Field of Science

The harm that homosexuality does

Times are slow here on Pleiotropy. I'm working on my thesis, which leaves little time for blogging. Except, today a post on this blog named Undeception irked me enough to respond thus:
"No one seems to want to address the fact that it is neither hateful nor boneheadedly intolerant for people to be distressed when someone they care about has embraced something they are convinced is harmful to that person, or when someone with influence over people they care about acts in a way that effectively legitimizes harmful behavior."
Maybe that's because it's trivial. Of course it is neither hateful nor intolerant to be distressed. But, being hateful and intolerant towards that person is.
"And when you seek to enlighten them and change their behavior, aren’t you doing exactly what they’re doing to homosexuals when they attempt to reform them?"
No, it is clearly not the same. Experience tells us that people who don't realize that their house really is on fire will nevertheless suffer the consequence soon enough. Homosexuals will not, if everyone else treats them with respect. Experience tells us that if it were not for religion and the shame and intolerance of other people, there would be no problem with being homosexual.
"But please think twice before assuming that every Christian opposed to homosexuality does so for prideful or otherwise nefarious reasons."
Perhaps not for nefarious reasons, but such Christians legitimize the nefariousness of those Christians who put emphasis on the text that says homosexuality is wrong, while they ignore the verses that say eating shellfish is an abomination.

Homosexuals don't actually DO anything to Christians, and that should be the bottom line. Christians, on the other hand, take their way of life and impose it on the rest of us. How many times have a homosexual knocked on your door? How many times have a missionary? How many invitations have you gotten to join a church? And how many to events where homosexuals tries to convert you?
Basically, my intent is to say that if I'm not harming you, for example by asking you to become gay, then please mind your own business. And, if you object that gays are harming you because God Hates Fags, then my counter is that religious people are harming me in a much more direct way that doesn't need to invoke the supernatural (i.e., nonexistent), but merely a reminder that religion interferes in the politics of this secular-by-name nation every single day. In a bad way, always (from my point of view).

1 comment:

  1. The first paragraph is true enough in it's own right, and I think it's fair that we remind ourselves at that from time to time when trying to discern the apparently inexplicable (to us) behavior of bigots. It's true that the boneheadedness is not so much in the attempt to convince loved ones of avoiding behavior the convincer thinks will be harmful; bur rather, the boneheadedness is in the mistaken belief that a harmless behavior is in fact harmful.

    If I had decided that olives gave a person AIDS, and I was always preaching to my olive-eating friends and family about how they needed to give up their Oleaceaen preferences lest they be punished... that would be really fucking boneheaded. But not because I was concerned for my friends' well-being per se, and that's worth remembering.

    In fact, I'll even go so far as to allow that homophobia only crosses the line from "boneheaded and immoral" to "hateful and intolerant" when you start trying to change the behavior of complete strangers and/or use the ballot box to deny equal rights to minorities.

    As far as the assumption that "every Christian opposed to homosexuality does so for prideful or otherwise nefarious reasons," sure. At the risk of falling prey to Godwin's Law, I'm sure not all people who supported the National Socialist party did so for racist or otherwise nefarious reasons. Doesn't make it right.

    But, both the first and third paragraph have a grain of something worth remembering. Many anti-gay bigots have arrived at that hateful and boneheadedly intolerant position with the best of intentions. That doesn't mean their positions deserve respect, but it's useful to remember their intentions when trying to change hearts and minds.

    The second paragraph is just stupid all around, though. Is the author seriously trying to equivocate "Stop telling me what to do in the privacy of my own home!" with "Stop doing that in the privacy of your own home!"?!? Now that's boneheaded!


Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="">FoS</a> = FoS