Saturday, November 13, 2010

Rebutting UFI's Homophobic Propaganda

"I am not gay, although I wish I were, just to piss off homophobes."
—Kurt Cobain

Earlier this month I stumbled upon this rather unlettered homophobic propaganda and the thoughts of the blogger who reposted it. This woman is a Mormon and perhaps that alone should be all you need to know, but read on nonetheless for a lark. I am reposting the article in full below and providing my own analysis of its inaccuracies, logical fallacies and not so subtle intellectual dishonesty, as well as a biting criticism of its general bigotry.

The Mormon's comments appear in red.
UFI propaganda appears in bold.

—————————————————————————————

A friend of mine forwarded me the article below. It made me think. I actually took the time to read it and I hope you will to. She shared a few other personal points, I completely agree with. I too know personally individuals who consider themselves gay. They are very good people and I care deeply for them. I believe that we are all children of a loving Heavenly Father. I also believe that we are each given burdens to carry throughout mortality. Some are heavier and more outwardly apparent then others. However, we are not left alone to carry those burdens.

Homosexuality is only a "burden" because of bigots like you. You're beating someone across the back with a stick and then expressing your sincere sympathy for their suffering. You are a callous tormentor masquerading as a caring, understanding rock they can lean on. It's literally nauseating.

This article from United Families International, for me, helped to clarify what for many has become a murky topic -- "Gay Rights". Those who perpetuate this dogma would have you believe that homosexuality is an inalienable right, a factor of genetic predisposition for which individuals are being discriminated against. This is not true. It is a choice.

Let's get some reference on UFI before we go any further. Their website describes their mission statement as an active opposition to gay marriage, women's right to choose, freedom of religion (which includes freedom from religion, though they don't appear to understand this basic concept), and pre-marital sex.

I encourage you to read this article and give it some thought.

I'm amazed you can read at all.

(The really sick thing is this woman works as...wait for it, a teacher; how reassuring to know our children's impressionable young minds are in such capable hands).


Is the "Gay Rights" Movement a Civil Rights Movement?
January 12, 2010

You've heard the arguments. "Homosexuals are an oppressed minority just like racial minorities or women." "The gay rights movement is the new civil rights movement." "Homophobia is equivalent to racism and sexism."

Renditions of this argument are everywhere, particularly in the debate over same-sex marriage. The Washington, D. C. city council passed legislation last month that legalizes same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage supporters began paying for ads on the side of city buses. The ads were very simple: the image of two wedding bands overlaid with the words, "Let the People Vote on Marriage." That's it. Two non-descript wedding bands and the statement, "Let the People Vote on Marriage."

The Washington LGBT community went into an uproar. Bloggers and same-sex marriage advocacy groups have condemned the ads as hate speech and some have even demanded that the ads be removed.

Why are they so upset?

Bigots like you are advancing an agenda of intolerance that extends beyond social acceptance into the realm of legality. Heterosexual couples currently enjoy benefits legally denied to homosexual couples solely because of sexual orientation. Of course they're upset. If it wasn't upsetting, what would the point be of running the ad in the first place? It would mean the ad was of none effect. The ad serves a purpose that is fairly simple to understand—offend a minority while encouraging the majority to be more intolerant and close minded.

The ads are discriminatory, they claim. They attempt to deny an underprivileged minority a basic civil right. From their perspective, it is the same as denying racial minorities or women the right to vote. They claim the whole debate is a pure and simple civil rights matter. Those who oppose same-sex marriage might as well be opposing the abolition of slavery.

Not entirely but I'm not going to waste time on the semantics of your strawman.

This argument, however, is not only intellectually dishonest, but part of a long term strategy to normalize homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is a deviance by definition; it will never be normal and proponents of equality aren't concerned with normality. To the contrary, a homosexual living in denial—for instance, a Mormon homosexual who marries a woman out of religious obligation—is the one attempting a regression to the norm. Tolerance is independent of normalcy and if you don't understand that, you don't understand equality
.

To reduce all forms of discrimination-racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, or any other -ism-into one group is grossly dishonest and creates serious problems. Discrimination (in the classical sense means to distinguish and judge) plays a necessary and central role in any society. Problems arise only when those judgments are based on faulty, incorrect, or non-existent distinctions.

And you're conflating benign judgment with irrational discrimination by ignoring the invalidity of homophobic objections.

In the case of racism, for example, past discrimination was based on the non-existent distinction between people of different skin color, wherein most people today readily accept that color truly is only skin deep.

To say that homosexuality is equivalent to race is to likewise assert that there is no true distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This is patently false. As Shelby Steele of the Wall Street Journal eloquently explains, "[T]here is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals, a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly-not innocuously-different. Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists."

False analogy; strawman; argument from invalid authority; three logical fallacies in one paragraph—well done. Gay rights advocates don't argue that attraction, homosexual or otherwise, is directly analogous to race; homosexual orientation is analogous to hetero-racial orientation and discrimination against one is as invalid as discrimination against the other. You are no more justified in discriminating against a man marrying another man than you are in discriminating against a white man marrying a black woman.

Arguments demanding that the LGBT rights movement be treated as the new civil rights movement seek to erase this profound and necessary distinction.

I observe a distinction between "erasing profound and necessary distinction" and rebuking an invalid criticism.

However, discrimination against homosexuality is not faulty or incorrect, but rather based on a notable distinction necessary for the perpetuation of a healthy society.

Non-sequitur; the premise still doesn't logically precede the conclusion. You're still saying "You're different so therefore you aren't my equal, and further, your deviation from the norm makes society 'unhealthy.'" If you're going to be a bigot, at least try to understand your own reasons for irrational opposition to equality.

Homosexuality is not a civil right

Homosexuality, as a behavior, is not a civil right, as it does not fulfill the criteria required to establish homosexuals as a protected group under civil rights legislation. In order to achieve such protection, the trait that distinguishes a group as a minority must be inherited, innate, or immutable. Social science research indicates homosexuality does not meet any of these criteria.

Homosexuals are sexually deviant by choice to the same extent to which dwarfs lack height by choice. In other words, none. No one ever woke up and decided "Hey, you know what? I think I'll become gay today. That way a mob of angry bigots like the idiot who wrote this article can persecute me and deny me basic rights. Won't that be fun!"

Below is a brief overview of this research. For a more in-depth review of the essential arguments and research for engaging in a dialogue on homosexual behavior, you can view UFI's Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation.

This should be rich...

Homosexuality is not genetic

There is no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute biological, genetic, or hormonal causation for homosexuality. A small percentage of the population may have a predisposition toward homosexual feelings, but this does not mean such people engage in homosexual behavior as a result of genetic causation.

Your habitual reiteration of your own ignorance suggests you seem to think it substantiates your cognitive bias. It doesn't. Reductio ad absurdum: I don't know why some white men are attracted to some black women I'm not personally attracted to, therefore they are inferior to me and don't deserve equal rights. It's a variation of an auto-epistemic argument; "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong."

Predisposition toward something does not mean that it is inevitable or that such a predisposition cannot or should not be resisted and overcome.

True, and this applies to a scope of behaviors with detrimental consequences on both individuals and society at large. Homosexuality isn't one of them. Nothing presented in your argument thus far so much as hints that it could be. In fact, you don't have an argument, either inductive or deductive. You have an irrational prejudice you haven't even attempted to validate. You're not merely dishonest, you're lazy.

Homosexuality is not innate

What a person does (behavior) should never be equated with who a person is.

Reductio ad absurdum: Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't a murderer and cannibal.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a civil rights activist.

Hubert Keller isn't a renowned chef and restaurateur.

The author of this article isn't a grotesque dullard....

No human being can or should be reduced to his or her sexual impulses. Impulses cannot compel behavior or identities without a person's consent.

Desire and behavior exist independent of impulse. You still haven't come close to accurately defining homosexuality but are attempting to categorize it, expound upon its societal implications, and ultimately vilify it. Your discrimination is innately irrational. You are the definition of a bigot.

Additionally, current evidence suggests that environmental, familial, and personal external influences contribute significantly to the development of homosexual tendencies. Seventy years of therapeutic counseling and case studies show a remarkable consistency concerning the origins of the homosexual impulse as an uncompleted gender identity seeking after its own sex to replace what was not fully developed in childhood.

Cite the source of your statistic or surrender that it doesn't exist.

Homosexuality is changeable

Reputable studies and decades of successful treatment show that homosexual behavior can be changed. Thousands of former homosexuals testify to this possibility. According to Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (PATH), a coalition of organizations committed to helping those wanting to change same-sex attraction, "In more than 50 years of research, including 48 studies . . . there are data and published accounts documenting easily more than 3,000 cases of change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction, identity and functioning." You can view an overview of those studies here.

I have searched the blog this article was reposted on as well as the UFI's official website and found no link to an overview of any studies, reputable or otherwise. If someone has a link, I'd love to see it. I always enjoy a good chuckle at the expense of the simple.

Many LGBT advocates cite the decision made by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1973 to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders as proof that homosexuality is natural and unchangeable. However, the decision to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) was made only after APA leaders and members had endured several years of intense political pressure and disruptive lobbying efforts by militant homosexual activist groups. Even pro-homosexual psychiatric professionals will admit that the APA's decision was purely political, not scientific.

This is perhaps the most comically absurd proposition advanced thus far. On the one hand you want to discriminate against homosexuality because it is a so called choice to become a homosexual, yet on the other you want to brand it a disorder. Which is it? If it is a disorder, it is by definition not by choice and your prejudice against it is justified to the extent to which prejudice against depression or obsessive compulsive disorder is. In other words, it isn't justified at all. If it is by choice, first prove it, then prove that this choice validates your discrimination. You have yet to do either.

Homosexuality is defined by behaviors that are destructive to individuals and to society

Homosexuality is defined and distinguished by risky behaviors that are proven to be destructive to individuals and to society. The most serious consequence of the homosexual lifestyle is exposure to HIV/AIDS and other STDs.

A homosexual shares the immunity (or lack thereof) to HIV or any other disease, sexually transmitted or not, that a heterosexual shares.

Evidence indicates that 50 percent of men who have sex with men will eventually become HIV positive or infected with another potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease.

Again, cite the source of your statistic or surrender that it doesn't exist. Furthermore, it is not a question of sex but unsafe sex. A heterosexual can engage in either just as easily as a heterosexual. Lastly, the fact that AIDS is more prevalent in the gay community doesn't validate discrimination against homosexuals anymore than its prevalence in the African-American community validates discrimination against African-Americans.

Research also indicates that homosexuality is tied to significant increases in drug and alcohol abuse and mental or emotional health disorders. One study found that men with same-sex partners were 6.5 times as likely as heterosexual men to have attempted suicide, and a separate study demonstrated that homosexuals are almost three times more likely to suffer major depression and generalized anxiety disorder.

Correlation does not imply causation. I might suffer from depression and chemical dependence as well if society at large was intolerant of me simply because of my sexual orientation. Again, you're beating someone with a stick and then screaming at the top of your lungs for others to consider their welfare. It's Orwellian.

Rates of domestic violence are also dramatically higher among same-sex couples, particularly lesbian couples. One survey of over a thousand lesbians found that more than half reported being verbally, emotionally, psychologically, or physically abused by their female partner.

Getting past the unnamed and quite probably non-existent survey you are citing, your prejudice is substantiated by a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. It's incredibly stupid, but then, so are you.

Research shows that there is no reduction in the rate of suicide, mental illness, substance abuse, alcoholism, and domestic violence in areas where homosexuality is more widely accepted, proving that the high rate of emotional trauma in homosexuals is not induced by society, but rather, is the result of deviant sexual behavior that negatively impacts emotional and physical health. The same list of negative consequences attached to any other behavior would inspire broad societal efforts to prevent and discourage that behavior.

Cite the source of your statistics or surrender that it doesn't exist. Then prove the source of this "research" to be empirical rather than anecdotal. Until then you're left with an argument from invalid authority.

By the way, you never even attempted to validate your assertion that intolerance of homosexuality is a necessity for a "healthy society" and, ipso facto, gay people somehow make life worse for the rest of us by virtue of their sexual deviation from the norm. This saddens me. You've denied me an enduring joy, that of ripping whatever brain dead argument you could produce in defense of this truly idiotic position to shreds.

Conclusion

Homosexuality is not a civil right. Social science is still on the side of the family. Our goal at UFI is to make this research and these facts available to you. A great place to access this information is through our Guides to Family Issues. The guides help you break down the arguments and provide all of the evidence necessary to help you share this powerful truth: traditional marriage and strong families promise the best future for individuals, communities, and nations.
Those of us who support traditional marriage and family cannot afford to let this and similar misconceptions take further root in our culture.

Conclusion

At first it was unclear if you were lying or merely grossly misinformed. By now the answer couldn't be more obvious—you are both a liar and an imbecile. Your paucity of intellect is staggering and matched only by your dishonesty. The truth would stick in your throat if ever you tried to tell it. You have not made a single compelling argument for the moral justification of your intolerance, in part because your lies are so transparent but equally so because you simply lack the imagination. If you are going to lie, at least come up with convincing lies to tell. More importantly, learn to use them effectively. Your lies only serve as segues to a recurring non-sequitur.

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More

 
Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | Free Samples By Mail