Reading the comments section of a newspaper the other day, I was reminded of another popular pseudo-argument that homophobes throw about, without realizing how stupid they sound. It's very similar to the "Being gay is unnatural" rubbish, and the reasoning for why it's so ridiculous is similar too, but I felt I needed to raise it.
"No other animals have same-gender sex, so why should people?"
The first reason it's so flawed is that it is totally wrong: List of Animals Displaying Homosexual Behaviour
"Homosexual behaviour has been observed in close to 1500 species, and is well documented in 500 of them."
Secondly, humans are a species of animal. Every animal is different, and a lot have unique traits which aren't shared by any other animals. Praying mantis females eat the male's head after sex, starfish have no brain, dolphin calves and their mothers don't sleep at all for months when the calf is first born. These are all unique traits, and are in no way wrong because of that. Even if homosexuality was peculiar to humans, it would simply be a unique homo sapiens trait. One of many:
Lastly, humans are very different to other animals, and we have a lot of unique qualities. Civilization, advanced language, and consciousness to name a few.
If you're going to suggest that being gay is wrong because no other animals do it, then everything else we do that is unique to us is wrong too.
The only way you can stand by that argument and not look like a complete fool is to give up everything else that separates humans from animals.
Showing posts with label pro-gay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro-gay. Show all posts
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
"Gay is unnatural" is a redundant comment
A lot of anti-gay types will make this statement: "Homosexuality is unnatural." That's the entirety of their anti-gay argument. "Unnatural". I'm not going to talk about about whether or not that's true (its not); but rather demonstrating why it really is irrelevant to the greater issue of gay rights, and why homophobes who use it need to at least come up with something a bit more original.
Lets pretend for a moment that being gay is in fact a personal choice, or a product of environment; that its unnatural. By using this as a reason for why homosexuality is wrong, you're making the (incredibly bold) statement that "unnatural = bad". Very little of what we utilise on a daily basis is natural. Computers, calculators, abacuses; all are man-made. Video games, television, books; the majority of our entertainment is a result of human ingenuity. Aeroplanes, cars, trains; any form of transport aside from walking is unnatural. Anything that makes use of a wheel is not in tune with nature. All of these unnatural developments have contributed so much to our society, that any typical modern person would be at a complete and utter loss without the effects of humans challenging nature. Thats just the tip of the iceberg of what fits into both the "unnatural" and "good/beneficial" categories.
And those are just products. Humanity as a whole is, by nature, selfish and competitive. At the very core, the basic primal goal of any creature, not just people, is to continue its existence. And yet, throughout history there have been countless examples of people going against this natural instinct and sacrificing themselves for the betterment of their peers. Often people who they have no connection with beyond sharing the same opinion on a matter. The aims of a movement supersede the natural instinct.
Of course, this is a direct result of humanity being granted, by nature, the blessing of sentience. However, if you're going to claim that this renders all of the above as being a result of nature, then you'd have to agree that any choice or social conditioning which leads to being gay is also resultant of nature.
By claiming that "unnatural = bad", you're also suggesting that "natural = good".
One only needs to look over the major news headlines of the last few years to see that this is completely false. Tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes; all of these are terrible occurrences as a result of nature (they're called "natural disasters" for a reason.)
And no one can argue that nature is exclusively bad, given that at the very least it provides the essential requirements for life; and a lot more on top of that.
Clearly, then, the naturalness of something has absolutely no influence on whether something is right or wrong; the only factor in that is the end result of the product, characteristic or behaviour in question.
From this, I think we can safely assume that anyone who pulls out the "gayness is against nature" statement (I refuse to call it an argument) is simply a bigot for the sake of bigotry, relying on empty clichés because they have no legitimate argument to back up their claim.
Lets pretend for a moment that being gay is in fact a personal choice, or a product of environment; that its unnatural. By using this as a reason for why homosexuality is wrong, you're making the (incredibly bold) statement that "unnatural = bad". Very little of what we utilise on a daily basis is natural. Computers, calculators, abacuses; all are man-made. Video games, television, books; the majority of our entertainment is a result of human ingenuity. Aeroplanes, cars, trains; any form of transport aside from walking is unnatural. Anything that makes use of a wheel is not in tune with nature. All of these unnatural developments have contributed so much to our society, that any typical modern person would be at a complete and utter loss without the effects of humans challenging nature. Thats just the tip of the iceberg of what fits into both the "unnatural" and "good/beneficial" categories.
And those are just products. Humanity as a whole is, by nature, selfish and competitive. At the very core, the basic primal goal of any creature, not just people, is to continue its existence. And yet, throughout history there have been countless examples of people going against this natural instinct and sacrificing themselves for the betterment of their peers. Often people who they have no connection with beyond sharing the same opinion on a matter. The aims of a movement supersede the natural instinct.
Of course, this is a direct result of humanity being granted, by nature, the blessing of sentience. However, if you're going to claim that this renders all of the above as being a result of nature, then you'd have to agree that any choice or social conditioning which leads to being gay is also resultant of nature.
By claiming that "unnatural = bad", you're also suggesting that "natural = good".
One only needs to look over the major news headlines of the last few years to see that this is completely false. Tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes; all of these are terrible occurrences as a result of nature (they're called "natural disasters" for a reason.)
And no one can argue that nature is exclusively bad, given that at the very least it provides the essential requirements for life; and a lot more on top of that.
Clearly, then, the naturalness of something has absolutely no influence on whether something is right or wrong; the only factor in that is the end result of the product, characteristic or behaviour in question.
From this, I think we can safely assume that anyone who pulls out the "gayness is against nature" statement (I refuse to call it an argument) is simply a bigot for the sake of bigotry, relying on empty clichés because they have no legitimate argument to back up their claim.
Labels:
human rights,
pro-gay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)