The 5 illogicalities of John Hawkin’s logical beliefs
I ran across this article just the other day …
— took that long for it to show up in my life. It might take me five blog posts just to deal with his 5 “truths” – so bizarre is the man’s thinking.
“5 Truths You’re Not Allowed To Say About Gays In America”
by one “John Hawkins | Jun 10, 2014” – it’s gotten “Share[s] on Facebook 3.3K” – popular, perhaps. But there’s some glaring problems with his analysis. So, I thought I’d help the man figure it out. First by noting for “5 truths” you can’t utter – here he is uttering them to the point of 3,300 Facebook shares alone. Who knows how many people read this? So who isn’t “Allowed” to say it? Beats me.
Anyway, it requires almost a sentence by sentence refutation … and yes, I plan on trying to track the man down and give him my answer to his mush. His words I put into italics, mine in regular print – I shall have to break up his paragraphs, for he deals with such disconnected stuff it’s hard to keep his paragraphs together. Let us begin:
It’s hard to have an honest conversation about gay issues because liberals treat anything other than outright celebration of all things gay as “hate.”
Well, few of anyone is having an “honest conversation” about gay issues – because both liberals and conservatives, being heterosexuals – are emotional and not honest … they use such convoluted logic, lack of figures, inane opinions, stereotypes and god-knows-what made up stuff and beliefs – that “honest” isn’t a word that applies. Not to mention that one can’t – I can’t – as a gay right wing man – can’t have an “honest conversation” with most conservatives “because conservatives treat anything other than outright condemnation of all things gay as ‘love’ “ – Indeed – one couldn’t have an honest conversation with a Catholic clergyman who opines that we are “intrinsically disordered” and ergo incapable of rational thought about our own beings. Indeed – Mr. Hawkins here isn’t discussing gay issues with gay men – he’s discussing it with some imaginary liberal.
Now, I have had opportunity to bring some “honest conversation” on “gay issues” to conservative places like American Thinker … where in which nearly 1,000 comments on three articles all roundly trashed me for “love” – while denying it hate, I was to be pilloried. Here’s the link – http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/gays_are_much_ado_about_nothing.html
I dare say – I tried “honest conversation” and was shot down to the point of telling me “no more submissions” precisely because I refused to trash myself or other gay men. Liberals I was willing, sure. Gays, nope. So, end of discussion. I have more examples – Hlavac ain’t hard to find on the net – go look it up. But to suggest, as Hawkins does, that conservatives are having honest discussion on gay issues is laughable.
“That doesn’t leave people much room to discuss a complicated issue that involves real human beings who often have to deal with a lot of challenges because of their sexual orientation.”
As we’ve been saying – the only complexity is heterosexual intransigence … our challenge is not our sex lives or orientation or being gay – or what have you – it’s heterosexuals – who one cannot have an honest conversation with.
“ If you’re a compassionate person, you have to feel some sympathy when you talk to people who are closeted because they’re afraid that their relatives won’t accept them or someone who feels isolated and alone because his sexual orientation makes it impossible for him to have a romantic relationship with 98% of the population.”
Look at this sentence – 55 words! Wowser. Anyway – the numbers of compassionate heterosexuals doesn’t run to 98% of the population – it’s less than 30% as near as I can figure – 30% more don’t give a damn and state flatly that they don’t want to think about it, much less converse about it – and well on nigh to 40% or even 50% are in full throated condemnation. I dare say – there is no compassion or sympathy … not from Peter Sprigg or Tony Perkins, Bradlee Dean, Linda Harvey, Scott Lively – and many many more – Rick Santurum, Ted Cruz – some dude named Klingenschmitt out in Colorado – there’s no compassion or sympathy from them – it’s a condemnation to beat the band.
Meanwhile, the problem with the accepting, compassion, sympathy or condemnation is a wholly heterosexual issue – we are impervious to it. That is – sure, we avoid it – who wouldn’t – then we go off and lead great lives. The whole thing of “in the closet” is not that the gay man hides from himself – or those heterosexuals who are over it – he hides from lunatics … which could include his family. But as we all know – no heterosexual has any family relationship problems … I guess. For that’s the logical comparison being made – perfect heterosexuals and troubled gays. We’re troubled – why? Because we’re gay! What’s the trouble? Heterosexuals who won’t get a grip. This is our fault of course.
Gay men don’t feel isolated and alone – we go find other gay men … or rational heterosexuals. I’ve been doing it for decades. This is of the nature of “homosexuals are lonely because they don’t have a woman” – that we don’t want one is irrelevant. Michelle Bachman is sure we are lonely, so is the Catholic church … they declare it often. But when we are with our friends – we’re not lonely – we just aren’t dealing with whackos – who could be liberals or conservatives for the issue isn’t political – it’s emotionalism among heterosexuals.
“His sexual orientation makes it hard for him to have romantic relationships with 98% of the population.” You jest? Yes? Straight people have romantic relationship potential with 98% of the people? Really? Wow! I mean, any straight guy has only 50% of the population right off the top – same for a heterosexual woman – 50% of the population is off limits to romantic involvement. Oh, wait, no, more – there’s the family, coworkers, people you don’t like – and the already married and the not in your age group – or even racial group – why, by the time one gets whittling down who has potentiality for mating among heterosexuals – the list is far smaller than 98% – maybe 10% … and we still get our … “2%” –
Which by this the man thinks that gay men make up 2% of the population – and where does he get his number? From phone surveys that everyone admits are flawed including Gary Gates the guy who conducts them – admits right up front “My information and conclusions are flawed (almost wrote ‘fraud’ oops) and “it’s the best we can do” and he goes to average again the 12 attempts at phone surveys since 1980 – I dare say – 12 shots at – and the one in Indiana of all places came up with 5.7% – but even the Wall Street Journal’s Numbers Man isn’t buying 2%
– and meanwhile, a reasonable count by counting by gay businesses, who’s in gay bars, gay festivals – the 1.4 million members of the National Gay And Lesbian Chamber of Commerce – and gaydar itself – on top of which are the 6 extra boys born and before you know it – 5% of the men are gay … and of course, I accede – we have no ability to have romantic relationships with the 50% of the population that is women – while Mr. Hawkins loses 50% right off the top for he won’t date men. Meanwhile, if we have such small potential for romance how is it we are accused by many still of having, 100, 200, 400 sex partners a year? Where do we find all these guys? Especially if we’re only 2% of the men – and would that include the children – I forgot to slice out the children – Mr. Hawkins surely has no romantic possibility for romance with kids – who make up 30% or so of the population. Indeed – age grouping alone – since the vast majority of heterosexuals get married to someone within 5 years their age – and men almost 95% someone younger .. well, that really cuts into the 98% nonsense, yes?
“Life is hard for most of us — and if you know people who are gay, chances are you recognize that it’s even harder for them.” “Them”? We are them? No sir, we do fine – indeed – it’s a chief complaint about us that we are not suffering some horrid existence … though its demanded that we do – for we must be lonely! With no prospects of romance.
Yet and still, you can’t deny reality because there may be a few people who don’t want to hear it.
What reality is he referring to? The one he’s just fabricated? Or the one he believes? His emotional political stance of not liking liberals who have all things “hate” if it doesn’t “celebrate” – what a bunch of nonsense – nearly 70% of Democrat Liberal African Americans and 60% of Democrat Liberal Hispanics have no love for gays and wouldn’t defend us if you paid them. They are as antigay as the next heterosexual. Surely the Liberal preacher in Harlem who is posting “death to sodomites” on his church marquee is not a Republican. The preachers in Houston’s fracas are surely Democrats too! The reality he’s studied I’m sure with great perspicacity … and who is unwilling to hear it? Conservatives who don’t ever have a nice word? Preachers, politicians, lobbyists and such who spend their lives obsessed with gay men … and are no slouches in the condemnation department? Would they be the ones who don’t want to hear it? Of course they are – read the comments to my American Thinker article – those people didn’t want to hear a damn nice word at all. I’m sure their compassion was spent on other matters.
“Sure, you don’t want to unnecessarily create pain in people’s lives, but ultimately, nothing creates more misery than abandoning common sense because the obvious truth might hurt someone’s feelings.”
There is no common sense over gay men – Mr. Hawkins, your own article exhibited the mush thought that people have. You are part of the problem of people not being able to accept gay men and then have the audacity to tell us how difficult our lives are and somehow imply it’s our fault … that you can’t get a grip.
Well, this is just the quick version on the mindless mush of Mr. Hawkins – over the next several days I hope to tackle his other breathtaking points … egads. Well, I’d be glad to engage in an honest conversation about the matter with the man – -and he’s not ready for what I’ll point out to him.
- Posted in: Uncategorized