|A Brief Defense of Gay Jokes|
|Written by Douglas Wilson|
|Sunday, 19 December 2010 19:25|
In the first place, let it be duly noted that there is no biblical justification for spiteful or malicious taunting of anybody, for any reason. But with that stated, and catalogued in the appropriate place, there is plenty of room for activities that will be called spiteful or malicious taunting. So let's look at whether there is any room for using gay jokes as a tool in the culture wars. For a sample, look at the previous post.
1. This kind of jab is should not be directed at anybody who acknowledges what the Bible teaches about human sexuality, and honestly struggles against homosexual temptation. It is directed at those who want to assume the role of the Deity as they seek achieve all the sexual potentialities of two or more lumps of PlayDough. So little time, so many positions . . .
Since every Christian struggles against sin, it is perverse to mock someone who struggles in their sanctification with a different area than you do. But it is not perverse to mock those who think they are God. Talk about not having a birth certificate.
2. Folly resisted is the lot of everyone who names the name of Christ. Folly embraced is a different deal. The fact that sin results in heartache does not mean that such sin, when embraced, should not be laughed at.
Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast.“They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink” (Prov. 23:29-35, ESV).
What causes more heartache than alcoholism? What has wrecked more homes that the bottle? So where does this writer get off making fun of people who get so hammered that they can't remember anything about it, and then when they wake up they think this means they are supposed to get another drink? He must not have known anyone who has struggled with this particular temp . . . oh, it's in the Bible? Never mind.
3. The howls of outrage that occur whenever somebody does this kind of thing means that somebody really ought to investigate whether we should be doing it more. The central problem with sodomy is not the "what goes where" problem, but is rather the self-importance of those who want to relegate to themselves the authority to define the world. That kind of self-importance must always be dealt with accordingly. Someone buys a coffee maker, and takes it home and tries to use it as a sewing machine. That's just sad. But suppose that person doing this won't leave off lecturing you for being a red state idiot, one who must have some deep seated phobias about sewing. At some point, a descriptive phrase is in order. And once you have delivered that phrase, if you are not accused of being full of hate, then you just weren't trying.
4. Once you adopt the posture that this kind of rebuke is counterproductive in our attempts to win homosexuals evangelistically, because this kind of thing is "offensive" to them, then guess what? Now a bunch of things will suddenly be offensive to them. If your personal goal is to stay off their lists of people contributing to hate speech, they've got you, friend. They publish those lists. The Southern Poverty Law Center just recently listed the Family Research Council as a hate group because of their stand against homosexuality. And I will dare to go out on a limb and say that, with regard to their published materials, the Family Research Council is not capable of making a gay joke. Honestly, do you think they would ask their readers why Episcopalians can't play chess anymore? And supply the answer that they can't tell the difference between a bishop and a queen? How likely do you think that is?
5. And last, before the sodomy lobby took up the task of defining the human race' five-fold sexualities (with new developments sure to follow), they had previously taken up the task of defining acceptable discourse about sexuality. But I don't want to give them control of the lexicon of acceptable words, control of the time clock, control of the buzzer, and then try to debate them. Do I look stupid?
Now the fundamental rule of this egalitarian discourse of theirs is that generalizations are malicious and unfair, and that anybody who uses them is just simmering with hatred. Of course, the only reason they hate generalization is that they are all Cretans, and Cretans are evil beasts, lazy gluttons, and liars.
Seriously, if you make a joke about effeminacy, someone will rush up to tell you that some homosexuals are quite manly. Well, duh. Generalizations are generalizations, after all, but the pomosexual reality they are trying to contruct still loathes them.
Generalizations are despised by them because the generalizers are so secure about the differences that God has embedded in the world that they just throw statements out there -- like the fact that Canada is north of the United States, even though parts of Canada are south of parts of the United States. Men are taller than women, even though some women are taller than some men. Do I deny it? Not at all, and yet I persist in saying that men are taller than women. I also persist in saying that men are better at math, and women are better at nursing babies. You see, I am incorrigible.
Gay jokes depend on sexual generalizations, and as such, they are an essential part of our defense of the way God made the sexual world.