scigirl

With this post, I intend to show that certain Christians (whom I have re-defined as homobigots) practice discrimination for each of their common anti-homosexual arguments. This is kind of an extension of my debate with GeoTheo entitled Does Christianity promote gay and lesbian bigotry?

Why do I think these particular Christians are bigoted? Because the reasons that the homobigots give for supporting a constitutional ban banning gay marriage are inconsistently applied to humans and situations. Since we are talking about a constitutional amendment, then their reasons must be logically evaluated in the context of the entire society, right? So let’s do it.

1) “Homosexuality isn’t natural.”

A false argument for sure, with any variety of definitions of “natural.” But regardless of that point – I think it’s time we force the homobigots to pick a definition, and then look to see what other behaviors are unnatural according to their definition. Then ask them why these behaviors aren’t up for a constitutional ban. Is building churches natural? Is taking medication for blood pressure natural? Is sending troops to war over in Iraq natural?

If the homobigots can’t come up with a definition of “natural” that somehow magically explains why only gay marriage should be banned (out of all the myriad human behaviors that aren’t going to be natural according to their own definition), then they are practicing bigoted behavior.

1.5) "Homosexuality isn’t biologically natural."

A subset of the above point. Again you have to force them to define “biologically natural.” We all know about the homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. How about in the human kingdom? Let’s say they talk about how gays just aren’t “built” for each other. Then you can show them data that as we age, sex becomes more and more unnatural. Anatomically and physiologically, gay sex is more “natural” than sex between very old people. A young gay man can usually desire sex, then get and sustain an erection, then ejaculate. Many older men cannot do one or more of these things (whether he’s gay, straight, etc). A young lesbian can usually desire sex, secrete lubrication, and have an orgasm. Many older women cannot do one or more of these things.

Again, if the homobigots can’t come up with a biological or physiological definition of “unnatural sex” that includes gays yet excludes the heterosexual married elderly Christians, than once again they are practicing discrimination.

2) “Homosexuals can’t produce offspring.”

Again, not true. But more to the point – sterile men and women can’t produce offspring either. In fact, a gay person could still be “saved” and then biologically produce offspring (or just produce them while remaining gay). A sterile male or female, barring any new developments in modern medicine, will remain sterile forever. Also, after a certain age, all women and men become sterile.

So by their own line of reasoning, the homophobes should be adding a constitutional amendment that says older men and women should not get married, and if they are married, should get a divorce. Why aren’t they doing that? Because they are, once again, inconsistently applying the reason to fit their bigotry.

3) “Homosexuality spreads disease.”

Hmm, you would think that if preventing disease is actually the reason why homobigots are attempting to ban gay marriage, then they would also be banning smoking and over-eating. The top three causes of death in America are, in order, heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Therefore the three most risky behaviors in America are, in order, obesity, smoking, and obesity. But – obese smokers can eat, smoke, and of course get married. Why is that?

Why aren’t the homophobes railing to get a constitutional amendment to ban one or more of these activities, if it is truly the public safety they are concerned about? In unison everybody, it’s because they are “bigots” and their opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with the public health or safety of America.

In terms of just looking at sexual disease, lesbians have the safest sex among the three groups that are having sex (gay men, heterosexuals, and gay women). Less disease transmission, and guess what – lesbians never have abortions! So it makes you wonder again how committed the homophobes are to keeping society disease-free, since they promote heterosexual sex over lesbian sex. They should be promoting, in order, abstinence, THEN lesbian sex, THEN hetero/gay sex. Why aren’t they doing that?
Could it be, they are. . . . bigoted?

4) "Gay sex is gross, disgusting, etc."

So is thinking about 80 year old men getting it on with grandma. Makes you wonder again – why aren’t the homophobes supporting a constitutional amendment to ban old people from having sex? Isn’t that just as gross? I mean honestly, you find me *anyone* who would rather see a 98 year old man and woman going at it – sags and all – than watch two hot lesbians kissing, and I’ll delete this point from the list.

5) Gay marriages aren’t recognized by the church, so they shouldn’t be recognized by the state.

Well, most marriages between heterosexuals aren’t recognized by some church or another. Atheist or pagan marriages aren’t ordained by a church. Yet these marriages still get all the rights/privileges/benefits from the secular government that a Baptist marriage does. So the homobigots have two choices here:

a) They need to amend their amendment to ban all marriages not recognized by (their particular) church and thus basically admit to wanting a theocracy, and wanting to dump the 1st amendment to the constitution( and one of the principles our country was founded on) in the toilet, or
b) They must admit to inconsistently applying their logic to gays and lesbians, which is of course. . . bigotry.

5) "The Bible says so."

Well yes it (sort of) does. However, I find that homobigots will selectively quote the Bible to condemn homosexuality, or quote the Bible without understanding the history or the context of the quote. For instance, they ignore other laws outright (shellfish for example), with a very sketchy (or non-existent) justification for doing so. Jesus, for example, ignored some of the laws, such as the Sabbath. But He also followed many other portions of the law. He never said, “It’s ok to eat at Red Lobster but you should still harass gay people.” So why are homobigots doing just that?

I like what Jimmy Carter had to say on this issue: “If a homosexual was demonstrating the essence of Christianity, I would not object to the individual being ordained,” Carter said in an interview with Baptist Press. “Adultery is a more serious sin than homosexuality... Homosexuals have a perfect right to profess to be Christians, accept Christ as Savior, and I wouldn’t have a problem if they worshiped side by side with me,” Carter said. “Jesus never singled out homosexuals to be condemned. When the Southern Baptist Convention started singling out homosexuals as a special form or degree of sinfulness, I didn’t agree with it.”

Carter is correct - Jesus himself didn’t say much about the issue, yet He sure babbled about a lot of other stuff. Makes you wonder why. Again, if the homobigots want to use the Bible as a reason for instituting constitutional laws, than they should either do it all the way to be consistent (once again admitting they want a theocracy and don’t give a shit about the 1st amendment and freedom of religion), OR they must admit to being bigoted.

scigirl

meritocrat

I reckon a person has a right to be homophobic but that 'right' is limited to respecting the rights of the group s/he hates.

Loren Pechtel

I'm sure there's a homophobe out there that would object less to othe 98 year old's.

keyser_soze

Can we guess who they are? Cause, I mean...I know at least two right off the bat.

Jewel

The thought of my parents getting it on is pretty gross. I say all parents should be banned from being married or having sex.

Donnmathan

Meritocrat - "My right to throw a punch ends where your nose begins," eh? Problem is, some people have no qualms publicly expressing opinions that are just as hurtful as that punch.

abe smith

A day or two ago, "the Vatican". that Platonist NON-entity, issued an instruction (Title too damn long to quote) telling politicians esp "Catholic" politicians *not* to support same-sex (legal) marriages, nor any other forms of civil justice for homosexual persons. [Surely the full text is in the NYTimes of about Aug1st or so. Queen, give us a ref?}
This screed, written by Josef Cardinal Ratsinger , head of the whatchamacallit for the thingy of the Faith ("CDF"), is said to have been & no-doubt was read & approved by John Paul 2.
I'd like to recommend that EyeEye members to read this uh, emission, as an example of the sort of bigotry and bullshit the bosses of the "roman catholic" SECT produce to justify their "position".
I was particularly impresst by Ratsinger's hysterical assertion that permitting same-sex marriages and same-sex couples's adoptions will increase the hazard of INCEST! This guy is really scraping the bottom of the bullshit barrel for arguments here.
Incest has always been documented (or hidden-away) in the context of HETEROSEXUALITY; the major incidence of incest and of incestuously-produced progeny has always been that between biological fathers, (or else the mother's boyfriends}, and the males's daughters.
There are innumerably-MORE heterosexual parents than there are, or will-be, homosexual parents; and the proportion of heterosexual-family incest must far outweigh, if not overwhelm all
(virtually-unstatisticked) homosexual-family's incest.
J. Ratsinger HAS to know he's MAKING THAT SHIT UP!
And if he's serious about preventing the incestuous exploitation of defenceless children (He, that nominally-virgin celibate never-fucking prelate who's never been ANYone's parent!), he'd damned-well better set-about abolishing the HETEROSEXUAL family structures in which the majority of incests take place. And abolishing the roman-catholic priesthood who molest & rape male & female children. This stuff is public FACT.
Is this guy so blinking STUPID that he thinks ANYone is going to buy his shit-helden argument?
Notice what the (US) politicians are responding to this piece of roman-catholic hierarchal anti-homosexual garbage. That would-be Kennedy clone, John Kerry, professes to love (his)"the Church", but says he will exercise his conscience about such matters.... The others are pretending not to notice the Pope's commands & proscriptions.
Watch, watch! & see what happens! We know, have seen what effect the Papacy's proscriptive fulminations have had about Catholics's abortion and contraceptive and divorce practices! US Catholics behave just like Non-Catholics when the chips are down. They do exactly as they please.
And that dumb consummate politician the incumbent President of the US is dancing like a cockroach on a hot griddle waiting to see what the Public Who Matter to his getting another term are going to decide about all this. He doesn't DARE know what he thinks.
Do the American people realize that GWBush's OPINIONs don't matter a fuck? because he's neither a legislator nor a judge?
I apologize for my unseemly hysterics about all-this.... It's driving me crazy.

Calzaer

The proper response to that is: "What are you doing?? Why are you pressing your eating oriface against that woman's eating oriface! And you're sticking your taste sensory organ into her eating oriface?? That's not what those things were built for! DISGUSTING!"

dk

scigirl: Your idea to set definitions is a good one.
dk: I agree it’s a good idea, but perhaps we should take these definitions one by one, so we can understand one another.
scigirl: What is meant by Christianity? Well that could be a debate all by itself, couldn't it? For the purposes of this discussion, I am calling "Christians" the broad category of all people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God and choose to worship him. Also, a "Christian Church" is another important definition, which I define as an organized group of Christians designed to do things such as worship, and get involved in the community, and are led by a leader or leaders who have some control over the Church's actions or statements. Also, Churches are exempt from some anti-discrimination laws. I distinguish the two because I believe that Christians are rarely acting as a "lone gunman" when they carry out acts of discrimination - they have financial and social backing from their Church.
dk: First Christians have been the focus of government oppression from the beginning. For example, the Roman Republic fed Christians to the lions for the pleasure and entertainment at Coliseums before cheering crowds that would be the envy of many professional city sponsored teams. . While some in the Gay Rights Movement might write this off as good clean fun, no harm no foul, most people would recognize Christians have fought against oppression, and generally the Christian tradition cultivates and inspires great empathy for the oppressed, especially the poor. Second it may surprise you to know but the overwhelming majority of Christian Churches are supported by their members, not visa versa. Even the besieged Catholic schools system was built by poor immigrants, most of which didn’t speak a word of English gave their money to the Church to build schools. Imagine a world where parents to poor to put shoes on their kids feet built churches and schools to escape poverty and oppression. Sadly the history has been lost on a modern secular public school system where secular politicians, judges, social engineers and educrats brag, “You can buy a better education America, but nowhere in the world does anyone pay more”? Oddly enough, most of these ethnic neighborhoods that were made into good homes and neighborhoods by European castoffs were demolished to build secular universities, secular public schools, superhighways, railroads, ghettoes in the sky, subways, bridges and infrastructure under higher municipal authorities. Even today, some of the most historically significant architectural buildings in America are being destroyed by a secular society simply because they were Churches. Go figure, but your egotistical rendition of what it means to be a Christian doesn’t scratch the surface.

Theli

I might be wrong about this, but isn't saying that homophobes wants to ban homosexuality the same as saying that arachnophobes want all spiders to be exterminated?

Challenging one form of bigotry by commiting another, not the best way to go...