Response to previous entry, HOMEOPATHY HATER’s LOVER EXPOSED
Submitted on 2011/10/23 at 1:58 pm
by Vinton Rafe McCabe
I am, frankly, disgusted both by the tone of this article, from the use of the purple-prose “Lover” in its title, and by its content.
Has the homeopathic community fallen into such straits (pun intended) that this is what passes for a clear and meaningful argument in favor of holistic health and healing? In my opinion, this is no better than the sort of rant that is used by politicians like Michele Bachmann to try to subtly (and not so subtly) play upon prejudice to steer and audience into action. And based upon the first response garnered and the homophobic slop it includes, I don’t feel that I am far off the mark.
Let’s consider the content of both the post and its response.
First there is the inflammatory title, worthy of the New York Post. Now I ask, is it anyone’s business who the Amazing Randi loves, what his or her gender is, or, indeed, what issues they might have with the law? Last I checked, there was nothing illegal about living life as an openly gay man or woman. Now, of course, there are laws–laws that I think none of us would argue with–against having sex with underage children, male or female, but to intertwine as our author here does, the fact that Randi has, apparently, recently announced himself to be gay and the vague possibility (again, our author seems more interested in blackening the man’s reputation than in working with facts) that he may have abused children in the past in New Jersey. Personally, I find no apparent intertwining of the two and do not feel that all gay people need be suspected of raping children, etc, and cannot help but wonder why the author would stoop to combing the two under his umbrella of “what else about Randi don’t we know.” Indeed, the whole of this nonsense makes me wonder what else is there about John Benneth that we don’t know…
As someone who has studied homeopathy for three decades, taught thousands the joy and power of homeopathy and authored ten books on the subject to date, I cannot sit quietly by without saying that this is NO way of making a point about homeopathy. This bigoted and homophobic assault on one man’s character (and that of his “lover”) is to be reviled and not supported. Homeopathy needs no such defense. The fact of its value as a healing tool is something to be shared and honored, not this post.
And the response that it elicits is, perhaps, even worse. Starting with the cliched comment that the author is in no way against homosexuals and even counts them among his friends (imagine that, how wonderfully willing he is to consort with lesser folks) and following through the whole of his rant, this author would on the one hand suggest that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and then, on the other hand, present an image of the homosexual as an old, tired queen, a sick person who could be set right through the use of a particular remedy.
Again, to evoke the name of Michele Bachmann, it troubles me that, in 2011, we have made so few inroads into understanding homosexuality as a basic genetic building block of character that we would on the one hand suggest that Bachmann’s husband in his clinic can “pray the gay away” and here, on the other hand, possibly consider the idea that we can give remedies for it as well.
Time to rethink the manner in which we want to frame this discussion, folks. If this is the new direction, not to attack a man’s argument, but, instead, to attack his “lover,” his family members or his own character, well, then the homeopathic community is going to have to get by with one less member.
Rethink this. This is the wrong path.