Warehouse No. 4: Robin Williams's Tonight Show Hypocrisy

Warehouse No. 4

"The world is either a better place or a worse place because you are in it; no one has a neutral influence." -RDW

Friday, March 11, 2005

Robin Williams's Tonight Show Hypocrisy

As I sat and worked on my resume, while my beautiful bride slept and dreamed of a perfect world, I turned to find solace in the background noise of the television. After all, the television is a multifunctional surrogate in American culture. Between checking for typos and stressing over what to include and what to exclude, I heard a familiar and admittedly hilarious personality being interviewed by Jay Leno. It was none other than Robin Williams. Leno seemed hard pressed to keep up with the ad-lib genius of Williams. But more striking was Williams's inability to keep up or perhaps notice his own hypocrisy. In a small section of the interview Williams reads a poem intended to humorously insinuate the seeming homosexuality of certain well known and beloved cartoon characters. Characters that are easily recognizable to the whole world (e.g., Batman & Robin and Winnie the Pooh). This, subtle attempt at moving Americans toward acceptance through humor, was certainly spawned as a result of the Sponge Bob Square pants controversy plaguing PBS. Williams is an open advocate of gay rights. Since Williams is a comedian, it is no surprise that he would use humor to deflect serious discussion over the moral legitimacy of homosexuality. Yet, as he sat on national television and supported a lifestyle once thought to be a perversion and psychological disorder, he had the audacity to cast judgment and belittle Paris Hilton for her sexual escapades. Am I the only one to pick up on this hypocrisy? Surely not. Still, Williams is only displaying the subjective morality of Hollywood, which is conveniently pumped 24/7 through the multi-channeled surrogate sage.

If Paris Hilton wants to produce pornography, sleep with multiple partners and engage in bisexual relationships, so what? If the morality of a society can be altered to include a people group that clearly falls outside of the natural reproductive abilities of heterosexual relationships and the traditional understanding of sexuality, why not accept all sexual behavior between consenting people?

More over, if we are truly going to become an inclusive society we must move beyond personal bias and prejudice. Why discriminate against polygamists? After all, polygamy was one time legal. What good justification is there for continuing to make it illegal? Also, how about incestuous relations? Relatives who fall in love romantically can't help that they were born related (just like same-sex partners can't help they were born gay, right?). Even more, early man had incestuous relations (our ancestors must have until a population base was created). Furthermore, the argument that says that allowing incestuous relations would cause potentially genetic degenerative diseases, I believe, fails in light of the fact that we as a nation permit all kinds of people to produce that have genetic handicaps (e.g., down syndrome). So unless we prohibit people with known genetic dispositions that are damaging to future offspring, we can't very well eliminate incestuous relations despite how we personally feel about such a joining. Any perceived taboo associated is the result of a societies self-imposed moral system. If there is no objective morality in which to appeal, why not construct a new normative structure?
Furthermore, the age of consent for sexual relations should also be considered for reduction. Isn't it hypocritical to give underage girls the ability to govern their bodies (e.g., in the case of abortion) then place legal restrictions on them that limits who they can have sexual relations with? Let me put it this way, if an underaged girl gets pregnant she can have an abortion without parental consent (a potentially life threatening procedure). However, if she wants to have sexual relations, which can lead to pregnancy, she is restricted to a certain age group by law. Hello, can we say hypocritical? Eventually, bestiality will need to be dealt with. Of course, bestiality is an interspeciel relationship issue and arguably the most deviant of the above behaviors. As a result, its acceptance will more than likley be resisted the most. Fortunatley, PETA has led the way in fighting for animal rights. Perhaps they can take up the legal battle for interspecial marital/sexual rights between humans and nonhumans.

If any of the above seems far-fetched or absurd, just remember that previous generations would have viewed the advancement of homosexuality just as offensive and morally degenerative. Nowadays, if you oppose homosexuality you are labeled intolerant or close-minded. Just think about how far we have come in such a short period of time. Somehow (undoubtedly the result of ethical relativism), tolerance has become a scapegoat for not standing up against morally questionable behavior. Society has fallen victim to the belief that anti-legislation or the absence of legislation protecting a certain people group lobbying for civil protection equals the oppression of a people’s civil rights. If that is the case, there are a lot of people in our prisons that should be set free, but that is another post for another time.

For now, the truth, as I see it, is that the fabric of this nation's morality is torn. In the name of tolerance and diversity, she has been stripped and laid bare for all the abominations under heaven to ravage. We are a nation that has been given over to its lusts. We have exchanged personal sacrifice for self-indulgence and purity for profanity.

God forgive us....

The author of this article is not responsible for the repercussions associated with reading this editorial, such as, but not limited to, stimulated brain activity or the regeneration of dead brain cells accruing as a result of realizing that allowing such alternative lifestyles will undermine civilized society and that such activity is morally wrong. Furthermore, the author clearly intends to upset the whole world. If you agree, great! If you don't, too bad. You're still wrong. Furthermore, a mere denounciation of his views does not constitue a valid rebuttal; you must think in order to counter.

posted by Rickie @ 12:33 AM

5 Comments:

At 10:52 PM, Teresa said…

I made a link to this post at my site (I bet it's one of those blogging etiquette things to ask first, eh? sorry!) because I think it's entirely amazing. Excellent point - one that is made far too infrequently by thinking Christians. You should write books.
At 9:08 AM, Christie said…

^Writing books? I don't know if I want to read 300 pages of what he has to say?

jk

Anyway, yes, yes, and yes. Whenever we step outside of the paramaters of Scripture- any act, behavior or lifestyle can be justified. With no standard - there can be no rules...scary.
At 9:54 AM, Anonymous said…

At first I thought you were arguing in favor of including those other lifestyles. I was like, dude, that is sick but in the end accepting them isn't any different then including gays. It was like my, how did you say it, brain cells became stimulated. good points man.
At 8:52 PM, Anonymous said…

Excellent points. With all the means of media our society is left with little innocence. I think also sometimes people try to be polite and tiptoe around. This is something we do need to be careful of reprimand or correct when you can do so and make a difference at God's leading. Some of these people are mentally ill.Remember the Bible admonishes us to answer not a fool according to his folly (Proverbs). Prayer is so need to change our world.
At 11:18 PM, Jeff Watkins said…

A funny side note about homosexuality and psychological disorders: homosexuality was still listed in the DSM until like 1976 or something. I think that speaks volumes.