Bret Easton Ellis said it first.
And I agree. Gay has become culturally homogenized. Now with gay marriage on the books, it's Ozzie and Harriet-ized. I've said similar things for years - remember, I've been blogging for seven, so I can say that. When you say that stuff, or level charges of immorality against anything gay - you are automatically labeled 'self-loathing'. Why? because gay is so damned good and you better like it.
Catholic 'gay-elites' spin it a bit differently - but they still spin it.
So what did Bret Easton Ellis really say?
Novelist and prolix Twitterer Bret Easton Ellis is raising hackles once again by labeling such organizations as GLAAD as "the gatekeepers of politically correct gayness" in a long editorial in Out Magazine. Ellis invited further response to his argument by announcing an AMA ("ask me anything") on Reddit, to be held at noon Pacific time today.
The Out rant, titled "In the Reign of the Gay Magical Elves," was prompted in part by the media response to the recent coming out of basketball player Jason Collins, whom Ellis writes is being treated "as some kind of baby panda who needs to be honored and consoled and -- yes -- infantilized."
Ellis writes a critique and he's called self-loathing. I simply loath the condition - not the person.Ellis goes on to criticize "gay self-patronization in the media," which in his opinion celebrates "the Gay Man as Magical Elf, who whenever he comes out appears before us as some kind of saintly E.T. whose sole purpose is to be put in the position of reminding us only about Tolerance."
At fault, according to Ellis, are organizations that marginalize the gay man "who doesn't want to represent, doesn't want to teach" and who "makes crude jokes about other gays in the media (as straight dudes do of each other constantly)." This, Ellis writes, amounts to "corporate PC fascism." - LATimes
Ellis directs his critique against secular homosexual culture, nevertheless, there really is an emerging PC way of talking about all things gay-ssa amongst 'gay' Catholics - and there really are 'gatekeepers', if you will. I'm not talking Courage or NARTH people here either. To be sure, Ellis probably wouldn't agree with any of them, and for sure, he'd never agree with my POV.
What's my point? Going forward, I want to publish some information a friend sent me regarding science and sexual orientation. For now, I just want to add a quote from the same resource:
Homosexuality, as a genetic inevitability, has probably been gay activism’s most effective PR initiative in the campaign for equal rights and special protections. Although it is no longer politically correct or fashionable in many circles to say that homosexuals can change, it is scientifically accurate to say so. We are not speaking only of behavioural changes but changes in attraction.The fact is that nothing makes us do anything—neither our genes nor our environment. - Source
"Although it is no longer politically correct or fashionable in many circles to say that homosexuals can change, it is scientifically accurate to say so." I'm convinced it can be spiritually accurate to say so too.
Editor's note: This comes off sort of 'out of the blue', I'm sure. How do I make these connections? Arrive at my conclusions? I hope I can explain going forward.
In the meantime, my apologies for dwelling on the homosexual issue, I'm more or less responding to the recent developments regarding gay marriage in Minnesota and the initial consequence of cultural approval for homosexual sexual relations and behaviour.
These are the consequences BTW.
With gay marriage approved, homosexual sexual behavior is approved. Gay Catholics are already talking about living within that reality - in other words, on another level, accepting it, and developing a gay spirituality. That's huge ladies and gentlemen. That's huge, moms and dads and teachers and pastors.