Put On Ye Gay Apparel

I was going through my emails to see what I can delete and found this rather interesting one which was my response to this dude's blog (who in some way is a 'pseudo' religious christian fundamentalist). He was having a debate on whether homosexuality was a case of 'nature' or 'nurture'. Below is my email response to him (who unfortunately is homophobic). Read with caution. And in case you're wondering... yes, I am gay, but gay as in how folks in the olden times would express as 'happy'.

"I'd say rather... don't you reckon the weather's pretty gay today"

Yes, for the very first time I shall openly discuss my sexuality in my blog and my stand on it. For many it is a mystery. It is complexed as hell, but it can be summed in 3 points:
- straight people think i'm gay
- gay people knows i'm straight
- some lesbians would consider me lesbian

In any way, my friend Mien (who produced my latest short film 'while you were eating', and is in the midst of directing her own 'KL Menyanyi') summarizes it best... 'the gayest straight person ever'.

There you go, proof that any attempt to categorize people is an exercise in futily. The world is too much of a kaleidoscope for people to be pigeon-holed. Thank god.

Anyway, enough about that, here's my response to the pseudo religious fundamentalist homophobic dude (did I just contradict myself?). Enjoy.

___________________________

dear (name withheld),

strange that i should stumble into your blog while you here talking about this whole 'nature vs. nurture' thing. i am no psychologist, neither am i a psychiatrist (though i really should go make appointments with the latter), so don't expect a scientific whatchamajigga explanation. (and since it is by sheer chance that i stumble upon this site at such a time, i feel obliged to respond since it's another instance when the universe conspires to make me do things.)

however, i am a humanist... and being a humanist i feel that this whole 'nature vs. nurture' thing is a really just a theory the 'conservatives' developed just so that they can justify their assertions of what is right and wrong with the world today. It gives us a platform (i say 'us' because i am part of this big human race as well) to debate human conditions; sexuality, intelligence, behaviour, talent, skills, ability, taste in music (i would like to believe that people are born to love listening to 'blue', 'backstreet boys', 'spice girls', etc. there is no way someone can be nurtured into enjoying such a horrific din) and sometimes stupidity (ironically, since the sum of such discussions very often equates to that).

'oh, must be because of bad parenting', 'oh, maybe s/he wasn't breastfed as a child', 'oh, maybe we've accidentally dropped him/her when s/he was a baby', 'oh, you really should let him/her listen to mozart during the 2nd trimester of your pregnancy', '

well does it really matter what the reasons are? whether we are born with it, or if we picked it up while we're growing up. we can all go get 500 kids to watch a tarantino film, 500 to watch 'pocahantas', and another 500 to just stare at a blank wall; then put them up against a machine where they can send electrical shocks to a person across them room. you'll get some of the kids are just plain nasty, some are just plain nice... some get infuenced, some get catharsised. wow, biggest discovery of the 21st century 'we discovered that a percentage of the children who were watching the tarantino film kept pushing the button, but so did some of the pocahantas kids, and strangely, a big percentage of the kids who were made to stare at the wall pushed the button a lot... however, we would like to conclude that violence in television do cause violence is some kids, and our solution to the problem is to knock down walls at home since the kids who were staring into them became more violent'.

what was my point? why did i dig a hole all the way to china? i really do not know, but that's the whole point.. there is no point in this entire debate. but it you want a point, i'll give you a point. here you go:

.

however, i do have a solution to this debate. and i suggest that we start embracing this world that is filled with leftist, rightist, intelligent, stupid, straight, gay, lesbian, happy, melancholic, sad, maschosit, sane, insane, fruedian, jungian, semite, anti-semite, neo-conservative, liberal, pro thanksin, anti thaksin, popular, un-popular, geek, listens to bjork, listens to blue, and a whole long list that probably streches to china and back. And of course, the list includes pro-nature, and pro-nurture.
whatever it is, i suggest that we start embracing this world and give thanks for it, cause if the day should come that all of humanity should posses a desirable uniform characteristic (regardless of how righteous it should be), then i'll embrace scientology to get my ticket on a space ship to get out of this boring planet.

are theories reliable? i think they do serve some sort of a purpose. are they true? well not entirely... they do have some purpose for existence. however, i don't and have never feared that my father keeps a knife just so that he can castrate me if i ever feel like making a move to my mother (no i don't suffer from oedipus complexity, and i don't think anyone does, however, i do believe that freud is deeply in love with his mother). theories are fun, they're good to know, but i choose to not let it explain and justify my actions and behaviour.

one last suggestion, i reckon we should all hold hands one day and watch the 'we are the world' video. and that concludes my 2 quids worth ( i like to believe that my opinions are worth more than 2 cents. ps: i'm not the most humble person alive). good night, may you have some strange funky psychedelic dreams tonight.

chow,
chi too

live like you'll die tomorrow, learn like you'll live forever - mohandas k. gandhi.