The Myths of the Gay Movement

The Myths of the Gay Movement

“When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Amicus Solo

I named this article The Myths of the Gay Movement because the word myth means an unfounded or false notion.  I personally believe that many in the gay movement, and their supporters have fostered myths to win compassion from the masses in order to further their agenda.  I am for compassion, but not for spreading myths that are not true.

This article is not an attack on homosexuals nor is it an attempt to prove that homosexuality is right or wrong.  It is an attempt to look at some of the arguments used by gays to justify their movement in order to see if they are grounded, in facts or myths.

I have the upmost compassion for people that have a same sex orientation.  However, the question is how to express that compassion in an appropriate way.  How one responds to the gay movement will somewhat depend on a lot of different factors.  A persons responds will depend somewhat on ones worldview;  emotional make up, level of reasonability, and one’s environment.  An example of the latter is when most people that have family members who are gay, will often change their opinion on the subject.  It’s not because the facts have changed, but rather their emotions have taken over their reasoning, which is quite common for human beings.  You could go so far as to say that once emotions are brought in, the well becomes poisoned.  This is one reason why it is smart to have an objective standard outside of one’s self that is grounded in reason or truth.

The most common way of dealing with this subject has been mindlessness.  On one side you have mindless acceptance, and on the other, mindless condemnation.  In fact, very few people have taken the time to really study the issue.  If you are one of them, I would encourage you to take the time to learn more about it before coming to a conclusion.

Myth number one

The gay movement and the gay-marriage movement are similar to the civil rights movement of the blacks.  This myth has been around for sometime but has grown in the last few years as the gay-marriage movement has grown.  The purpose of make it a civil rights issue is twofold.

First, making gay marriage a civil rights issue took it out of the moral arena and made it a civil rights issue.  If you cannot win the battle on one field simply change the playing field, which is a old debating trick.  In essence, this move silenced and skirted the ethical questions in the mind of many without any debate whatsoever.  Note this is not a use of facts, but of deception and manipulation.

Secondly, the move from a moral issue to a civil rights issue also made gay marriage a political football, which could be used by one party as another wedge issue to win and keep voters.  This made the party bosses and some gays happy for it not only silenced any moral objection but seduced a large number of blacks and people prone to support the underdog to their side of the issue without any moral argument or much thought.  Without making it a civil rights issue, very few blacks and many liberals would not have endorsed the gay rights movement and same-sex marriage. Of course, it has grievously divided the nation, which is the goal of the political class.

Making same-sex marriages a civil rights issue also made it out to be a legal issue more than a social or moral issue.  This has opened the door for the courts and government to use state power to intervene and force the issue.  In addition, this maneuver removed it from the authority of the church and common sense, giving it over to the legal profession and the states to decide – both of which have an odious record when it comes to morality and common sense.

Is it a civil rights issue?  I guess the answer would depend on who you are and how you look at it.  If you want to make every issue a person or a group has with our culture a civil rights issue – your answer is yes.  If want to make every issue a civil rights issue, so you can make money like the ACLU and the civil rights attorneys – the answer is yes.  It is also a civil rights issue for the party people that want to divide people to win power.  For example, the communist party in the United States supports gay rights, in Russia it is against gay rights.  What is that all about?  It  is all about power.  My enemy is my friend when he is the enemy of my enemies.  Of course, after the communists get power they have the propensity to shoot their allies.  This should be something the gays should be pondering.

This raises the question; does our culture (majority) have any rights to hold any beliefs or behavior as normal or sacred without violating someone’s civil rights?  Must the majority surrender its religion and morality to accommodate every individual and group’s beliefs or lifestyle?   If this is the case, mixed with the politicization of these issues, our culture is doomed.

The next shoe to fall on the civil rights table will be polygamy.  It will take some time for it to happen, for as it now stands, there are not enough practitioners to make it an attractive issue for the political scum to make it an issue.  It also lacks the numbers involved in it to make it an acceptable behavior by the nose counters who form their moral opinion by counting noses.  However, it is something that will happen at sometime in the future if we were to continue on the road we are traveling.  In fact, I noticed that there is a TV program (Sister Wives) on one channel that is making an attempt to normalize polygamy and make it look attractive.

To be a true civil rights issue, I would think a group must prove that they are being discriminated against in some fashion, like being forced to sit in the back of the bus or being forced by law to use separate restrooms and drinking fountains.  When everything is said and done it means to be oppressed socially and financially.  When I look at the gay marriage issue, it has nothing to do with civil rights, and I fail to see how the gay community is being oppressed socially and financially by marriage being between a man and a woman.  The law applies to all men and to all women equally.  Should we redefine the definition of race and should we redefine the idea of gender, male and female?

Moreover, the latest statistics seem to be indicating that gays have a higher level of education than the average American and have a higher income than the medium American.  Where is the oppression and discrimination?  I personally believe that overweight people are discriminated against far more often than gays.  Why not give them special rights?  We could give them a unique name like Jollys.  We all know heavy people are jolly right?  Then they could march on Washington demanding larger doorways, bigger seats on airplanes and bigger toilet seats.   If a person is overweight in the US military, he is kicked out and given a general discharge even if his condition is genetic, even if he can pass the entire fitness test.  Now that’s a clear case of discrimination.

Myth two

The presence of homosexuality in some animal species is proof that it is natural or not contrary to nature.  I have run into this argument in a number of fields even in theology.  It is an argument based on exceptions.  Those that use this argument seem to believe if you can find an exception to a rule or a law; the exception does away with the rule.  However, no matter what field you are talking about, this view is just not true.  Exceptions do not do away with the rule they  establish the rule.   In fact, the very idea of law infers and carries with it the idea that it can be broken and when broken it cares a penalty to those that break it.  If an animal species completely ignores or breaks a law of nature, they would cease to exist or suffer great harm.  When you break a natural law, nature is not very forgiving.

In the animal world, it is quite obvious that sexual acts toward the same sex do not constitute a sexual orientation toward the same sex.  It would more likely constitute an animalistic reflex for the purpose of reproduction.  When a dog hunches your leg, our respond is to think, “Look at the stupid dog.  It does not know what sex or species it is.”  The truth is, it does not.  It does not know that it is a dog or what sex it is – male or female.  It reproduces by instinct alone.  The paradox of being human is that we do know.  We are not only animals; we are gods, and we know what species we are, and we know whether we are male and female.  We also know when we are acting like animals and not humans.  You may not like this, and you may wish it to be different, but that is reality.

In comparing human sexuality with that of animals is a gross mistake.  Humans unlike animals transcend their sexually. (At least some humans)  Sex is something humans can examine, talk about, and make moral judgments about unlike animals.  For example, most humans believe that humans having sex with an animal is wrong.  In believing that we have made an ethical judgment on human sexuality, most human beings place some self-limits on their sexual expression and can control their sexuality to some degree.  On the other hand, animals have no control over their sexuality, nor any desire to control it, though the idea of self-control seems to be also out of the question for some men.  I gather from this that comparing human sexuality with that of animals is not wise, nor does it support homosexual behavior in any way.  May I also point out, nor does it condemn it.

Myths number three

Homosexuality is genetic and homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation.  The simple truth is that there is no hard scientific evident to support this myth.  There has been very few studies done and the ones that have been are flawed by the biases of those conducting them. This myth reflects an advanced liberal bias more than any scientific fact.

For some, genetics has become the new determinism.  In religion, it was Calvinism, an unseen God who predestined everything.  In psychiatry, it was early conditioning.  In genetics, for some, it is an unseen gene that predetermines everything.  Why not keep it simple and say the Devil made me do it.  I was taught by an old wise professor, that any teaching or belief that questions or denied free will was false and should be rejected.  I have found it to be good advice.

The truth may be that all the above have something to do with our destiny, but they do not make us do anything.  The truth about being human is that we are free to choose.  Do not let anyone tell you differently.  This should give hope to all those that have a desire to change in any area of life.  People can and do change.

This section on genetics falls under the category of unfounded at the moment.  Science may at sometime in the future establish and give an answer to how much genes play in one’s sexual preference but as of yet there is nothing but a few hypotheses (guesses).

Do not take my word for it but do your own research.  You can find some information on the net; however, much of it is biased and written by unqualified people.  There are some good books that will help your study; they are:  :The Blank Slate” with sub-title The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, “Are We Hardwired” by William R. Clark and Michael Grunstein, “Exploding The Gene Myth”, by Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, “The Genetic Inferno” with sub title, Inside the Seven Deadly Sins by John Medina.