You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
A feature article in this week’s New York Times Magazine refers to Princeton professor Robert P. George as the "intellectual architect" of the extreme right. This is hardly an honor, considering the main competition for "Values Valedictorian" is Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Mike Huckabee. One also has to consider admiration comes from the likes of George W. Bush and FOX instigator Glenn Beck, who calls George "one of the biggest brains in America."
George's primary accomplishment has been denying gay couples the right to marry, by forming an unholy political union between conservative Catholics, like himself, and Evangelical Christians. He is the chairman of The National Organization for Marriage, the group that most recently worked to strip marriage rights from LGBT couples in Maine.
Quite frankly, I'm hardly impressed with George's cognitive abilities. If one looks at the numbers in Maine, his allegedly intellectual arguments against same-sex marriage failed miserably in cosmopolitan Portland and in Orono, home of The University of Maine. His primary talent, it seems, is to trick the unschooled and easily fooled. Given this reality, George is more back woods propagandist than deep professorial thinker.
Indeed, one of the simplest ways to succeed in America is to rabble rouse and scapegoat. It takes no brains to peddle belligerence and play the gay card by pandering to people not playing with a full deck. George exploited an undereducated constituency and fed them red meat, which is no more than a cheap shortcut for those incapable of the more difficult task of bringing Americans together. In a diverse nation paradoxically frightened by diversity, demagogues such as George are a dime a dozen and unworthy of praise.
What George offers is sophistry disguised as scholarship. For example, his opposition to gay people having sex or marrying rests on his version of "natural law", allegedly based on "practical reason." In the Times Magazine article, Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali parrots George's idea of "natural law" at a press conference, with George at his side, cheering on his protege.
"Sexual relations outside the marital bond are contrary not only to the will of God but to the good of man," said Rigali. "Indeed they are contrary to the will of God precisely because they are against the good of man."
The "good" of which men (and women) might Rigali and George be referring to?
Is it the teenage boys who were molested in the Catholic Church because such conservative ideologues insisted on turning gay men into sexually repressed and emotionally stunted shells and then placing them in the priesthood?
Is it "good" for the gay youths who commit suicide in disproportionate numbers because men like George and Rigali tell them their love is inferior?
Perhaps, they can illuminate how such "practical reason" was "good" for Welsh rugby legend Gareth Thomas who came out of the closet this weekend after hiding his sexual orientation for two decades.
"Sometimes I felt so alone and depressed," said Thomas. "I've stood on so many cliff edges. I used to go to the cliffs overlooking the beach near our cottage in St Brides Major and just think about jumping off and ending it all...I was like a ticking bomb. I thought I could suppress it, keep it locked away in some dark corner of myself, but I couldn't. It was who I was, and I just couldn't ignore it any more."
Maybe George can explain how his philosophy was somehow "good" for Gareth's wife Jenna, who is about to be divorced?
If "practical reason" has proven one thing, it has shown the closet, particularly for the Catholic Church, to be destructive on so many levels. George has demonstrably failed to articulate how openly gay people harm heterosexuals or how living a lie helps homosexuals be more productive members of society. His entire presentation is a ruse meant to rally the rubes.
Interestingly, George believes in restricting marriage because, in his view, only a husband and wife can experience, "comprehensive unity" and become a "one-flesh union." He blatantly ignores that millions of people can achieve this state only through homosexual relations. By forcing GLBT people to conform to his views and presumably marry the opposite sex, he is creating the conditions to achieve the polar opposite of what he claims is necessary for a healthy marriage.
George is equally disingenuous in claiming that marriage is based on procreation. These days, the vast majority of people marry for love. Many couples choose not to have children, while others are unable to. To suggest otherwise is to proffer an incoherent and intellectually dishonest view of modern marriage.
George is an intellectual lightweight without an original idea in his head. His claim to fame is organizing like-minded conservatives and providing a veneer of education to mask his goal of discrimination. This is not the pride of Princeton, but a paean to prejudice.
10 Comments:
Holy Shit Wayne...you call Robert George an "intellectual lightweight." This doesn't compute. The man is a professor at Princeton. It seems when people disagree with you and others in your camp, you will call them names, marginalize and then dismiss them. To me that is the epitomy of arrogance and intellectual immaturity. I wish I had the brains and academic credentials to teach at an Ivy League cllege. You certainly don't have these credentials Wayne.
posted by Monica, at
12/21/2009 12:19 PM
Oh I forgot to add something about the Welsh rugby player you referenced in your article. Gareth Thomas was found guilty in 2005 of assault in France and was banned from rugby for four weeks in 2007 for his behavior amongst other infractions related to the firing of his rugby coach. You might say he has some relational issues. Mr. Thomas is quite the poster boy for coming out of the closet.
posted by Monica, at
12/21/2009 12:29 PM
Monica:
By your reasoning, George W. Bush was smart, simply because he graduated from Yale and Harvard. In reality, he was the most obtuse President in modern history.
My criticism of George was based on his weak arguments. Far from "name-calling" I directly addressed a couple of his backward ideas.
I stand by my assessment of George. A good high school debater could demolish this mans pseudo-intellectual ideas. He only appears bright to people like yourself and Carrie Prejean.
And, Monica, you are also intellectually dishonest. Your role is to come on this website and habitually disagree with everything I say. If I say the sky is blue, you will surely say it is red.
Thus, your opinion on me and my writing is essentially meaningless and negated by your obvious agenda.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
12/21/2009 12:29 PM
Monica:
I'm sorry that Thomas isn't a saint like you presumably are.
I'm sorry he isn't more like, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, Tom DeLay, Ralph Reed, Jack Abramhoff and all those wonderful social conservatives.
If he could only emulate the relational issues of your heroes he'd be a much better person, for sure.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
12/21/2009 12:34 PM
Monica we can only judge the man by the quality of his arguments, his being a Princeton professor is irrelevant. His argument is laughable, the fact that a couple can procreate says nothing whatsoever about the quality of the relationship they have. Total strangers procreate, couples with hellacious marriages procreate and couples with the sweetest, most heavenly relationships do not. George's argument is dumb beyond belief - that's what makes him an intellectual lightweight, and that Princeton would have him as a professor reflects most badly upon them.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
12/21/2009 1:32 PM
That old 'natural law' canard is outdated beyond belief. I guess the pseudo-intellectual George and the faux "Christian" priest are a tad behind in their biology lessons. The animal kingdom is rife with homosexuality! Besides, as Carl Sagan said, 'being unnatural is what being human is all about'. And Monica, I used to date a Princeton professor (PhD). Trust me, they're no different or better than anyone else. They can be just as neurotic, prejudiced, disingenous or f----d up as the rest of us.
posted by Anonymous, at
12/21/2009 2:12 PM
Monica
Your defensive argument: "The man is a professor at Princeton. " is a form of fallacy, specifically, an appeal to authority.
So and so is an authority, so he must be right.
No. A professorship as any institution is not a guarantee of anything other than a paycheck and perks.
Futher, your accusation "the epitomy of arrogance and intellectual immaturity", leveled at Wayne, is a clear case of "call them names, marginalize and then dismiss them" as is "You certainly don't have these credentials Wayne".
At no point in your comments did you address the actual issues Wayne brought up, which means that both of your posts were also examples of another fallacy: Irrelevant Conclusion. Additionally, your last post was little more than an ad hominem attack.
Where is Toni Morrison when you need her? Oh she is in the same complex!!!!!!!! Monica: shut your mouth. Just because someone is a Princeton professor does not make them open minded, professional, enlightened etc. You are so pathetic in your own dismissive ignorant arrogance. Robert George is obviously a right wing fundamentalist who thinks it is ok to discriminate. And people like you push him to continue. Another day that Monica remains an idiot.
posted by Spouse Walker, at
12/23/2009 12:12 PM
Bravo. The article is very well written, and nails the point home completely.
George may teach at Princeton, but he uses simple manipulation, easily tricking those that are not only dumb, but reverent of an Ivy League education.
