Monday, 24 May 2010

Because, sometimes, you can't bring yourself to make 15 posts on some lunatic's youtube page:

Or, "Why homosexuality is not 'the same type of human limitation or defect that underlies racism.'"

You can compare racism to anything. Racism is like brown hair - they can both be attributed to humans - therefore I deserve the same treatment as racists because I have brown hair.
Of course it's true that I do deserve the same treatment as racists - I deserve to be challenged on my views and made to defend them and I deserve to face the consequences of my actions, the only major difference is that none of my views, as far as I am aware, lead logically to the abuse of others.
Any position that logically leads to an active abuse of others deserves to be held in contempt and any people who hold those positions need to be challenged on these views - this also applies to the view that people who hold such views are somehow subhuman and to the people who hold that view.

Racism, the view that certain races are inferior, logically leads to the abuse of those races considered to be inferior, either to the extent of refusing them access to services, or of killing them.
Sexism, the view that one sex is inferior, also leads logically to the abuse of the sex viewed as inferior, to the extent of rape, of forbidding the supposedly inferior sex from working, or to the extent of killing them in the name of 'honour.'
Homosexuality, and heterosexuality in fact, the view that one sex is more attractive than the other, leads logically to engaging in sexual relationships with members of the prefered sex rather than the other.
Bisexuality, the view that both sexes are equally attractive, leads logically to engaging in sexual relationships with whoever attracts you, regardless of sex.
Asexuality, the view that no sex is particularly attractive, leads logically to not engaging in sexual realtionships.

It really is quite clear which are harmful and which are just uncommon... but allow me to spell out the major differences anyway:
Racists don't seem have a problem with having sex with members of the race they consider to be inferior, as long as they are dominant, but will happily assault or murder them.
Homosexuals tend not to be interested in having sex with members of the opposite sex, but they are, except where motivated by other views, happy to engage in close and valued platonic relationships, they do not isolate or attack people based on their sexual preference and, aside from not appreciating and experiencing sex with half of the population, they're not missing much (and most people are monogamous, so we're not appreciating or experiencing sex with the vast majority of the population.)


  1. Thank you!
    I'm glad I'm not the only annoyed with that idiot on youtube.

    Personally i just say that, by his logic, everyone's racist as they reject those who are of a different species, and so everyone's equivalent to a racist unless they're a zoophile.

  2. I fucking love zoos... I mean... erm, I appreciate their worth. I know there are creatures in zoos that are among the last of their kind and it is good that we haven't lost them... but... ugh.
    No, I don't care that that isn't what zoophile means.

    I think it's probably safer to say I'm fascinated by the logical spaghetti than annoyed by it. I get annoyed by small minded pettiness... playing with twisted logic is more like a hobby... like trying to untangle string when a cat's been at it.

  3. So you've read gaysandracists too. Utterly arse-backwards thinking - a minor masterpiece of the genre.

  4. P.S. As a lover of logical spaghetti, you might appreciate this from my Jesus-loving correspondent on YouTube. I messaged him to untangle it but he doesn't reply.

    ''As a former atheist, the argument I relied heavily upon to discount the Creationist story behind the Christian faith, was Darwinism.
    The biggest lie is that that homosexuality is an inborn, genetic condition - but if this is true, homosexuality makes evolutionary theory impossible.
    Simply put, homosexuals CANNOT procreate and pass on a supposed "gay gene." And if Darwinism were true, homosexuality SHOULD have been bred out of existence generations ago''.

    I schooled him on the difference between a lie and a hypothesis, pointed out that homosexuals frequently do reproduce, and not by IVF necessarily, and that there might well be some evolutionary benefit to having a minority of same-sex lovers in a community, one as yet to be demonstrated. Nothing here compromises the theory of evolution. Was he grateful? Was he fuck.

  5. Wow... that guy sure understands evolution.

    I admit that I have no idea what the source of this is, so I may just be repeating the opinions of 'Some Bloke Down The Pub' but I think there's a study out there that suggests that families which are more likely to have gay sons are also more likely to have particularly fertile daughters. Clearly fertile daughters are going to make more children if they get around to that whole 'sex' thing and they will [somehow :P] have genes similar to those of their brothers, so it seems to make sense that, even if homosexuals were somehow incapable of reproducing, and assuming that the link is valid, evolution would actually favour the maintenance of a homosexual population.

    There's also the matter of brown eyed parents with blue eyed children (aka, the "oh hey, I have genes that are suppressed by a dominant counterpart, wow!" argument.)

    Who says that sexuality is determined genetically anyway? I do recall another source, that I, again, cannot remember well enough to honestly call this a valid statement, that suggests a genetic //component// to sexuality, but also suggests other factors play a role which makes sense height is determined genetically, but there are a great number of external and internal influences which will cause the end result to vary why should sexuality, if it is genetically determined, be different?

    I have to say, I doubt the sincerity of the mental spaghetti, it reads more like pettiness than confusion. I appreciate his use of language, 'genetic condition,' as if sexuality is akin to huntington's disease or haemophilia. His idea that the question is in any way related to religion is pretty interesting or that the truth or falsehood of evolution has an effect on it.
    It's all very well to make the argument that homosexuality is natural, or that god is in favour of it, neutral toward it, or doesn't exist, but it's irrelevant. Only one thing really matters on the subject - I have never had to justify my relationships to anyone but myself, neither should anyone else. Yada yada zoophilia, paedophilia, yada yada slippery slope, yada - NOT consenting relationships ffs!

    (And do we really expect people to be grateful when we point out why they're wrong? Some are, but they tend to be wrong less often because they care about being right.)

  6. I was being flippant about the gratitude. Of course you don't expect it. I was also being naif about the possibility of getting him to respond once he realised I was not going ot be cast as a 'seeker' he could preach to. ('Y'know, the fact that you're asking these questions means that Jesus is knocking on your heart right this minute!')

  7. I'd guessed you were... but I've learned that it's unwise to assume a sense of humour on the internets - some take the bznz far too srsly... and I know I was preaching to the choir a tiny bit back there, I mostly just like the sound of my own keyboard.

    I did wonder why my chest felt tight for a moment there though, damn you Jesus!