Homme-ophobia: Josh Homme defends 'faggot' as term of abuse

Oh, dear. Josh Homme's theatrical rant at a kid throwing stuff at hiim hasn't gone down too well; now, Josh has written an open letter to try and explain why calling someone a 'faggot' as a term of abuse isn't homophobic:

“Some journalists & citizens on the internet & are wondering: Q? Am I a homophobe because I included a slang for gay in with other "acceptable" curse words during a verbal lashing I gave a young concertgoer, after being hit by his shoe, during a show the other day? A= Nope.

You'll note, of course, that Homme has used the Morrissey gambit - shifting what he's been caught doing (here, throwing round homophobic abuse) into a totally different accusation that he's probably innocent of (actively being a homophobe. We say you're throwing around language which can cause offence; you deny being a Nazi.

Still, at least Josh is too sensible to try the "some of my best friends are gay" gambit, isn't he?

He isn't:

“My gay family & friends, as well as myself, KNOW I am not a homophobe.

Josh decides to go a step further, and finally close down that nature/nurture debate once and for all:

For years now I've known gay is not a choice; one's skin color doesn't determine one's intelligence level; & red hair doesn't mean you're someone's stepchild."

If you're trying to build bridges with a gay audience, you might not want to effectively say "it's not like you can help it, is it?" And, if being gay was a choice, would that automatically make it wrong, Josh? Are you implying that gay sex is only okay because you can't help yourself?

We'll answer our own question: No, he isn't. He's just blundering about trying to justify the unjustifiable and blurting out things he assumes may be helpful.

Then he turns to attack - the fault, it seems, is with us:

“You see, it's not the words, it's their intent. I never said, nor suggested, that being gay is wrong, but apparently, based on your outrage to my flu-infused rant, you do!

So, if you're not suggesting that there's something wrong with being gay, why would you use a derogatory term for homosexuals to abuse the kid who threw a shoe at you? You were trying to belittle the bloke; you thought the worst thing you could do was suggest he was gay. Appealing for us to consider the intent makes it worse, not better.

And for a songwriter to suggest that words themselves have no power is just absurd. It's like a man who shoots guns for a living suggesting that his bullets don't kill, it's all down to the angle of the wind.

But, still, kudos for Homme for launching into the most ill-considered attempt to turn an argument round so far this year: "if you object to me calling someone a faggot, that makes YOU the homophobe!"

I also told that young whipper snapper I'd have anal sex with him... how can I possibly reconcile these opposing viewpoints?”

Yes... yes, you did threaten to use rape as a punishment; not - as you're implying here - that you offered to have loving sex with the kid. And it's not entirely difficult to reconcile someone who will use "faggot" as an insult with someone who feels that using forced anal sex is a way to humiliate another person. Perhaps if he'd not spent time trying to solve the 'why do some people have gay sex' question he might have had some time to spend understanding that rape is a weapon, and has nothing to do with sexual attraction. It's telling that Homme spent all his efforts trying to explain away the homophobia, and didn't even mention the accusations that arose from threatening sexual violence.

Just to mop up his confused defence, Homme then, naturally, had a tilt at "political correctness", the right wing's meaningless Aunt Sally:

In his letter, which originally appeared on the bands website, Homme says that he never has been nor does he “intend to be politically correct.”

“That's your cross to bear. To me, that PC world would suck more shit than the porta-potty truck at Glastonbury."

Yeah. Imagine a world where you could threaten anal rape and couldn't get away with it. How terrible would that world be, eh?