Yesterday, I tweeted a link to a homophobic blog post with the comment ‘Logic #FAIL’. This upset the blogger in question. You see, he is convinced he is not bigoted or homophobic in any way; indeed he gets quite hurt at the accusation. I am sure he is being honest about this.
I am also sure he is quite wrong. Just as wrong as those people who accused Rebecca Watson of over-reacting in #elevatorgate For those who didn’t follow that incident: some insensitive idiots condemned an intelligent woman as a hysterical bitch – or worse – for saying, after having been invited for ‘coffee’ in someone’s hotel room in an hotel elevator at 4 am, “Please don’t do that guys, it’s scary and oppressive”.
In essence, he says: “I’m not homophobic, but…” – and I quote verbatim – “Gay rights—no.”
Run that one past me again? You’re not homophobic in any way, yet you would deny gay people basic human rights?
Here’s another gem:
And since I have identified myself philosophically as a conservative Catholic (though not spiritually, as I do not believe in God), a lot of people took my objection to gay rights to mean that I was some close-minded Bible-thumping bigot who hates all gays for the mere fact of being gay.
I am torn between my bemusement at the declaration that he is a right-wing Catholic atheist and the assumption that since he’s not religious he can’t be a closed-minded bigot. Scientists will love the ignorant condescension of the next part:
I don’t have an issue with homosexuals or homosexuality. My own sense—which seems to be confirmed by science—is that homosexuality is an inborn predisposition, no different than, say, alcoholism or left-handedness: There isn’t much a person born with the characteristic can do about it.
Predisposition? You’re mixing up two totally different things here. Alcoholism is recognised as a disease, and you may indeed be born with a predisposition to it, just as you may be predisposed to develop cancer. It may or may not actually develop in later life. Being gay or left-handed isn’t a predisposition, you are born gay or left-handed, just as you may be born to have brown hair, or blue eyes. It isn’t something that may or may not develop later: it’s there all along.
Those with an inborn predisposition—any inborn predisposition—can choose to not carry out the urgings of their predisposition: That is, they can choose to repress their predisposition.
Are we talking ex-gay ‘therapy’ here? Because repressing who you really are causes all sorts of mental health problems. Being gay is not a choice. You did not choose to be heterosexual, others do not choose to be gay. You can choose to try and understand people better, so as not to pass for an insensitive prick, though. Just saying.
Alcoholics go to AA meetings precisely so as to repress the urge of their predisposition to drink themselves to death; my grandmother (born a lefty) had her left hand tied to her belt when she was taught to write in the 1930’s.
Forcing left-handed people to use their right hands is now recognised as cruel. Or are you against southpaw rights too? As for comparing left-handedness with alcoholism, that is not only stupid but insulting to all concerned. You really haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
Anyway, let’s skip to the really funny part. Here are two mutually exclusive statements, again lifted verbatim – no, seriously, go check it out via that link at the start of this post – which follow each other in the text:
I think it’s wrong to discriminate against homosexuals qua homosexuals.
But what I am saying is that homosexuals should not receive certain privileges that society has deemed befit some citizens and not others.
That’s what discrimination is, son. I thought the USA was supposed to be the land of equal rights for all, not a land of privilege for some. Look, Gonzalo, I want you to do a little exercise: replace the word ‘homosexuals’ in that second sentence with: ‘women’, ‘Jews’, ‘Latins’, ‘Asians, ‘blacks’, ‘left-handed people’.
Now do you understand how offensive and homophobic your remarks are?
So, to get to the point, why does our friend Gonzalo Lira believe gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry? All the while conflating religious and civil marriage, he tub-thumps:
What is the point of marriage? In other words, why does marriage—as an institution and as a social construct—exist?
Simple: Protection—for the woman, and for the children that she bears.
Yes, I might have known there’d be some good old-fashioned anti-feminism in there. In my experience, men who object to gay rights also treat women badly, although they’re too dumb (charitable interpretation) to realise it.
I’m just going to run through the assumptions very quickly, because I have a splitting headache and this idiocy isn’t helping:
- Assumption 1: LGBT people don’t have children
- Wrong. We quite often have children, sometimes adopted, but frequently natural. Not all by AI, either.
- Assumption 2: Having children is the sole reason for marriage
- Wrong. That is often the far-right religious viewpoint, but it is not the reasoning behind civil marriage. While spousal infertility may once have been valid grounds for divorce before the separation of church and State, this is no longer the case, and anyway that luxury was only permitted to the wealthy and powerful. Mutual assistance (not just “protection for the woman” but for both partners) is the primary reason.
- Assumption 3: Marriage is not a “right”, much less a “human right”
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, para. 16, says otherwise.
Afterwards he goes on some wibbling rampage about a wife’s duty to be faithful and bear her husband children, while curiously ignoring a husband’s duty to keep it in his pants. Then we get some unsupported assertions that gays cost society more, some statistics quoted out of context, and voilà! A conclusion that owes nothing to facts or logic.
Link acquired ‘via Blog this’