The Hardaway controversy

S.T. (Sam) Karnick quotes and follows up on former NBA player Tim Hardaway’s comments condemning homosexuality, which won the contempt of Hardaway’s ESPN interviewer Dan Le Batard (Dan the bastard?), but won the agreement of many listeners. The same elite/grass roots divide we see on immigration is also evident on the subject of homosexuality. - end of initial entry -

Russell W. writes:

What I found interesting was the way that Hardaway seemed to, without any shame, take upon himself the word “homophobic.”

Firstly, of course, that term is itself a bogus and dishonest case of sloganeering, not an objective descriptor, because it seeks to define as inherently pathological strong practical or moral denunciations of homosexuality. It is just like “Islamophobic,” a literally meaningless word meant to shut people up and relegate their ideas to the realm of mental disease.

But what was ironic was the way that Hardaway (probably unintentionally) “owned” the word by using it to describe himself. This is what homosexuals have consciously done with the word “queer,” attmepting to rob it of negative connontation and turn it into a term of endearment. Hardaway might simply be unaware of the exclusively pejorative character of “homophobic,” but if he was not, I’d have to commend him greatly.

Mark P. writes:

The typically visceral dislike of homosexuality stems from what John Derbyshire politely called “buggery.” More generally, however, a dislike of homosexuality comes from the fact that heterosexual people do not wanted to be treated like homosexuals or to exist in an environment where their heterosexuality is somehow questioned. People who argue that homos are no big deal and that they should have “equal rights” do not understand that the homosexual ethos will creep into their very lives if anything like equality is achieved.

Consider marriage. The “rights” crowd do not understand that “equality” implies an equivalence. If homosexuals must be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals, then heterosexuals must be treated exactly the same as homosexuals. This means that if gays discover that the way they want to live is in conflict with existing heterosexual marriage laws then they not only have the right to change those laws, they have the right to have those changes map directly to heterosexual marriage. This is why the typical “expression of love” argument is a weak one. If gay couples are not exactly the same as heterosexual couples in what they want to get out of marriage, then the “equal” application of the marriage laws will be oppressive to them. If gays want, for example, to have an “open” marriage, where either partner can see other people, while avoiding the moral hazard of a divorce, what prevents them from lobbying for a no-fault “open marriage” law? After all, gay men still have a male sex drive that is not dampened by women. Wouldn’t gays want marriage laws that reflect that? Is that what heterosexual couples want to see creep into the rules underpinning their marriages?

The arguments against things like gay marriage go beyond Leviticus so that even non-religious people can understand what is at stake. If gay people are not exactly the same as straight people, then there is no way that gays can be transparently integrated into heterosexual marriage laws. There is no way proponents of gay marriage can claim “this doesn’t affect you.”

Personally, I think the whole gay movement is designed to homosexualize heterosexuality and gay marriage is an attack vector, a way of attacking heterosexuality from within. As a test, ask any gay activist if he would prefer a two-tier marriage law, one for gays and one for straights. Gays can marry but any alterations they make to the marriage laws will not apply to non-gay couples. If the answer is “no”, then you have a hint of the real agenda.

Jeff in England writes:

One simple thought on the Hardaway I HATE GAYS controversy. Hate is something people should avoid feeling. It is unhealthy and ungodly to feel hatred. Hating anybody due to the sexuality they were born with is nasty, unChristian and downright wrong. I am no lover of homosexuality but I have no hatred of individual gays or gays in general whatsoever. I may criticise the sin but it is wrong to hate the sinner. Especially in the case of homosexuality and homosexuals. I have gay friends who are on the whole, lovely people. I will condemn anybody who says he/she hates someone for being gay. End of story.

LA replied:

He retracted the “hate” comment, and held to the rest of what he said.

Jeff replied:

I know he retracted his hate comment (for his own reasons of survival perhaps) but even so he is going far too over the top about this issue.

He was nasty. Gays are gay and as such are going to have gay sex. So what. If gays keep it private and chilled out I don’t have a problem with it. I’d prefer there wasn’t any homosexuality at all but there are far worse problems to worry about. The real problem arises when gays demand gay marriage or gay adoption or throw their gay antics in society’s face. I am against all three. I don’t want any sex thrown in my face let alone gay sex.

I don’t want kids seeing gay sexual antics in public.

I regard homosexuality as a spiritual distortion possibly caused by a mutation gone awry. However, I am against any persecution of gays due to their sexual inclination. They were born that way with a rare exceptions. I condemn any person or group who persecute gays. Particularly Muslims who are viciously anti-gay.

OK, back to some real problems.

LA replies:

I don’t think it can be as simple and neat as Jeff thinks. We’re not living in some environment where there are just homosexuals minding their own business and so should be left alone. We’re in an environment that is much more like what Mark P. described above, a systematic attempt to “homosexualize” heterosexuality, in every area and at every level of our culture. Jeff insists on tolerance, then adds all the things about homosexuality that he doesn’t like. Well, the very things that he doesn’t like are the things that are going on all over our society (Western society). To expect ordinary, non-intellectual people to sort out all these things and to know when to be tolerant and cool and when to be judgmental is not realistic. Yes, intellectual types will not express their visceral dislike or their moral condemnation in crude ways in public. It’s not realistic to expect the same of non-intellectual types.

Jeff won’t like this, but one of the best things Patrick Buchanan ever wrote (back in the late ’80s, when he was the best conservative opinion writer in the country) was about a homosexual pride parade, probably in New York City, and counter-demonstrators were shouting rudely at the marchers, and Buchanan said something like: That is the reaction of a healthy society that wants to survive.

I recommend this blog entry from 2005, “Can traditionalists find common ground with homosexuals?”, especially my first reply to a reader.

Larry G. writes:

I think it is the nature of the totalitarian Left, and one of their methods of pushing forward their agenda, that they admit no gray area between “love” and “hate”. It’s “You’re with us or you’re against us, and if you’re against us we’ll crush you.”

“Hatred” is a word they often toss around in situations where it simply isn’t applicable, but they do it because it helps them force their agenda. If I say, “Homosexuality makes me uncomfortable,” they will say “Take your hatred, bigotry and ignorance elsewhere,” forcing me to choose between siding with them and being consigned to the outer darkness. Yet if I say “I hate brussel sprouts,” I just don’t want them on my dinner plate. No one thinks I want to exterminate the species.*

Hardaway probably meant “I hate gay people” in that softer sense. No doubt the idea of a teammate, in stealth, sexually desiring him in the shower, creeps him out, as it should. He doesn’t want to kill gays, he just doesn’t want them on his team. He probably realized later that his words were being exaggerated in this way, and retracted them, while holding firm to his opinion.

*At least until brussel sprouts become part of the Leftist agenda. Then we’ll be required to eat them on command, or else be accused of “hatred, bigotry and ignorance”.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 16, 2007 11:48 AM | Send