Apparently I only feel the need to write blog posts on the subject of homosexual rights/marriage... I swear I think about other things. Just yesterday I was imagining what it would be like to be in the middle ages with the knowledge and technology of today, because it would be awesome. I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to house thousands of refugees in homes which are comfortable, durable, and desalinate sea water using the sun, because I care about shit like that. But this is about the gays. Some guy sent me a message on facebook, because he noticed I'd been posting about this whole homosexuality thing, and felt he needed to set me straight about how homosexuality actually isn't "natural" to which I felt
"
You throw a stone of an argument about how
homosexuality is "unnatural" I won't stop at breaking it down to pebbles
by pointing out the many species IN NATURE that exhibit it, no I'll
pull out every genetic, biological, evolutionary, sociological, and just
plain logical weapon in my thoroughly overcrowded arsenal and break
that shit down to CLAY, and then mold it into a sculpture of your
blighted understanding and cram it up
through your overly tight sphincter until it lodges in your lymph nodes
in the hope that it can serve to filter your inane vitriol before it
spreads too far and pollutes the progressive air this country is finally
starting to breath you ass backwards, high school genetics toting,
pseudo-logical, fallacy spewing half-wit.
"
And so I did. Here's his part of the conversation. And yeah, I'm including his name because fuck him.
Jeremy Dueck
Jeff,
I noticed you writing a LOT about homosexuality---you seem to have a
lot of time on your hands... I don't have a lot of time so this will be
short and we'll take religion out of the argument for once. Do us all a
favor, and stop telling people that you know homosexuality is natural
when you have no evidence either. Physically speaking the acts of gay
men and women go against nature. Take all the gay people of the world
and put them on an island... no outside contact... they will all be gone
in one generation. Mother nature doesn't even accept homosexuality. Its
true and there is no good argument against that. Some studies in
pedophiles also suggest a difference in brain function... but it doesn't
make it right. Now if you want to go further you can talk about
genetics. If even 80% of the people were gay at one point thousands of
years ago, they would pass on genetic traits that would end with each
truly gay couple right? Just like blue eyes get passed along because
being gay is a physical trait right? Two parents pass on specific traits
but if both gay parents don't pass along any genes (or even if SOME
have kids heterosexually and pass along some genes), you have a
diminishing level of homosexual genetics. Oh and since homosexuality
rises and falls with different nations prosperity levels... don't let
that sway you either. The reality is this, you are trying to be fair,
and courteous to others, I understand this. But its a weak viewpoint and
you're wrong when you use common sense and reason.
And my, considerably longer (sorry Time Crunch Jeremy, but while vitriolic nothing speech can be whipped of in 144 characters, straightening out your bullshit with actual facts takes a bit more time) retort.
I'll take this point by point.
Natural=exists in nature
homosexuality
does. Many animals exhibit it to various degrees (exclusive throughout
life and circumstances, dependent upon age, open to either sex, so on an
so forth)
If you put a bunch of sterile/infertile people on an
island, or a bunch of asexual people, or a bunch of truly devout
catholic priests and nuns, all will be gone within a generation, these
people are not considered unnatural, or immoral, or icky
In fact, I'd
bet that if you put a bunch of gay and lesbian people on an island,
barring the effects of starvation, thirst, disease, insects, and lord of
the flies style internal warfare, they would breed and continue and
it... Would .... BE.......... FABULOUS!!!!!!!!
because here's the
thing, homosexuality falls on a spectrum, or rather, marks one end of a
spectrum (though in reality it's not just a bar, but we can simplify it
to that for the purposes of this conversation) with heterosexuality
falling at the other end. People fall at various points along this
spectrum, typically however only those at the very gay end identify as
gay, and people in the middle rarely identify as bi, because there is so
much pressure to fall into the "traditional" sexual identity, so if you
CAN be attracted to the other sex, you tend to identify as
heterosexual. However many studies have shown that heterosexuals of both
sexes often have homosexual encounters, fantasies, and desires. The
point of all this is that on your hypothetical island you would have
some people who were attracted to some of the opposite sex members, and
then you'd have people who are just willing to have a slightly awkward
foursome in order to have children because yes, just like straight
people, some gay people have the urge to raise children, and just like
straight people, sometimes they do an excellent job, sometimes not.
Please change your thinking to include a non binary sexual identity. I
personally identify as straight, yet I have had crushes on men, and have
seriously considered acting on them, yet most of my crushes, and all of
my experiences have been with women. I am a living breathing example of
the non-binary nature of sexuality. I'd bet even you have felt
attracted to men before, though I very much doubt you'd even be able to
consciously recognize the feelings.
Ah yes, the "gays are like
pedophiles" argument. Guess what, pedophiles are natural too, and some
at least or biologically created. What they do is immoral by the
application of most any ethical philosophy. Their actions cause harm to
others, they infringe upon the rights of children. They are raping,
because a child cannot give consent, we have chosen to set limits on how
old you have to be to give consent for many contracts, because we
recognize that underdeveloped brains can't make fully rational and fair
judgements, and that there are inherent power disparities between nearly
all adults and nearly all children. None of that exists with (legal)
homosexual acts. The participants are willing, adult, fully cognitive
individuals who are unlikely to experience any damage physical or
psychological due to the act (assuming it's done safely, just like
hetero-sex). So there's that licked.
Oh yes, and genetics. My
parents both had blue eyes, I've got hazel eyes, according to the
simplistic model many of us learned in school at some point this means
my mom cheated, because two blue eyed people (blue eyes being
regressive) must produce a blue eyed child. Of course, eye color is
effected by several genes, and possibly other factors, so we get much
more complex genetics. Homosexuality is biological, it is PROBABLY
partly genetic as well. The difference is that biological means that
there are identifiable differences at the physical level, different
hormone levels, different finger lengths, other little markers. These
could be related to genetics, yet they are almost certainly effected by
the intra-uterine environment. The chemical cocktail a mother feeds to
her fetus effects the biology of the child. The more older brothers you
have, the more likely you are to have homosexual impulses (if you're
male). This has been shown with several studies, and it is suggested
that this is an evolutionary mechanism meant to limit conflict between
brothers in tribal societies where an overabundance of unattached men
had the severe downside of murder and civil war. Evidence of a partial
genetic cause of homosexuality is based on studying identical twins vs
fraternal twins, with the assumption that apart from the genetic
difference, fraternal twins and identical twins would have the same
shared experiences both in the womb and in their lives. Identical twins
are more likely to share their twins sexual preference than fraternal,
but from what I've read this is still a somewhat unclear relationship.
The point is that genes are complex, they can float around for
generation and then come together in some novel way to throw up someone
who looks like no one else in the family except for an old engraving of
someones great great grandfather, who he resembles near precisely. Don't
assume you can make some simple gay+gay=gay, straight+straight=straight
comparison, it's far FAR more complex than that, partly because there
are many different factors ranging from genetics to BAC which can effect
someones sexual identity, and partly because sexual identity is both a
gradient, and fluid throughout life (it is statistically possible for a
guy who has always been straight, in every way, at all times, never a
single thought of men, to meet a guy who he ultimately falls in love
with. That guy might be the only many in the entire world who the first
guy is "gay" for, but there it is. That could happen, it's just
unlikely.)
I doubt homosexuality rises or falls with a nations
prosperity. I suspect openness about homosexuality rises and falls with a
nations prosperity. This is because as nations get wealthier they get
less dogmatic and more accepting of difference. There's good reason for
this, in times of scarcity we look to our "tribes" the group of people
we most closely associate with, and consider all others to be outsiders
who are liable to be trying to take advantage of us, that IS genetic.
As scarcity falls so too does suspicion, and we come to accept those who
are different. Also the kind of society that accepts homosexuals tends
to attract creative types who, these days especially, drive economies
forward, increasing prosperity. That's why having homosexuals move to
town is really really good for that town. Look it up, that's economics.
I
am trying to be fair, actually no, I am being fair, and I'm also being
logical, and reasonable, and sensible. I'm also being accepting,
understanding, considerate, progressive, honest, ethical, and
exceedingly thorough.
If you're still with me i'd like to point something out. You never made any argument that could be considered "moral"
To recap
-first you said it was unnatural (not a moral statement)
-then you talked about the ability to reproduce (not a moral statement)
-Then
you compared homosexuality to pedophilia, but only to point out that
the same arguments for the "naturalness" of homosexuality could be made
about pedophilia. This is called the association fallacy, which often
can fool people into THINKING a moral claim has been made, when in fact
only a factual claim has been made. Your factual claim was correct but
it was (not a moral claim)
-Then you talked about genetics, which was mostly wrong, but also (not a moral claim)
-Then there was the odd comment about prosperity.
So
maybe you AREN'T trying to make a moral argument. So what if
homosexuality WERE unnatural? So's marriage (no other species marries,
hell, even the "monogamous" species cheat like crazy), oh and cars,
those are unnatural, charity beyond your immediate social circle, that's
unnatural. Lots of things we do are unnatural, lots of things we know
to be immoral ARE natural (rape, very natural, so's infantacide) so
WHAT'S YOUR FUCKING POINT?
No comments:
Post a Comment