Homophobia

File:Jan van Eyck 069.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Jan_Van_Eyck_Brugge_Madonna_Child_canon_VanderPaele_%28parade_armour%29.jpgDoes all opposition to equal marriage come from homophobia? Yes.

Comments are welcome on other possible grounds, but the will to protect children from a system which stops them having a relationship with a mother and a father by preventing gay couples from marrying is, yes, homophobic.

Homophobes have a right to pick which child protection measure they support: just because they could campaign for greater protection for children in high risk families, does not mean they should campaign for my child protection issue of choice, rather than their own. But if they wish to prevent someone from having a child or raising his/her own child with the partner of his/her choice, a significant invasion of human rights, they should give clear proof that this gay parent can only produce worse outcomes than other parents permitted to raise children, when free of societal homophobia. Regnerus is not that. Or, they can ban divorce, and other things which separate people from both parents- and find how children flourish brought up by parents who co-exist in cold dislike. I have met awful married parents who damage their children- should mothers be psychologically evaluated before being allowed to conceive?

Religion should fit us to accept reality (a difficult thing for human beings, wishful thinking is so tempting) not to reject it. And so in Bible interpretation, we have a choice. We can believe with certain bible verses that the sun can literally go backwards in the sky over Palestine, and that slavery is God’s will, and (with a disputed interpretation of only six bible verses) that gay sex is always wrong, or we can believe that the Earth goes round the Sun, slavery is wrong, and gay sex is no more objectionable than straight sex. Some found the gap between their literal interpretation of the Bible, and scientific knowledge of the universe, so great that they retreated from reality, to their immense harm. Fortunately, Christianity does not require that, or it would die out.

So why don’t people see this? Because they have irrational prejudice against, disgust for, or yes fear of gay people.

Another short, definite post. Do say other reasons for campaigning against equal marriage or the right to bring up ones children, if you can, but I am at Buddhafield, camping, until the end of the month. Thanks to Askme for the challenge.

8 thoughts on “Homophobia

  1. Is it not possible to disconnect ignorance or cultural indoctrination from homophobia? I’m sure some people who oppose same sex marriage don’t irrationally fear or hate gay people, but haven’t systematically thought through or critically analysed their belief system. There’s also irrational fear of change to consider – a lot of people have naturally pessimistic outlooks and are apt to imagining ‘the worst’ given any proposed changes within our societies’ traditional structures. They then latch on to findings from the ‘research’ done by people coming from a homophobic point of view and it confirms their fears about change.

    Like

    • Wonderful rich, juicy comment. Thank you.

      Homosexual acts in private, between two consenting adults aged 21 or over, were legalised in Scotland by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. The old laws were based on disgust at lovemaking (see the use of the words “abominabill” or “grueous” in the statutes of the old Parliament). That disgust was generalised and pervasive: yes, culturally indoctrinated, but still a disgust reaction. “Phobia” in this case includes disgust and anger as well as fear.

      Ignorance without that cultural indoctrination would not produce disgust.
      -Some people are gay.
      -Oh! OK, then.

      I would be more positive about Conservatism: what is, sort of works, and if you want to change it you should show that the change will be an improvement- though I agree some people set the standard of proof too high. But the argument that a national government cannot redefine marriage, or will destroy marriage, seems to me a fear or disgust for gay people rather than fear of change. Part of the problem is that people rationalise: you could not get them to state what they feared, because they would tell you it is not fear at all. Oops- that is what I have just done about Conservatism.

      Possibly there is fear of Freedom- here are these gay people, just doing what they like, and if one feels one can’t, onesself, one might resent that.

      Like

      • “The old laws were based on disgust at lovemaking” Were they not based on following what the Bible had to say about it, plus ignorance of what homosexual relationships could be? I think over the top disgust language is from people nervous about their own private feelings and trying desperately to distant themselves from occasional or frequent interest in same sex relations, when they believe it would be frowned upon or worse by those around them. The ‘I’m not gay! It’s disgusting!!’ *twitch* types.

        Like

        • Yes. A lot of Scots law was based on the Bible- “Cursing of Parents” was a capital offence, though there is no record of anyone executed for it. But the language is disgust-language: “vyild and filthie cryme of buggurie” for example.

          Added: I have been searching in the Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland and Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials for buggery, sodomy, etc. The Pitcairn reference actually refers to Bestiality as wild, filthy, execrable, etc. The Wikipedia articles on the UK refer to England: the Buggery Act of 1533, for example, taking jurisdiction from church courts as part of the Reformation. This does not mean it was not criminal in Scotland before 1800, just that authorities are not immediately to hand on the Net.

          Like

  2. I’m for the idea of people having to go to a course and get a license if they’re going to have children. Straight, gay- doesn’t matter. It could change the world and greatly reduce suffering. It could be the moment where ‘at risk’ families are identified and monitored before anything dreadful happened. Things like the whole Baby P fiasco could actually be avoided.

    Like

    • What would you do with people who got pregnant without a licence?

      A social worker told me that she would go into a house, see used nappies, chip wrappers and perhaps dogshit lying on the floor, and still have to decide whether the circs warranted taking the child into care. These things by themselves were not sufficient. In England, Children’s Centres have specific funding for extreme problem families, thought to be 2% of children, but I am not sure of the take-up.

      Like

Talk to me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.