Joel Osteen Is A Bigot

Joel Osteen is a very friendly looking, nice fellow. Hell I’m sure more than a few people would even say he’s good-looking, unlike him.



Joel Osteen looks like the kind of guy you could sit and enjoy a buddy-buddy dinner with, perhaps even crack a beer with, unlike this guy.



But fact is, Joel Osteen is no different from either of them. Joel Osteen may smile, and sit their with Joel Osteen’s pretty little blonde wife and say, Joel Osteen doesn’t “bash” homosexuals, that Joel Osteen’s “not there to judge.”

You know, “love the sinner, hate the sin.”

That crap.

I’m not picking on Joel Osteen for no reason. Joel Osteen sells Joel Osteen as someone different, someone nicer, someone more tolerant and many people – some of whom are people I know – have bought this bull. That more than anything is why Joel Osteen has pissed me off so much right now, because when you cut through the bollocks that Joel Osteen has been peddling in that affable Southern drawl, he’s no different from the rest of them.

And you want to know another reason why Joel Osteen has pissed me right off? Joel Osteen has made me write this.

Whereas so many other interviewers would’ve let Joel Osteen off and moved on to the next question after he mouthed off peaceable sounding platitudes, Piers Morgan didn’t. He actually did his job and forced an answer from him. And for that I have to say, well done Piers Morgan.

You can watch the clip of Piers Morgan interviewing Joel Osteen & Mrs Joel Osteen on YouTube or watch the interview on CNN at 10pm tomorrow. In the interim, I’ll be hunched over a toilet-bowl hurling my dinner after paying Piers Morgan a compliment.

Boys Will Be Boys

No serious person would ever deny this, being gay can be difficult. Be it dealing with homophobia or trying to live at 100% fabulous, it is a complicated life.

Despite what the name belies, ‘gaydar,’ that innate ability of gays to ferret each other out from the crowd is no science. It essentially is what all people do, look for those signals that maybe, just maybe, that other person could be interested; and as with any signals, they can be crossed. For the single gay guy out on the town, searching for a beau, or beaux, those signals have just become intricately more convoluted.

Last month, a UK study found, amongst high school and university students, the prevalence of heterosexual males kissing each other had skyrocketed with 95% of respondents saying they had done so. A mixed signal to be sure. At first thought, that lone gay may want to believe those kinds of European shenanigans are not on in Africa, not even in that African slice of Europa, Cape Town.

However, as has been proved by the number of women who are famous for no other reason other than being able to don bikinis, or ‘glamour models,’ as they’re known in the land of our former colonial master, what begins there, sooner, rather than later makes its way down here.

To the disquiet of the gay on the prowl, this trend continues. The study also found that it is not only the chaste fraternal kiss being exchanged between straight males. The full on snog, probably best demonstrated by a furtive Jacob Zuma meeting up with Sonono Khoza in a dark corner of the Nkandla homestead, or “sustained” kiss as the study termed it, is also on the rise, with 37% of respondents indicating they had engaged in this activity.

This may seem to be something of a surprise, with our homosexual friend jumping to the default position of, “Well that is a load of rubbish! They must be gay as the day is long!” Yet, he should consider the following. Whilst for the gay man, this is a new and worrying development, for lesbians this is old news. Ever since Britney ever so (in)famously locked lips with Madonna, the straight girl kiss has been a thing of norm. As the great vocal digital manipulation artist, Katy Perry, in her magnum opus, I Kissed A Girl, croons, “I got so brave, drink in hand, lost my discretion,” and, “I kissed a girl just to try it, I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it.”

Unlike the cougar, this is not one of those fads, which seems to inhabit Hollywood alone. On any night of the week, in the favoured haunts of our future-leaders, the student nightclubs of Claremont in Cape Town or Melville in Johannesburg, to give just two examples, this can be witnessed. As such, that girl and her girl-friend standing on a table, locking lips will soon have to vie for attention with that boy and his boet, doing the very same thing.

Though those concerned about the moral compass of our society may worry that this is a sure sign that the gay agenda to indoctrinate the gay lifestyle within our children is succeeding, take heed of this fact. Those in their never-ending quest to be cool, are just partaking in what is nothing more than a fad. Safely ensconced in the South African strongholds of moral rectitude, where men are men and women know their place, where good traditional family values still reign, you will never have to witness this. Just as in the UK, such examples of moral depravity will be found in those dens on liberal iniquity, universities, or anywhere the wayward youth are to found injecting their new-fangled drugs into their eyeballs and partaking in sins of the flesh.

However, for those, with a slightly more sensible mindset, would be interested to note that, though a fad, study researcher, Eric Anderson, stated that this development, be it the chaste kiss or the sustained kiss, indicates that, “these men have lost their homophobia (and that) they're no longer afraid to be thought gay by their behaviours.”

In as much that no serious person would deny that being gay is difficult, no serious person would complain about the changes in attitudes this study indicates. Even then, one cannot help but think about that lone gay. Faced with those team-mates from the rugby team in a ‘sustained kiss,’ his mind fills with that warm rush of excitement, only to be tempered with the cold reality of confusion as he thinks, ‘maybe they are just two friends, just having fun and nothing more.’

With boys being boys, his life just became a whole lot more difficult.

Barack Obama: Homophobe in Chief…

Judge Vaughn Walker, in handing down his ruling on California’s gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, marked the 4^th of August 2010 as yet another historic day in the long battle for the recognition and protection of equal rights in the US. Whether they praised or decried the decision, across America reactions poured in recognising the historic nature of this ruling. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in her reaction recognised the two basic rights Propostion 8 violated, and referred to it as, “a stain upon the California constitution.” California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, himself an opponent of Proposition 8, closed his statement saying, “Today’s decision is by no means California’s first milestone, nor our last, on America’s road to equality and freedom for all people.” From President Obama, the silence was deafening. The only reaction was the following statement from a spokesperson, “The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transsexual) Americans.”

The reaction from ‘LGBT Americans,’ to that can be characterised overall being a resigned sigh. Murmurs of confusion and discontent on his LGBT credentials have tailed President Obama for a while now. Most of those murmurs, which are now escalating to outright denouncements, have been heard in primary from the LGBT media, but even now, the mainstream media is noticing this spreading zeitgeist.

As ­­­­­­­­­­­­­former Massachusetts State Senator,­ Jarrett Barrios, President of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) questioning whether to accept an invitation to the White House’s first ever event commemorating the Stonewall Riots, the political coming out of the LGBT community put it: “The problem is that I haven’t been as excited as I’d like to be about President Obama. I’d been excited by Candidate Obama. His campaign invited people like me and my husband Doug…into has aspirational vision of America the possible.” In running for office, Barack Obama promised many things, some attainable, some not, but most, falling into a murky grey in-between area. As candidate Obama, his LGBT positions were progressive and sympathetic to the cause, but once President Obama, there has been a marked lack of action on many of these promises.

A sad reality is that in American politics, LGBT issues tend to fall into that murky grey area though there is one that isn’t; ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ (DADT), the US military’s gay-ban. Whilst Obama using presidential powers may not be able to repeal DADT, as the repeal of this policy slowly makes its way through Congress Obama does have the power to stop its implementation, and has he? The answer to that question is a sad, expected and disappointing, no. With 80% of Americans being in favour of a repeal of DADT, scores of mainstream Republicans have also come out in favour of its repeal. This leaves Obama, who in public iterates support for such a move, and has the power to at the least to stop its implementation with the single signing of an executive order, having done nothing to support this policy.

As his time in office passes, the true image of Obama’s views on LGBT issues, despite his stated policies is starting to emerge, and the image, in light of his actions, and inactions, is a disquieting one. However, perhaps even more disquieting is the opinion, that, no, Obama is not putting forth a homophobic agenda, but rather is playing politics with basic civil rights.

In 1996, he is known to have been in favour of gay marriage. However, the higher his political aspirations have been, the further he has shifted from this unpopular position. In 2004, he then was quoted as saying he didn’t support gay marriage, and favoured civil unions, but only for strategic purposes (to advance the cause for equal rights). Though couched in politically correct language, the message is basic and as ugly as it always has been; separate but equal.

But the drift didn’t stop there. By the time he ran for office, he was stating that personally, he believed that marriage ‘is between a man & a woman,’ and that it is a ‘religious’ matter and a ‘state’ issue. Today, we are now in an even more perplexing position. By Sunday, Obama’s administration has to indicate whether it plans to appeal a decision to appeal a ruling that found an element of yet another odious piece of homophobic legislation, the Defence of Marriages Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Disappointingly, the signs are that they will, despite, yet again, Obama’s official policy being that DOMA should be repealed.

In a memorable, though nonetheless contrived piece of dialogue, from The Interpreter, Nicole Kidman’s character opines to Sean Penn’s that she is ‘disappointed,’ in the politician the movie revolves around. He replies; “Disappointed is a lover’s word.” He’s right, ‘disappointed’ is a lover’s word. That ‘disappointed’ is a word that is often used in describing Barack Obama by the left of American politics and specifically the LGBT community is telling.

Whilst to call him ‘homophobe in chief,’ may be too early a call to make, and one to harsh to be ever made, the facts are as follows. Obama presented himself as someone who could be relied on to advance the LGBT cause, that his election to the Presidency and the passing of Proposition 8 came on the same night, lessened the blow of Proposition 8. However, nearing two years into his Presidency, it is time that some serious focus is placed on this image. He says the right things, but it’s time to recognise the reality; his inactions and most damning, his actions speak volumes. Perhaps it is time for the LGBT Americans to take that disappointment and channel it into a politician who will champion the LGBT cause with real action, not just one who does so with soaring, inspiring, yet ultimately and disappointingly, empty rhetoric.

Gay Pride: Is There Really A Point Anymore?

In his Daily Maverick Opinionista column, Simon Williamson asks the question that every June (LGBT Pride Month) is asked in the LGBT community & media, ‘has the time for Pride celebrations perhaps passed?’ The thrust of the argument in general is that we are now in a ‘post gay era,’ an era where one’s sexual orientation is of no importance, where ‘strategic essentialism,’ to deliberately and with purpose, separate oneself from society is no longer necessary. I must admit, this is an argument I could easily see myself agreeing with.

As Simon points out, one could argue that perhaps some prejudices and discriminatory ideas around homosexuals continue as a result of the gay community separating itself from society. That is a not an easy proposition to accept as the aim of strategic essentialism is to forward the primary gay cause, acceptance. However, no matter how difficult, it is one that must be accepted as a distinct possibility. Despite the allure of that argument, I would have to disagree and argue that; the world over, and South Africa in particular; there is still a place for strategic essentialism.

The fight for rights by minorities or any other oppressed group is never truly complete. If the undergraduate analysis can be excused, power relations in society can be said to be static, and if at all fluid, are painstakingly slow to change. A case in point is the struggle for women’s rights. Though things have undeniably advanced a century after the first wave of feminism (the fight for women’s political rights), equally undeniable is that power relations between men and women are still skewed to the former. Essentially, there is still much work being done by women’s groups to both protect and further advance the women’s cause.

Gay rights in relation, particularly gay rights in South Africa, can barely be said to be nascent and thus their protection and advancement is of utmost importance. Across the world, it is generally within particular spaces and even then so, within particular sectors of society that ‘post-gay’ is a reality. The case for South Africa is even more extreme. Most of South Africa’s LBGT individuals (as Simon points out by mentioning the horror of corrective rape) are far removed from the life promised by our progressive constitution. Yet, as with much of South Africa there’s a stark disconnect; to those of us who are gay and live relatively affluent lives in urban areas, where the notion of overt & extreme homophobia is practically foreign, we can enjoy these rights.

Despite this, we cannot be complacent, the reality is homophobic attitudes in South Africa are the prevalent opinion on gay rights. Lest we forget, our very own President stated, gay marriages were “a disgrace to the nation and to God” and that “When I was growing up, an ‘ungqigili,’ (a homosexual) would not have stood in front of me, I would knock him out.” Whilst this statement cannot be taken as irrefutable proof of malicious intent and disregard for constitutional rights afforded to the LGBT community; that statement in conjunction with the less than accepting attitude of the majority of South Africans towards gay rights goes to show the protection of these rights is of paramount importance.

To return to the point I opened with, Simon cannot be faulted with pointing out that strategic essentialism, conceivably is self-defeating. To this though, I would say strategic essentialism is only one element of the gay rights movement, the radical element. However, as the history of minority rights movements shows one needs both the radical and the more mainstream elements for there to be progress in the fight for rights, and protection for those won.

For every Andrea Dworkin who turned off so many to the Feminist cause with her militant positions & aggressive posturing, there must be a Gloria Steinem to temper those positions and postures making them acceptable within society as a whole. For every Martin Luther King Jr. who brought the American civil rights movement into the mainstream of popular political thought & culture, there must be a Malcolm X to test the limits and push the boundaries when moderation of positions turns to appeasement of the powers that be. With the gay rights movement, it is no different. For those of us who already enjoy these rights and for those who are still to benefit from them, no matter what possible alienation it may cause, the radicalism of strategic essentialism is integral to the protection and advancement of these rights.

This post was originally posted on "That's How It Is"