Am I a Homophobiac? Nope, I Love Humans...
if that's what you were asking about... :)
A time is coming when men will go mad,
and when they see someone who is not mad,
they will attack him, saying,
"You are mad; you are not like us."
St Anthony the Great
There has been a lot of controversy with regard to gay and lesbian rights lately, with Hillary Clinton calling all nations to consider the rights of gays, lesbians, transgender and bisexual (LGBT) minorities as equal to those of women, racial and ethnic minorities. She admitted that the obstacles to the triumph of gays "rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural and religious beliefs."
Is there anything wrong with Mrs Clinton's logics? Why are we Christians so opinionated against the 'good-as-you' (or even 'better-than-you') ideology? Let us single out some key points of the speech of US Secretary of State Mrs Clinton and try to answer to them. Before we start, it must be mentioned that we are not against homosexual people – if they do not consider their way of life to be something they should be proud of and if they do not call for sanctions against everyone who disagrees with this statement.
§1. Mrs. Clinton states that Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human, which is obvious but then she adds And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.
Okay, you may call me a fool and an idiot but I cannot see the logical connection between these two statements. What do the aforementioned 'gay rights' consist of? Government recognition of same-sex relationships, LGBT adoption, sexual orientation and military service, immigration equality, anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws regarding violence against LGBT people, sodomy laws, anti-lesbianism laws, and higher ages of consent for same-sex activity. The fact that a). some humans are LGBT and b). all humans have inalienable rights does not mean that c). gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights because, in order for this syllogism to be valid, the speaker must prove that all, not some, humans, are LGBT. This is called a logical fallacy, and Mrs. Clinton, Yale Law School graduate, must know that for sure.
However, there is a problem with the first assumption as well. Mrs. Clinton is bold enough to compare LGBT lifestyle to being a woman, ...being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, while she is well aware that analogy is not an argument. However, she still makes attempts at comparing the incomparable. Rights of women, racial, tribal or ethnic minorities are inborn; one simply cannot choose her sex, skin color, tribe or ethnicity, whereas the suggestion that homosexuality is inborn has not been scientifically proven yet. It remains a hypothesis, not a fact. Yes, there has been a lot of research showing that in identical twins if one is a homosexual the other is more likely to develop the same behaviour but this is not a 100 per cent correlation, and any experiment cannot be considered 'pure' because there might be other factors that contribute to the result. Therefore, all comparisons with things like sex or skin colour, which are absolutely hereditary, are tainted. However, gay rights may be compared with freedom of religion in this respect. Homosexuality is like religion because an individual, though being predisposed towards homosexuality (just like 'ethnic' believers are towards choosing the faith of their fathers), is free to choose whether he continues to follow this lifestyle or abandons it altogether. Unfortunately, in the modern Western society, claiming to be gay gives important advantages both in one's study and at work, which is why some young people may choose to identify themselves as gays even if they are in fact heterosexual.
§2. In the further course of her speech, Mrs. Clinton says,
The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors. Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality.
Here we have a couple of logical fallacies as well. If Mrs. Clinton endeavors to promote the rights of LGBT community, why does she speak of homosexuality in general? Yes, homosexuality is reality throughout the world but 'gay rights' are an entirely Western concept, so this beautiful, Walt Whitman-like phrase proves nothing. And again, saying that gay people are born into is a hidden attempt at making the audience believe that homosexuality is inborn, which is, at least, not scientifically proven yet (cf. §1).
§3. Mrs. Clinton then goes on to say that the third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens, and then, as usual for this speech, attempts to make her words sound more convincing by comparing the incomparable (I admit I have not read her other speeches to be able to point out that arguments by analogy and logical fallacies are typical of this Yale alumna): This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn't cultural; it's criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights. In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for... Do you expect that Mrs. Clinton will prove that the same principle must be used with regard to gay rights? No, you're wrong again. She says about inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing. Come on, what she's talking about is the universal human right to live, and homosexuals enjoy this right as human beings. Human rights apply to LGBT people but it does not mean that gay rights (as defined above) are universal human rights.
§4. Furthermore, there surely are deeply held personal, political, cultural and religious beliefs that consider homosexual lifestyle (not homosexual attitudes (temptations do exist) but conscious and firm intentions to have same-sex relationships) to be inappropriate and even sinful (if we are allowed to speak about that). So what? Is the issue really worth ruining the deeply held beliefs of people and nations, and their own unique cultures? And – a side thought from a non-American – given that the United States sometimes use human rights violations (with or without proof) as a reason for invasion into other countries, won't they use the LGBT rights as an excuse for invasion as well? This is totally possible: The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people.This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it. Well, it's none of my business to teach the U.S. Government and Congress how they should spend money but it is their taxpayers' money... Do you agree with spending your money on propaganda of a certain lifestyle? Also, how would you feel if His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, created a program, a task force, and a government strategy dedicated to combating sharia laws violations and abuses in the USA – and worldwide? Or, to make the analogy more truthful (because you may say that Iran is not the global superpower, and you will be right), if Hu Jintao, the President of People's Republic of China and CPC General Secretary, attempted at drawing strategies and creating mechanisms to ensure Internet censorship, one-child family policy and one-party Marxist rule on the territory of the United States? Paraphrasing the Sermon on the Mount, do not be surprised when people treat you just like you treat them.
Well, we honestly tried to analyse this bold speech of the US Secretary of State point by point but, unfortunately, the rest of the speech has similar flaws and logical weaknesses. Therefore, we shall stop here for fear that you might get tired. Let us make a couple of final remarks on this topic.
Things sound even more absurd if we use Mrs. Clinton's favorite argument by analogy. Pedophiles are also human beings, they are a minority, and pedophilia is also hereditary to some extent. Why not defend their rights at the UN General Assembly, why not recommend other countries to respect the rights of pedophiles as well, why not support their cause financially?
You see, there is really not much difference between the status of LGBT people and pedophiles, especially if we compare both with things like sex, color, ethnicity, etc. However, the society is brainwashed to respect homosexuals but despise pedophiles. This is truly a sign of our times, when moral norms become vague and self-contradictory. Either we adhere to the traditional moral code in its entirety, or we are doomed to be ruled by rights of gays, pedophiles, zoophiles, and other kinds of perverts.
One last note: it seems to me that the modern society has definitely forgotten about one very basic thing: rights of an individual are limited by the rights of others and your rights are someone else's obligations. For instance, Christian parents would not approve of propaganda of homosexual lifestyle in the schools where their children study. Why then do homosexuals promote it everywhere, even in the schools run by Christian churches? Also, most Christian congregations disapprove of same-sex marriages, why do the LGBT people repeatedly insist on church blessing of their relationships and sue churches if they don't give in?
Looking forward to your comments...
Br Fyodor Vaskovsky
No comments:
Post a Comment