All Pornography Is Homosexual Pornography
Not content with merely reading some of the less…savory opinions on homosexuality that one can find on the internet, I made the mistake of watching a video in which they are laid out clearly:
The best lines are ‘homosexuality is not genetic, it’s inflicted’ (there’s a logical fallacy somewhere in there, I just can’t find it…) and and the bizarre claim that ”All pornography is homosexual pornography because it turns your sexual drive inwards’.
Michael Schwartz, the man in this video, some sort of postmodern linguistic theorist? Does he believe linguistic meaning is such a slipper thing that ‘homosexual’ can mean ‘something that turns your sexual drive inwards’ every time he wills it to? According to him, an image of a man and a woman having sex is an example of homosexual pornography? What does that mean? It doesn’t depict a homosexual sex act. It has nothing at all to do with the conventional meaning of the term ‘homosexual’. Schwartz has made up a new definition for the word based on nothing more than his desire to demonize gay people.
(I got that video here, by the way.)