Posted on | December 16, 2013 | 69 Comments
A good friend, who spent many years as an active lesbian, but then met and married a man, becoming a Christian wife and mother, absolutely hates the word “homophobia.”
The implied psychiatric diagnosis — that the person so labeled has an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals — is absurd, and can probably be best understood as an act of revenge: Whereas the psychiatric community for decades categorized homosexuality as a mental illness, now gay activists seek payback by accusing heterosexuals of being in the throes of an abnormal psychological reaction.
Hustle me no hustles and scam me no scams.
Only people with an idolatrous reverence for the ideological abstraction of “equality” — people willing to discard common sense and ignore plain facts of real life — could be fooled by this humbug. I don’t care if public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans are the kind of total chumps who are the natural prey of Nigerian scam spammers, you’re not going to run that kind of flimsy con on me.
Exactly who are the “experts” delivering these categorical diagnoses? What are their credentials? What is the basis of their authority to declare the most venerable traditions of Anglo-American law and Judeo-Christian morality a species of madness?
To wit: Who the fuck is Mark Joseph Stern?
Can a person oppose equal rights for gay people and not be, in some fundamental way, a homophobe? The answer seems to me to be a pretty obvious no. Opposition to gay marriage isn’t just some abstract principle with little practical effect. It’s a harmful belief with real-world consequences, and it has contributed immeasurable pain, sorrow, and suffering to the lives of gay people throughout history.
Hyperbole much? Stern blames the “suffering . . . of gay people throughout history” on opponents of a policy that had few if any advocates until the past couple of decades.
Of course, during most of human history (and for many millions of people even today), our entire Western notion of democratic “rights” had no meaning. But one can generally endorse the idea of democracy and the concept of individual rights without embracing the radical egalitarian mania to which Stern has evidently succumbed.
Men and women are fundamentally different. Therefore, the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality cannot be wished away, as if it were irrelevant and, indeed, one might observe that male and female homosexuals are at least as different from each other as either of them are from heterosexuals. In fact, the “born that way” claims of biological determinism for homosexuality (employed as the premise of making homosexuality analogous to race, in terms of civil rights law) would seem to directly contradict the claims of feminists that the inherent biological differences between male and female are meaningless.
So which is it, egalitarians? Would you have us accept the biology-means-nothing argument for androgynous sexual equality, or would you have us accept the biology-is-everything argument that gay people are born with same-sex attraction? Perhaps you can reconcile the two claims, but forgive my street-smart skeptical hunch that you’re just being disingenuously opportunistic.
People need to wise up to these intellectual scams, and not let themselves be bamboozled by egalitarian con artists.