Direct Democracy asks a very pertinent question(http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/25/123018/740): why doesn't the MSM do more to look at the the large number of closeted Republicans who try to hide their homosexual desires by viciously attacking gays via anti-gay legislation? That is to say, why aren't latent homosexuals exposed more by the media? Here's the precise question:
Why is it that more people (members of the media, bloggers, talk show hosts, people I overhear chatting on the subway) aren't talking about the plain fact that, in a conservative movement and a Republican Party in which anything other than Leave It to Beaver-style heterosexuality and family structures are frowned upon, to say the least, there is a very significant chunk of members who are gay? Really gay. Totally gay. And doing everything they can to hide it. And that the more vocally anti-gay one is, the more likely, it appears, that person is conflicted about their own sexual orientation?
To back up the point, Direct Democracy cites(1) the case of former Congressman Ed Schrock, who I knew for nearly 10 years during my GOP days, and (2) the concept of "latent homosexuality." Here's the comments on Schrock:
This brings us to the ironic tale of former Congressman Ed Schrock. Schrock was a conservative legislator for Virginia, and was especially conservative on the gays. He co-sponsored an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage; and, this Navy veteran firmly, oh so firmly, believed that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy regarding "homosexual conduct" in the military should have been replaced by an outright ban on gay people from serving in the military. This guy was very anti-gay. Ipso facto, he must have been very heterosexual. Heck, he must have been the heterosexualest! Then why was it that Schrock, amid his second term in Congress in 2004, all of a sudden announced that he was dropping his effort to seek re-election to a third term? It probably had a lot to do with Schrock's very explicit audio-profile on a gay sex personals website. Schrock's veneer of . . . an umblemished record of staunch heterosexuality was mortally compromised.
Before his exposure as a hypocrite and his subsequent political downfall, I spoke with Schrock personally by telephone and e-mailed others in the Virginia Beach Republican Party [including current Virginia Attorney General, Bob McDonnell - who I would note is in many ways as extreme toward gays as Schrock was] and challenged the down right excessive anti-gay efforts of Schrock and others in the local party. I warned them that the continued anti-gay hysteria was going to bear some unwanted results to Schrock because members of the local gay community had just about had enough of the gay bashing and sooner or later someone was going to talk and secrets would be revealed. My comments were blown off - in some cases with extremely nasty statements directed toward me - and, of course, the rest is history and I was proven right (only Thelam Drake, the Republican who succeeded Schrock has ever had the class to apologize to me).
As for the correlation between homophobia and latent homosexuality, there actually is research that supports the theory:
A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that a number of "homophobic" males exhibit latent homosexuality. The research was done on 64 heterosexual men, 35 of whom exhibited "homophobic" traits and 29 who did not. Three tests were conducted using penile plethysmography. While there was no difference in response when the men were exposed to heterosexual and lesbian pornography, there was a major difference in response when the men were exposed to male homosexual pornography.
The researchers reported that 24% of the non-"homophobic" men showed some degree of tumescence [i.e., errection] in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54% of the subjects who scored high on the "homophobia scale". In addition, 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20% of the "homophobic" men failed to display any arousal. Additionally, when the participants rated their degree of sexual arousal later, the "homophobic" men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.
This situation surely makes sense in the case of major league homophobes like Robert Knight, formerly with Concerned Women for America, and Peter LaBarbera who are both irrationally hysterical over gays and gay rights - hysterical to a point that something more than mere religious belief would seem to be at play. From e-mail exchanges with Knight in particular, I sense he is an extreme case of a closeted, self-loathing gay. Oh sure, he will cite his happy marriage, etc., which, as my own life has shown, means absolutely nothing.
Just imagine how being immediately considered a closet case would perhaps lessen the outspokenness and anti-gay efforts of our most vocal enemies. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment