Looking through a document on the Family Research Council's Web site titled "Questions and Answers: What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples 'Marry'?" I noticed something: There was no mention of God, Jesus or the Bible. This was strange, I thought, because the FRC is one of the leading conservative Christian organizations on the American political scene today.
Perhaps the reason was not a decision by the group to embrace atheism, but a realization that if they want to turn the country against its GLBT population, quoting from the Book of Leviticus won't work. Instead of relying on Bible quotes, the language of homophobia has been changed so that it looks scientific and scholarly, thus giving irrational prejudice the appearance of rational opinion.
George Orwell once wrote that the purpose of political language is to "defend the indefensible," so acts most decent people would find morally repugnant such as Stalin's murder of his opponents or British colonial rule in India can be made to look acceptable. The same is true for homophobia, especially in this day and age.
Here's a blunt statement: The movement to ban same-sex marriage is founded on nothing but fear and hatred of gay people, and every one of its supporters is a homophobe. If you read this and grumble, "Well, that's only your opinion," then consider this: If you opposed the abolition of slavery in 1855, women's suffrage in 1915 or repealing the Jim Crow laws in 1955, you simply had a point of view. Today, you'd be called a racist or a sexist. In 2005, if you oppose equal rights for GLBT people, you can get away with it by saying "I'm not a homophobe, and I don't care what goes on in your bedroom. I'm just expressing my perfectly reasonable opinion."
The arguments forming the basis of today's rational homophobia are basically groundless. They fit into at least one of the following categories: arguments based on religious belief, arguments based on emotion, unfounded assumptions, logical fallacies, twisting of the facts or lies. Arguments concerning the sanctity of marriage, for example, are based on religion and lack merit in rational discourse because religion is a subjective experience. Emotional arguments lack merit because, to quote my former professor, "In science, feelings don't matter." The argument that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to legalized child molestation and bestiality is an unfounded assumption and a logical fallacy called the slippery slope. Arguing that promiscuity and unstable relationships are the norm among gay males while ignoring similar phenomena among straight people and the existence of GLBT people seeking and involved in long-lasting monogamous relationships is twisting the facts. The claim that GLBT people only want "special rights" allegedly not afforded to straight people (such as the right to marry someone you love and work without having to keep your relationship a secret) is a lie.
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is to deny them, according to the American Anthropological Association, more than 1,000 rights that straight couples take for granted, including pension benefits and immigration rights for partners who are foreign nationals, making this a clear case of discrimination. A century ago, what we now call scientific racism was used to rationalize hatred of people with a different skin color. Today, arguing for the sanctity of marriage is used to justify discrimination against GLBT people. It's amazing how the future's bigotry is the present's differing viewpoint.
Write to Alaric at
ajdearment@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
