ReservoirAngel said:
Really, their entire argument comes from the misguided notion that outside influences can suddenly turn people gay. It's a position built on ignorance and stupidity and it really needs to fuck off.
Crono1973 said:
The Rogue Wolf said:
I'm reminded about a particular story I read in an online comment somewhere, about a young man who'd gotten tired of his father's homophobic rants about gays "recruiting" children.
"Dad, you must think that gay sex is the best thing ever."
"What? Why do you say that?"
"Because you seem to think that once someone tries it, they never go back!"
I think, deep down, these homophobes are terrified that their children will realize how narrow their views are and reject them utterly, so anything that could possibly shed light on the truth must be destroyed.
Let me ask you something, if you insult people who don't approve of homosexuality, how can you be on a higher ground?
See if you can figure out the difference here:
I insult people because of an attitude they have, things they do and stuff they say that is outwardly hostile and antagonistic.
They insult me because of an inherent part of my identity that harms nobody.
You see? That's the distinction between the two.
While I agree that the OMM and other Christian fundamentalist groups are bigots, I think this is because they think that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong/sinful.
Now here's where I endanger myself by trying to make a subtle distinction on the interwebs:
I don't think that wanting your children not to be gay makes you a bigot. In fact, I think you can both not want your children to be gay, and at the same time not have a problem with gay people in general.
Here's why:
1) Generally speaking, people have (at least an implicit) desire to pass on their genes. (For the sake of my argument I am only concerned with whether these people are
bigots. It may well be the case that their position is morally wrong for other reasons (i.e., they are selfish/ treating their children as a means and not an end).)
2) There are some reasons to suspect that homosexual people have a harder time passing on their genes than heterosexual people.
2.1) Now in-vitro fertilization can allow homosexual couples to pass on their genes, but even then, it's generally only one person who gets to pass on their genes at a time. Overall, I think it's relatively safe to say that homosexual couples are more likely to adopt (at least until the medical procedures such as in vitro fertilization and the like become more accessible).
2.2) Furthermore, while homosexuality certainly isn't a choice that someone makes overnight, it must have some sort of developmental component to it.
2.2.1) The selective pressure against a homosexual gene that operates by basic Mendelian principles (i.e. 2 recessive alleles strictly determines the phenotype regardless of developmental conditions) would just be far too strong to account for the prevalence of it in society. Now, you could make an argument that there would be a group-selective pressure for homosexuality as a means of population control. However, not only are there are problems with group selection in general (its mechanisms are far more complicated than normal selection), but for this type of selection to work the trait would have to only present itself in conditions of overpopulation. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is more prevalent in higher populations, (but that doesn't prove anything except my own ignorance of statistics). Even putting that aside, the real problem with this is that it would still require a developmental aspect to the genes (e.g. perhaps when mothers are exposed to stresses related overpopulation they release a hormone during pregnancy or breast-feeding that triggers the gene).
2.3) (From 2.2): Given the fact that there seems to be some sort of developmental aspect to homosexuality, there seems to be at least some reason to entertain the possibility that homosexual parents have a greater probability of producing homosexual children than in a normal household because some of the developmental factors might be cultural. (Though this is hardly a definitive conclusion.)
2) (
Conclusion from 2.1, 2.3): When you combine the possibility that homosexual parents might be more likely to adopt (due to sheer logistical problems) and that they might be more likely to produce homosexual children who may face the same difficulties, it might give some reason to suspect that homosexuals are less likely to pass on their genes.
3) It is unfair to automatically call people bigots for simply considering #2 a possibility. The facts are the facts. It is perfectly consistent to hold 2 as a mere matter of factual possibility and at the same time not hold that there is anything wrong with homosexual parents (i.e. if you don't think homosexuality is wrong).
Conclusion: While the reasons I outlined in 2 may not be very strong, I think it at least shows that people can worry about their children being homosexual if they're concerned about passing on their genes. I don't think this necessarily makes them bigots because their worry isn't that their children will be sinful or bad people, but that their heritage might be less likely to be passed down to future generations.
(I'm not sure if there's any truth to point #2, but there probably isn't much of a way of disproving it right now statistically, considering how homosexual households are relatively new. There just isn't enough data.)
The OMM are pretty clearly bigots, and they don't have a very good argument. However, I can at least kind of see why some people might be uneasy about exposing their children to homosexuality in the media. Not because they think it promotes an immoral lifestyle choice, but because it might have a unfavorable developmental effect on their children. But ultimately it's up to them to control what their kids are and are not exposed to.
As to whether it is wrong to want to see your genes passed on... that's a different argument entirely...
