Why Homophobia Fails

What were my thoughts on the debate on homosexual marriage on Unbelievable? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently on Unbelievable?, host Justin Brierley had a debate on homosexual marriage between Peter Tatchell and Peter D. Williams. Tatchell has been a lifelong advocate of what he prefers to call “gay rights.” Peter D. Williams is an apologist who works with Catholic Voices. There will be a link to the program at the end.

To begin with, this is a debate I thought was an absolute trounce on the part of Williams. Williams knew the material that Tatchell was citing and what the problem was with it. Furthermore, Williams himself never appealed to Scripture to defend his case so it wasn’t just “The Bible says so.” (I have heard some apologists say they think homosexuality is wrong just because the Bible says so. I really don’t think this is the way to go. It’s not that X is true because the Bible says so. The Bible says X because it is true.)

I could tell the way the debate was going to go when right at the start Tatchell started talking about homophobia. Williams was right when he said that this is more often a way of shutting down debate. It becomes more about the motives of the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself.

Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that Williams really did have a hatred towards homosexuals and homosexuality. Let’s suppose that he was filled with nothing but vitriol towards them and thought that they were less than human in any sense of the word.

Question. Does that make his arguments against homosexual marriage wrong?

No. It just makes him a jerk. He could be entirely right in his opinion and entirely wrong in his attitude. It would not work against his argument to say that he was a jerk. You still have to deal with what is said and the claim about someone being homophobic does not do that.

Furthermore, let’s think about this. What does the term mean? Phobias are not funny things. They’re terrifying things. I have a phobia of water for instance. My wife and I honeymooned at Ocean Isle Beach and it took a lot for her to get me into the water. I got out into the ocean deeper than I ever had before. Most noteworthy was she got me into the pool about 5 feet deep and away from the edge.

There was a part of me that was inside screaming “My wife is trying to kill me!” while I was doing that, but the rational side of me was saying “My wife loves me and if anything does happen, she’s fully capable of saving me.” I did trust her. It took a lot, but I trusted her.

Now let’s suppose someone was walking by who saw this and said “Wow! Look at that! The little wimp is afraid of water!” Now some of you might think that fear is bizarre, but there would not be sympathy for someone who holds that kind of attitude. I can assure them they would need to pray for God to have mercy if my Mrs. had heard that because she sure wouldn’t.

Phobias are not terms you should use to mock or denigrate someone and yet that is exactly what the term homophobia is. It is the idea that the only reason Christians are against homosexuality is because they are afraid of it or homosexuals. Does that mean I have kleptophobia because I’m opposed to theft? Do I have nymphophobia if I am opposed to sex outside of marriage? Do I have homocidophobia if I am opposed to murder? Could it actually be that I might have moral reasons for objecting to homosexuality?

The next term Tatchell used regularly was discrimination. This is playing the victim card because who wants to be on the side of the discriminators. The reality is that we all do discriminate on various topics. We discriminate on who we’re friends with, who we do business with, who we marry, and who we have sit our kids.

The law itself discriminates. You have to be a certain age to drive. You have to be a certain age to vote. You have to be a certain age to drink alcohol. If you want to carry a gun, you have to show that you are qualified to do that. This is discrimination and it is good discrimination.

Williams made the point that Tatchell is not denied any right. He is wanting different rights. He’s correct. No one has the right to marry someone of the same sex. Instead, everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and even then there’s some discrimination, such as that you can’t marry a close family member.

Williams is also right when asking “Why not polygamy?” We could go further and ask “Why not NAMBLA?” or “Why not incest?” Now for polygamy Tatchell was of the opinion that no one would want that. He can say that, but I’m pretty sure the Mormon church here in America would certainly get a “new revelation” if polygamy became allowed.

One important aspect of the debate was that marriage sets a normative route for society that shows what is needed for the ideal raising of children. It doesn’t mean that all marriages have children or will have children, but it means that children are ideally raised by a mother and a father both. Of course, there are some tragedies that happen, such as the death of a spouse, that leave some single parents, and these can do very admirable jobs, but I am sure most would say it would be a whole lot easier if the other spouse was around.

The key point was in the idea of which sex it is that is not needed to raise a child. For me, this is the main point. Allowing homosexual marriage will be saying that men and women are really interchangeable. There is no difference between the two. Which sex will be the one to be cast aside? It’s very easy to tell you that. Fathers will be seen as superfluous.

Being a man means something. It matters. Being a woman means something. It matters. I am thankful God made me a man and when the Princess and I have children some day, as we hope to, I will be very pleased that I get to be a father and she gets to be the mother of my children and we will both play our essential roles in their proper raising.

Let’s hope the society in the U.K. recognizes what marriage really is, the union of a man and a woman, and let’s also hope that here in the states we do the same thing. For those of us who are married, let’s start living the joyful life of marriage for a watching world. The reason other people lessen marriage is because we did it ourselves in the first place.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The debate can be found here:

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid=45A7CC8B-2EE9-4394-B030-54C00AA7CA39

Advertisements

Tags: , , ,

21 Responses to “Why Homophobia Fails”

  1. Kevin Flanagan Says:

    But if everyone were to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex, there would be no special right. You fundamental understanding of homosexual relationships is severely lacking in reality. However, although I do not agree with, I respect your religious views as they pertain to homosexuality, but let’s not pretend it is a secular view. Thank you.

  2. frogwarrior Says:

    If homosexual marriage were legalized and its participants were given all the rights and priveleges of heterosexual spouses, there would still be discrimination. The government would be discriminating in favor of people living together who are having sex and have made a promise of commitment, and against people who are living together and not having sex or who have not made a legal commitment. Why should anyone get tax benefits for living together and having sex, and signing some paperwork?.

  3. J.T Says:

    The Government legislates morality all the time. Murder, theft, bestiality, polygamy etc. All the laws against these acts are ultimately based on the fact that they are morally wrong.

    So the real question is, is homosexuality moral or immoral?

    That is a question of worldviews. Neutrality is impossible as we all have worldviews, so the real question is, which does the Government choose to support?

    • Kevin Flanagan Says:

      Um—murder, theft and bestiality are transgressions perpetrated on victims. Homosexuality is not in the category. Divorce is immoral, however perfectly legal. As is adultery (which actually makes the top 10, as in commandments). Eating bacon is immoral to Jews. Homosexuality is only immoral within some religious context.

      • J.T Says:

        “murder, theft and bestiality are transgressions perpetrated on victims.”

        What makes Murder, Theft, and Bestiality a ‘transgression’? Because they harm another person or his property? Why is that a ‘transgression’? The question can’t be answered without appealing to some sort of moral statement. I.E “Harming others is wrong’. Thus, legislating against them is legislating morality.

        As such, my point stands. The government’s failure to legislate morality consistently is irrelevant.

        “Homosexuality is only immoral within some religious context.”

        And? Objective moral values exist. The fact that only ‘some’ religions condemn homosexuality says nothing about it’s true moral value either way.

  4. photo mannequin homme Says:

    photo mannequin homme…

    […]Why Homophobia Fails « Deeper Waters[…]…

  5. numerousloop Says:

    I was looking forward to Justin’s program, but immediately he mentioned the subject matter and the name of one of his two guests I switched off.

    Thanks
    JohnDM

  6. Simplexion Says:

    If you don’t appeal to scripture, what is your argument against homosexual marriage?

    It IS discrimination. It’s not playing a card to use that as an argument because that is exactly what it is. You are discriminating against a person because of who they are. It is completely unnecessary discrimination too.

    To say that a homosexual is not denied any right because they can still marry someone of the opposite sex is complete nonsense. You are denying someone the right to marry the person they love.

    Why not allow polygamy? If all adults involved are consenting, then why not? Why not allow incestuous marriage? If all adults involved are consenting, then why not?

    The fact that you then go to NAMBLA shows that you obviously can not grasp what this whole problem is about. Children cannot give consent. Just like marrying animals should not be allowed, because an animal cannot give consent.

    Marriage sets a normative route for society? Really? How? Can you show me the evidence that states that children are ideally raised by a mother and father both?

    Does it matter which gender the parents are? My wife and I have a daughter and she is looked after by family members of both genders. It’s not like they are going to receive absolutely no care from adults of a particular gender.

    Why are the roles different for each parent based on gender? How is it essential for a parent to be female and a parent to be male?

    Just remember that a marriage of ham and bread makes for a tasty lunch.

  7. apologianick Says:

    It’s amazing what has to be explained to people today. Hmmm. NAMBLA doesn’t work because there’s no consent there. So what? What makes consent so special? Parents do things several times to children without consent. Children are fed vegetables and made to go to school and go to bed all the time and they’re not happy about it but do it anyway. What’s the big deal about consent. As we’re so often told, it’s just sex. Right?

    Yes. Those of different sexes can help raise a child, but in the home unit, if you don’t think a father and mother are both ideal, then please do tell me which one is dispensable and why.

    Furthermore, marriage has not been based on marrying the person you love. That’s not been the reason. It has not been so people who love each other can come together. It’s been for the future of offspring and believe it or not, it takes a man and a woman to make a baby.

    • Simplexion Says:

      You are seriously going to use that absolutely pathetic and disgusting argument? A parent feeding vegetables to their child without consent does not compare to an adult having sex with a child with or without consent. A child does not have the maturity to make that decision.

      Your argument here just makes you seem like a disgusting person. If you think consent is the same for a child between eating vegetables to sex, then you are looney.

      Yes, it is just sex. Sex between consenting adults. Stop with the stupidity. Sex is an awesome thing when it is between consenting adults. I don’t care how many adults are involved in a sex session or what they do to each other as long as they are both consenting to the act.

      I don’t think there is any need to choose a particular gender to remove. From the studies I have read it doesn’t really matter what genders the parents are. What is important is having multiple regular caregivers. Therefore, 2 dads/mums is better than 1 mum or 1 dad and as good as a mum and dad.

      Marriage hasn’t been based on marrying the person you love? Really? It’s about procreation is it? You state yourself that marriages aren’t always going to be about children.

      You do foreshadow that statement with an ignorant statement claiming it is about acknowledging the “ideal” situation for raising children. The problem is that there is no evidence to show it is more ideal than 2 men raising a child. Currently, the evidence is contradictory to that statement.

      • Godfrey Babu Says:

        When I read comments like yours Simplexion, I fully grasp and awakened that, it is true that men lost dignity and humanity and turn worthless. I’m ashamed of knowing that you represent humanity. What is your opinion and understanding of narration of sanctity.
        Homosexuality is deeply unnatural and it once’s choice. I see a man engaging with other men’s penetration to his colon, late alone distortion of peristalsis muscles and allowing feces to drool which makes them wear dippers….. IS THAT SEXUAL INTEGRITY………????

      • Simplexion Says:

        So, what is your argument against lesbians?

        You do know that women who have given birth often need pads or nappies when they are older because they are incontinent? Does that mean childbirth is unnatural?

        You might also want to read about our evolutionary cousins, the Bonobo.

        Idiot.

  8. apologianick Says:

    Simpleton: You are seriously going to use that absolutely pathetic and disgusting argument? A parent feeding vegetables to their child without consent does not compare to an adult having sex with a child with or without consent. A child does not have the maturity to make that decision.

    Reply: Why not? Why does one have to have maturity to be able to have sex? It’s a biological function just like eating food isn’t it?

    Simpleton: Your argument here just makes you seem like a disgusting person. If you think consent is the same for a child between eating vegetables to sex, then you are looney.

    Reply: I haven’t stated my position. I’m just noting that all of a sudden, the consent doesn’t matter because you allow several behaviors without consent. Why not allow sexual activity the same way? It’s just a biological function. Right?

    Simpleton: Yes, it is just sex. Sex between consenting adults. Stop with the stupidity. Sex is an awesome thing when it is between consenting adults. I don’t care how many adults are involved in a sex session or what they do to each other as long as they are both consenting to the act.

    Reply: Actually, there’s something that makes sex even more awesome. Sex is totally awesome between a husband and wife in an exclusive relationship with each focused only on each other for life. I refuse to see it as just sex however. It’s much more important than that.

    Simpleton: I don’t think there is any need to choose a particular gender to remove. From the studies I have read it doesn’t really matter what genders the parents are. What is important is having multiple regular caregivers. Therefore, 2 dads/mums is better than 1 mum or 1 dad and as good as a mum and dad.

    Reply: I have not read anything that would be conclusive and meanwhile, we have the world history of children being raised by a father and a mother. Again, you make the sexes interchangeable with your position and that means any could be easily dispatched with.

    Simpleton: Marriage hasn’t been based on marrying the person you love? Really? It’s about procreation is it? You state yourself that marriages aren’t always going to be about children.

    Reply: Correct. Even where this doesn’t happen, it still upholds the reality that society recognizes the man/woman committed unit where that is supposed to happen.

    Simpleton: You do foreshadow that statement with an ignorant statement claiming it is about acknowledging the “ideal” situation for raising children. The problem is that there is no evidence to show it is more ideal than 2 men raising a child. Currently, the evidence is contradictory to that statement.

    Reply: Feel free to show said evidence. Preferably after you get done smoking weed again.

    • Simplexion Says:

      You’re failure to understand why making that argument makes you a disgusting person is exactly your problem. For shame that you even make that argument about consent. I despise you for it.

      I can’t be bothered making any more arguments against some one using such despicable

  9. apologianick Says:

    Ahem. Simpleton.

    First off, that’s “Your.” “Your” is a possessive statement and this refers to my ability. “You’re” is short for “You are.” and saying “You are failure to understand” makes no sense.

    Second, it just seems you’ve been caught in a problem because you’ve always been told consent makes something right and non-consent makes something wrong. When presented with a counter-position, your relativism knows not what to do which leads to my third point.

    Third, you seem to think that this is my actual position when in fact it is testing yours. Your inability to defend your position has been shown, but it’s hard to do morality when it’s based on the changing foundation of feeling.

  10. Simplexion Says:

    It has nothing to do with your position. The fact you make that argument is completely reprehensible! I would be surprised if you do not understand how it is a terrible argument to make, even if it is not your actual position.

    If you can not understand this, you will not understand why I believe you are a despicable person; Not just on your example of consent but on your moronic arguments against homosexual marriage.

    I will accept my mistake in using “you’re” instead of “your”. This is something that would annoy me also. I make no excuses for this but the fact that you use it to attempt to belittle my comments says much more about you than me.

  11. apologianick Says:

    Further confirmation of two and three has been made.

  12. Simplexion Says:

    Fine, I will explain to you why it is foul of you to make such an argument, while knowing full well, that you know why it is a bad argument.

    Why it is ethically wrong for an adult to have sex with a child, as opposed to forcing them to eat vegetables and go to school, is simply because of well-being.

    This then goes into reasoning of what you class as well-being, but I think you will agree that sex with a child is a bad thing whereas a child eating vegetables is not a bad thing.

    You may continue to use your horrible argument of a child’s consent but it will just show, to me, that you are a despicable, revolting, reprehensible person who will use any argument to protect your beliefs.

  13. apologianick Says:

    Simpleton: Fine, I will explain to you why it is foul of you to make such an argument, while knowing full well, that you know why it is a bad argument.

    Reply: Examining one’s premises is not making a bad argument. It is merely examining premises.

    Simpleton: Why it is ethically wrong for an adult to have sex with a child, as opposed to forcing them to eat vegetables and go to school, is simply because of well-being.

    Reply: First off, how would this violate the well-being, especially if sex is just a biological function like eating and drinking or breathing. Finally, what does such a case say about an example such as that of Armin Meiwes. The victim agreed and had full consent and knowledge.

    Simpleton: This then goes into reasoning of what you class as well-being, but I think you will agree that sex with a child is a bad thing whereas a child eating vegetables is not a bad thing.

    Reply: Why I think that is irrelevant. Why you think that is entirely.

    Simpleton: You may continue to use your horrible argument of a child’s consent but it will just show, to me, that you are a despicable, revolting, reprehensible person who will use any argument to protect your beliefs.

    Reply: And your bombast just shows me you have not thought through your ideas of the relation of consent to morality.

  14. apologianick Says:

    No answer. No shock.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: