Last Friday, in what may be the best argument I have ever read for getting rid of the Wespeaks section, Zak Kirwood ’12 responded to my column not with good sense and logic, but with the usual response one gets when criticizing a movement shielded by the wall of political correctness—moral outrage, misinterpretation and unjustified smears. Mr. Kirwood—Zak –with all due respect, I suggest you learn to read an entire article before you dismiss it. I also suggest that you learn to quote people accurately – that is to say, not dishonestly – before you attempt such an act. In your entire piece, you quote about 40 words in about a thousand-word column and use them as evidence to dishonestly damn me in a way that would be despicable if it weren’t so laughably obvious.
Perhaps you didn’t notice, but the entire column was framed as a piece of advice, not a defamation of homosexuals – in fact, I even quoted homosexual activists who held the same viewpoint as I did on the march to show that my concerns were not exclusive to the Right. But let’s get to what actually upset you. You paraphrase my opening paragraph and, judging by your choice of emphasis, I would guess that you are angry with me firstly for implying that heterosexuals have the option of being intolerant, secondly for suggesting that homosexuals are “very different” from heterosexuals to the point of being “eccentric,” thirdly, that public space is controlled in some sense by heterosexuals, fourthly, that homosexuals are “loud” and fifthly, that homosexuals intend to use “force” as a means of “forcibly redecorating” the country. In the process, you miss the point of the thought experiment entirely, given that it was written to illustrate the point of view of what is (in some cases) a highly apprehensive heterosexual majority.
Firstly, whether you like it or not, heterosexuals are in the majority, and as such, given that we live in a democratic society, the burden of proof is on homosexuals to convince a majority of their differently-oriented peers to support their quest for certain privileges (yes, legally, they are privileges – look up Hernandez v. Robles). Perhaps you believe that you have certain “civil rights.” The law currently disagrees with you and, if you know history, you know that the most successful civil rights leaders (Frederick Douglas, Susan B. Anthony, MLK, to name a few) have stressed their similarities to the majority, rather than their differences, and you would be wise to do the same.
Secondly, in politics, perception is reality, and the fact is that, correctly or not, homosexuals are perceived as “very different” and “eccentric” exceptions to the heterosexual rule in the places where homosexual “rights” have yet to surface. If you want them to surface, you should be doing your best to disprove this idea, not attack anyone who mentions that it exists. I believe there’s an adage somewhere about “shooting the messenger.”
Thirdly, you are upset at me for attributing possession of the public sphere and the political process to heterosexuals, yet you yourself call public space “hetero space” further down in your screed. Are you actually angry with me for agreeing with you as a practical matter?
Fourthly, if a march on Washington accompanied by celebrity guests and trips to all the branches of government, not to mention a presidential address, is not considered “loud,” I don’t know what is. Fifthly, whether you like it or not, the question of marriage between non-heterosexual pairings is a matter reserved for the States. As such, calling for a nationwide acceptance of homosexual marriage is akin to forcing the people of those States which either disagree or are undecided to change their actions. If this does not bother you, fine, but be aware: many of the fights over homosexual marriage are currently being carried on at the state level, and if you loudly (yes, loudly) announce your intention to force all States to agree at some point, rather than persuade them, you will scare people.
Finally, the one paragraph you quote actually instructs homosexual activists to disown “the people responsible for the embarrassing ‘March for Equality’” and the “hideous vandalism” – it does not conflate the two, as you write. If you are still ashamed to attend school with me, fine. I am, quite frankly, ashamed to attend school with someone who prefers to smear opponents rather than debate them.
Leave a Reply to Another One Of Those Kids Cancel reply