I ran across a Christian bloggers article today that I thought was going to be reasonable or at least less homophobic than some Christian articles. I got that impression because of the title, which was: Pervasive and Pernicious Homophobia. I was a bit surprised to find a very lengthy article that tried very hard to justify religiously motivated hatred. I guess the author was angry over a church sign he saw, which you can see in the upper right hand corner of this article.
I’m not going to quote the whole article here, but I will address some of the main points the original author tried to make. If you’re reading this, I hope some of you will drop by his blog (given in the link above) and let him know some of your thoughts.
The first point he tries to make is this one:
The very term of homophobia has been presented in a deceptive manner. A term describing a natural and normal reaction to a dangerous and destructive behavioral pattern and choice has been repeatedly and endlessly presented as something to be abhorred and avoided. The natural reaction that people have to something that they instinctively perceive as dangerous and aberrant from the natural order of life has been presented as an irrational and unhealthy reaction.
Yet the facts of life remain unchanged. The facts of nature stand against all of the attempts to deny them.
This is just misinformation or outright lies.
For example, studies have shown that children raised by homosexual parents do just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents. As far as ‘facts’ go (which his entire article is lacking) there are over 1500 animal species that practice homosexuality, including some of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom:
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.
The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.
He also fails to mention that homosexual couples have a lower divorce rate than Christians. Explain that!
As for his personal reasons for his reaction to homosexuality, I’m betting that might have something to do with his upbringing, unwillingness to do research and inability to look past the dogma he’s been fed his entire life. It certainly isn’t factual or even remotely accurate.
He then says:
Imagine the reaction that would be observed from people if a father were known to teach his children that they need not to be afraid of sticking their hands under a running lawn mower. Imagine the public outcry that would result if a kindergarten teacher were known to teach the children that they should not be wary of the advancement of strangers. Yet these same teachers are now required to use curricula that teach the children to accept diversity and not to fear aberrant lifestyle choices, choices that do have undeniable dangers associated with them.
Yes, because two consenting adults who love each other is comparable to a child sticking their hand beneath a running lawn mower. This is the sort of misinformation and hysteria that allows some people to rationalize away their fear of homosexuality and their outright hatred of what they perceive as ‘being against their Gods will’.
For a while after that, the author rambles on with more justifications about how homosexuality is unnatural, a genetic aberration or some other deviant, evil behavior that is a choice.
But then we get to this:
Likewise, it is perfectly natural for a man and a woman to experience eros for one another, being attracted to one another sexually. This leads to reproduction of the human race. Philos and eros do naturally occur together in such a relationship. They are naturally paired in the sexual relationship of husband and wife. These two emotions lead to the union of husband and wife and the formation of a stable family. This is the natural order. This is called marriage.
Such a union or marriage cannot occur between two people of the same sex. Yet the homosexual agenda is to force the rest of society to deny this fact. The homosexual agenda seeks to use the law to force the rest of society to accept what is clearly unnatural and even impossible.
Using this type of twisted logic, heterosexual couples who are unable to have kids shouldn’t get married. Many Christians can’t get past the fact that marriage isn’t just about reproducing. In fact, the birth rate for North Americans is pretty low and some people (heterosexual or otherwise) don’t want to have kids. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to enjoy the rest of the benefits that come with marriage.
He then goes off to say that the American Red Cross and the United Blood Services don’t allow homosexuals to give blood because homosexuality is a danger to society in the STI department.
“The existing policy is archaic and discriminatory because it falsely assumes that all gay men are HIV-positive regardless of their sexual behavior. At the same time, it allows heterosexuals to donate blood even if they have participated in risky sexual or drug-use behavior,” says Martin Algaze, spokesman for Gay Men’s Health Crisis.
Safety of the blood supply is the first priority, agrees Doni Gewirtzman of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a legal-aid organization for gay people and people with AIDS. He suggests the current restrictions may be too tight on gays and too loose on promiscuous heterosexuals.
“Everyone is equally at risk for HIV infection. It’s about specific sexual behavior, not about sexual orientation,” says Tom Duane, a Democratic New York state senator who is both openly gay and HIV-positive.
He also failed to point out that North America-wide, this ban is being protested against and eventually, it will be overturned. In fact, some countries like Canada have already lifted the ban.
He then says:
First of all, notice the hypocrisy of this church judging others for what they themselves have and do promote, that is, the acceptance of divorce and remarriage. This church has long been known to undermine the concept of the sanctity of marriage, not only regarding the homosexual issue, but regarding promiscuity and divorce as well. So for this church to point fingers at those they have excused for marrying, divorcing, and remarrying in an endless cycle is the highest hypocrisy.
Oh, you mean the hypocrisy you’re displaying in your blog for the entire world to see. You’re judging homosexuals and anyone who doesn’t fit into your nice, neat concept of ‘family’. I applaud that church. I wish there were more of them, and less people who preached homophobia and hatred for minorities, such as homosexuals.
He then says:
It is not the Christian’s place to make oneself judge over others. It is, however, the Christian’s place to speak the truth in love.
You should try it then. Speak the truth. Tell people how homosexual couples make just as good parents as heterosexual parents. Tell people how many different animals on this planet practice homosexuality. Tell them that your ideas of what constitutes a ‘family’ is your ideas only, and that others can call you a homophobe for trying to spread those ideas as fact.
He then ends his piece with:
Rather, such people will embrace one another within the Holy Communion ordained by the Lord, calling to one another saying, “Let us return again to the Lord to partake of His grace through His ordained means that we may indeed enjoy His mercy, love, and holiness together.”
Well, if your idea of ‘embracing’ and ‘love’ is to bash on a minority, then I think I’ll pass. If your idea of ‘grace’ is to spread misinformation and preach against something that will have no effect on you or your family whatsoever, then I would beg to differ.
Why not just admit that you base your homophobia on ancient literature and stop trying to use twisted logic, ignorance or outright lies to somehow rationalize your position.