DH,
While your rhetoric does seem (I hope) to be way over the top, your conviction appears genuine. If you're willing to talk about this seriously then I'm actually quite interested in how you came to the conclusions you have, and why. Not because I entertain any of the feelings you espouse, but because I find it interesting. Engagement always works better than isolation.
Let me restate your position as I understand it and the proceed from there. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1. The media inflates the percentage of the population that is homosexual.
2. They do this to warp our perception about how common it is so we're more accepting of it.
3. In truth, homosexuals represent a very small portion of the population.
4. Homosexuals are deviants and degenerates who you feel pervert and degrade your culture.
5. Based on the insults you toss around you have other strong feelings about race, gender and sex.
First of all, I think you're right about the percentage of the homosexual population. It does seem to be a lot lower than we're told. I myself always heard about 10%. I, however, see no great conspiracy in this. While there are undoubtedly people and organizations out there distorting the numbers for political gains and agendas, I think the larger reason behind making people more accepting to homosexuals is because minority groups have a history of having a rough time. Whether it was the Natives, African Americans, or women (not a population minority, but they certainly a "power" minority). So my question here is, why do you correlate homosexual's low percentage of the population with anything other than there are less of them? What significance do you attach to the number?
Number 4 seems to be the crux of the matter for you. Obviously you are making moral judgments on the homosexual "alternative" lifestyle, which other than being attracted to a member of the same sex I'm not sure what else is alternative about it. Now, by definition they are deviant, which simply means they deviate from societal norms, which are represented by what the majority of the population does. If homosexuals represented 49.9% of the population you could still call them deviant. So I'm not sure why that matters.
You call them degenerates. The dictionary defines that is:
to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities.
What authority are you appealing to when making this value judgement? Is this based on a religious text, or some socio-political ideology? If so, please share. By being against one thing I can assume you're for another, which would be traditional male/female relationships (which is kind of amusing considering your hostile attitude towards women -- based on your persona on this board, at least). I myself am straight and married. I don't identify on a personal level with homosexuals. But on a broader level I understand the need for love and intimacy. Do you not think homosexuals should have that? Do you think they should go into therapy, or pray the gay away? If you can flesh your position out more I'd appreciate it. Though I have to ask, at which point did you decide to be a heterosexual?
So maybe you accept that homosexuals didn't decide. But you still think it's a mental illness problem. For arguments sake let's say it is. Is it hurting anyone? You compare them to pedophiles, but that doesn't really work because the latter is between an adult and a minor, whereas the former is between two consenting adults. Why are you so concerned with that? Exactly who should be making the laws about sexual activity between two adults? The government? The church? Again, whose authority are you appealing to?
On a personal note, I've always found the controversy around homosexuals being allowed to marry missing the point. It doesn't make sense to have separation of church and state, but then have marriage (church) impact the federal (state) status of two people. We need to untangle the two for their to be separation. In my opinion being married in the eyes of the church and the eyes of the state should be different. There should be one, across the board "married" on a federal level, and then for those with strong religious convictions a "married" on a church level. Civil unions should be what we call it on the federal level, and anyone wanting one should have it. Marriage with the church should be based on whether or not those couples meet the requirements of that particular faith.
Anyway, I'll stop here. I eagerly await your response.
|