heterosexual role model? He’s just a rugby role model.
We already have a ‘gay rugby team’ (can someone define that for me, please). What else: Poodle-owning hockey team? Cockneys who play guitar group? Vegans who secretly like meat volleyball team? My gay friends don’t need these kinds of compartmentalized fragility bulwarks. They’re full people, who have homosexual sex; they are not defined by their sexuality.
No All Black has ever come out as being gay. Is anyone asking why?
But former All Blacks centre Craig Innes has joined the call for someone to do so. He said for the young gay community it would be huge having a rugby role model to look up to.” What, so they can all play rugby and be fit?
We should fight hatred wherever it is, in Christian or Gay circles (it is present in both). But I don’t agree with this sectorising of ourselves, into groups based on sexuality or appetites, or tastes, and then the appropriating of TV celebs to bash the other groups TV celeb. “Our Sean Penn, is better than your Sean Bean!” Like the celeb.s mocked for their sudden found sentiment over gun laws in America, and appropriately parodied with clips of their gun killing on-screen (celeb. role-model hypocrisy alert!).
Two of the 20th C.’s leading social theorists, David Halperin and Jean Foucault, had some interesting insights into this, before homosexuality became chic. They said “homosexuality” appeared as a form of sexuality only “after it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul.”
These men viewed childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality. They examined childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior toward male and female children, and the role of gender constancy in the household, and concluded, that “the homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new word.” (gays, heroes, etc).
I think what we’ve tried to do since the 1980s- mainly through provocative adversarial politics – is validate this new “species,” to quote the social theorists, and make it fit into the natural mores and customs of previously sexuality ambivalent human societies who do not define themselves sexually. They just are. How you enjoy sex has nothing to do with your enjoyment of rugby. “Crouch, hold…”.
As we politically wrestle with this “interior androgyny” and “hermaphrodism of the soul” we are being confronted with the claims of groups other than homosexuals – trans genders, bi-sexuals, polygamists, androgynous groups, et al – for their right to be recognised too, as externalised tribal groups validated (“invented”) on the basis of their sexualities. In time, I have no doubt the absolute folly of this will be recognised, as we mire ourselves in ever loony definitions of what people and groups are, redefining ‘human’ rights, and boiling down agreed cultural norms to ever-myopic internalised aberrations. I do not believe homosexuality is an aberration, just its myopic emphasis on one type of sexuality as a definition, or category, of humanity (male/female, gay).
I’d be interested in your thoughts and opinion: but no ridiculing of gay people or Christians, simply because you disagree with their outlook, thanks.