Sunday - December 07, 2003

Category Image Anyone Not For Us is Against Us.


It's a common thing in human relations to insist that one must agree with your ideas in toto, and if the conclusions differ to then assign the most malevolent reason for it. I admit that at times I do the same, it's only human nature, but some political discussions are public enough and widespread enough that I would think that more nuanced arguments are understood. Instead, the more contentious the issue, the more likely we are to insist that it's our way or else.

No, I'm not talking about the war. In that case, it's a matter of survival and we must insist that people work publicly and fully to stop terrorism. What I'm referring to is one of the taboo topics: Homosexuality. It's become fashionable to hold only certain opinions on the topic, and any dissent is instantly labeled as ignorant and bigotted.

But I don't care. My opinion is valid even if it is different.

Here's the gist of the popular argument: Homosexuality is not a choice, it is something that cannot be cured, nor is a cure even appropriate since it is perfectly normal. Disagreeing with this opinion means that you are some religious fundamentalist bigot that wants all homosexuals to burn in hell.

But let's examine this.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Perhaps, perhaps not. I think that this is too simple a claim. Surely there is more than one cause of homosexuality. Some causes may involve choice, some may not. Some result in an exclusively homosexual orientation, some don't. Is there a genetic predisposition? We've seen that most aspects of a personality are heavily influenced by genetics, why wouldn't homosexuality be in that category? Is it a result of enviornment? Certainly this is part of it too. But what makes it impossible for it to be considered as a choice for some people? Or at the very least a result of other choices made in one's life? Just posing these points will surely cause an outrage of hate-spewed blasts at the one making them.

Homosexuality is normal. Clearly this is wrong, on its very face. That homosexuality is common doesn't mean it's normal. Small Pox was once common, too. It's also common for people to be fat but being common doesn't imply that it is normal or correct. Clearly we are mammals and we procreate heterosexually. It is normal for humans to be heterosexual, that's what we are. So the issue is really only whether being homosexual is worthy of note, or of blame. It's clearly not the correct orientation. But this statement of obviousness will create paroxysms of hate.

Homosexuality cannot be cured. Well, this is a crazy statement. Why not? Since there are many causes of this condition, there are probably some people who can be changed, and probably people who cannot be changed. And there are people who choose not to change even were they able. Since investigating the causes is topic non grata, we can't very intelligently discuss whether some or all can be corrected, or whether they should be even if they want to be. Again, the vitriol surrounding this topic makes it impossible to even publicly discuss this topic, let alone understand it.

Questioning the homosexual paradigm is bigotry. This is the dangerous part of the topic. We cannot discuss the issue at all because people will not do so rationally. Discussing these points will label you a bigot or homophobe or some kind of religious whacko.

I submit that I am not religious. Not in the least. So that argument is out.

I do not hate homosexuals anymore than I hate someone with the measles or anymore than I hate fat people. There are fat people I like, and there are people that I dislike because they have attitudes in life that are reflected in their lack of concern for their health or appearance. Likewise, there are homosexuals that I like and those whom I don't like because they have personalities that I suspect incidentally influence why they are homosexuals. But liking or disliking people is not the same as being bigoted against the state of being homosexual. I treat most people politely despite their being overweight or being homosexual. I may not be each of their friends, but a lot of people aren't my friends.

The term homophobe is an especially vile word. It's a sort of passive-aggressive attack on those who disagree with the paradigm. Using this appellation marks its target as not disagreeing, but with being afraid. Thus all arguments are rendered void since they originate from irrational fear. But I'm not afraid of homosexuals per se. I'm sure that there are a few that are pretty big and violent and fearsome, but in general that's coincidental.

Perhaps all my points about the normality of homosexuality are wrong. Perhaps. But opinions are so strong that rational discussion is impossible.

For fear of pushing things too far, let's address the topic of marriage between homosexuals. It's becoming the de facto policy of our country to allow homosexuals to marry. But let's argue against it now. I submit that homosexuals should not be married, or at least that the government should have no part in recognizing a homosexual "marriage." I'm sure howls of protest are about to be hurled at me. But let's examine what marriage is and why homosexuals shouldn't be married in the government's eyes.

The argument is very simple. It's none of the government's business. Marriage only has one legitimate social purpose that concerns the government, and that is to identify who children's parents are. Even that is a poor tool since children are born out of wedlock, men are cuckolded, etc. The only other purpose of marriage is for religious reasons or other personal desires to publicly declare a union between two or more people. You don't need, nor should it be allowed, for the government to get in the business of "love."

The argument can be made that government should encourage the morality associated with traditional families. I agree that stable families are important to society, but I submit that if you need government to create or foster a stable society then it's already too late. People should rely on their churches, their clubs, their neighbors, or their own personal integrity. If you have to favor good decisions with tax breaks or other benefits, then the culture is already dying. When the strongest reason for good behavior is government largesse, then you corrupt the reason for desiring good behavior and it becomes instead of being good, it just becomes socially proper.

Identifying the parents of children is important, and it is perfectly legitimate for the government to recognize who the mother and father of a child are. There is no need to have a marriage to do this.

So if you want to start a church and call yourself married in that church, go for it. Who cares? If you're happy and no one gets hurt then why should anyone stop it? Nobody legitimately cares about bigamists or philanderers either. Ain't nobody's business.

But instead, the homosexual political lobby is attacking the rest of us. They aren't satisfied with identifying someone as their partner/spouse/whatever, they want to make the rest of us care about it. They want the government to bless their conjoining whether we care or not.

Clearly, this is all another example of less government being better. The whole issue was created by the government stepping in and telling us that homosexuality was impermissable. Sure, it's wrong by definition, but so is being a cripple and we don't make laws against that, do we? The busybodies made a law that puts the government in places it clearly shouldn't be, and the resultant political argument for homosexual restraint laws is falling under its own weight. It caused political discussion that wouldn't exist otherwise, and the result is not the abolition of these laws, but the drive to use more laws to inflict a political agenda from the other direction. It appears that two wrongs are trying to be made right.

But discussing this isn't allowed. Discussing this means you're a bigot.

Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200   Send me your two cents
|