« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
11/19/2007
Wherein Kelly bogs us down with tired 'pedo-besti' claims
When it comes to queer representation, Baptist Press columnist Kelly Boggs can always be relied on for a good dose of silly. Over the years, we've seen him gun for the gays in wildly inaccurate ways, with the through line of all of his pieces being that those pesky gays are out to ruin "decent" society. And in all honesty, he's one of those who pulls so many absurdly cruel rabbits out of his gay-stigmatizing hat, that he really would seem to help our cause more than his own.
Take his latest, in which Mr. Boggs included this lil' nugget:
Any suggestion that a person actually might be able to change his or her sexual preference is derided. According to homosexual activists, a person is born with a certain sexual orientation and they will die with that same orientation.
When debating this issue, one of the favorite questions activists pose is, "Why would someone choose to be homosexual, bisexual or transgender?" They argue that acting on aberrant desires results in family and societal rejection as well as discrimination. "No one would choose such a lifestyle," assert the activists.
The aforementioned argument could be used to support the biological basis for pedophilia or even bestiality. Those who seek sexual gratification with children or animals are not only rejected by society, in many cases they are prosecuted under the law. No one, according to the activists, deliberately would choose a lifestyle with such consequences. Therefore, it must be innate.
Most homosexual activists will agree that pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. But on what basis do they justify their conclusion? For a biblical conservative, sexual expression is only legitimate when it occurs between a man and a woman who are married. Anything else is considered wrong. Of course, this sexual ethic is anchored in the Bible.
Ah yes, the linking of homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. Why it's a tune more familiar to this crop of Baptists than "Amazing Grace." But as ones who know that homosexuality is more more ably linked to heterosexuality than to sheep or toddler schtupping, we offer Mr. Boggs this reply:
First off, we deride suggestions that people can change their orientation -- not preference, mind you -- because there is not even an inkling of credible science to back up that notion. While it's true that there is no inconvertible evidence that there is an unchangeable bio-genetic root to orientation, there is far more on that side of the fence than there is on the "ex-gay' side. And those of us who challenge "ex-gay" claims understand the ways and operations behind that 30ish year old movement. None of it is based in science, with the vast majority instead steeped in religious extremism. So the primary reason why we rage is because baseless claims are being used to damage real lives and souls. People are being given what is for most of them, an untenable standard. Even many "ex-gays" admit that they are primarily celibate, or that their gay desires have never truly subsided in full. Yet because they far right is so desperate to use the "love the sinner, hate the sin" line of thought in oder to mask the discrimination they are fostering, they will readily buy into the "ex-gay" concept, no matter how off the mark such is. This should not just make the gay community angry -- it should also upset the truth-loving, complex thought-holding human community at large!
As for the ""Why would someone choose to be homosexual, bisexual or transgender?" line -- it's absolutely true that many on our side use this. And understandably so. Being gay is tough, especially when you are young. Many of us have seen portions of our live shrouded in fear. Fear that our peers would mock us. Fear that our parents would abandon us. Fear that we'd get our ass kicked in a back alley. Fear that the only desires that we've ever known inside make us wicked and immoral. So it makes perfect sense that at some portions of our lives, many of us would have likely chosen heterosexuality if there was a switch we could have flipped. However, that's not to say that we view our lives and loves as "aberrant desires." Once we cut through the cruel and unjust nonsense that plagues us and get to place of understanding, we realize that being gay is who we are. And for those of us who are able to come through often considerable adversity and reach the pot of acceptance at the end of the queer rainbow, we understand that it is as much a part of our life experience as anything else. And certainly no lesser than the lens through which our hetero buddies get to experience life.
So looking at this "Why would I choose it" line -- yes, of course it could be used to apply to almost ANYTHING under the sun. You could say, "Why would I choose to like corn?" Or maybe, "Why would I choose to be a bad student?" Or what about, "Why would I choose to believe in a certain religion?" You could make a case that any aspect of your personality has been in some way difficult or even just random, and therefore you would have had no reason to make an active choice. But just because you ponder the two things in similar ways, it doesn't in any way connect the nature of the corn and the religious belief! And the same goes for pedophilia, bestiality, and sexual orientation! Regardless of how much you would like these three things to be connected, Mr. Boggs, the clumsy connection you have made between them only highlights to what links your side will go to make gays look perverse and even criminal.
Mr. Boggs, you ask how gay activists justify their commonly held conclusions that bestiality and pedophilia are wrong but not homosexuality? Well, for starters, this is not a question that should be isolated to either gay or straight people. The concepts of pedophilia and bestiality have no more to do with one orientation that they do the other. But that being said, most of us find pedophilia wrong because, for starters, it is a foreign attraction to the vast majority. Most post-pubescent adults do not have a sexual desire for pre-pubescent children. But whereas homosexuality may also not be understood by a majority (although a much more scant majority than those who don't understand pedophilia), pedophilia has the element of a real victim and an aggressor. Children are not sexual beings who are able to understand or process what such even means. And adults who know better, even if they feel they have such a desire within them, are taking advantage of a child's body and innocence when they violate them in this manner. It doesn't matter if the child feels he's ready and gives a form of consent -- the vast majority of children in such a situation do not know what is going on. And the hostile act of taking advantage of this innocence is both disgusting and rightfully criminal.
As for bestiality --again, the vast majority of human beings have no desire to hookup with another species. And so most of us can't even comprehend the thought. But unlike a person's orientation to another human (be it gay, straight, or bi), their attraction to wildlife is a whole other beast (pun intended). These attractions have no redeeming social value, pose vast medical consequences, and go against what most of us think it means to be a human. And just like pedophilia, bestiality is criminal because it demonstrably goes against the sort of humane society that we are all working together to create. Unlike pedophilia, if people choose to partake in bestiality in the privacy of their own homes, then they are likely to get away with it and such could even be classified as a "victimless crime." However, if folks who are into such want to make a case for mainstream acceptance, than they have a supremely far way to go.
Now, getting back to homosexuality: We are talking about grown, human adults who are not mentally ill. Folks who are competent, vibrant contributors to society. Thinkers, lovers, peacemakers, visionaries, designers. People who hold an actual orientation, not a certain harmful behavior. And while yes, homosexuality exists in the minority, it realistically exists. And unlike the aforementioned scenarios, it harms people and society in ways no greater than heterosexuality. And please, spare us the "gays spread AIDS" nonsense, as it is an extremely unfair tract to blame a community for a disease that was placed within their specific environs for some unknown reason. Diseases exist and will continue to exist for all of time. But gay relationships without the introduction of disease and without the sort of outside hostility that leads to the aforementioned "Why would I choose this?" thought, is no more detrimental than heterosexuality! And when making a juxtaposition, that heterosexuality is by far the most apt element with which to contrast gay lives!
But of course it isn't convenient for your side to compare us to other adult-loving humans, is it Mr. Boggs? You absolutely WANT to foster the sort of marriage-less, equality-less, peace-less world that will force future generations of queers to have to defend their lives by using the "Why would I choose this?" line. The question that we should all be asking is, "Why would those who claim to have been given a complex, rational mind by a benevolent God choose to condemn their fellow man on the basis of a handful of arbitrary, open-for-interpretation, man-written clobber passages, rather than cull their knowledge of the world from the God-created reality that exists all around them?" You may not be into either pedophilia or bestiality, Mr. Boggs, but there are many innocent child mammals that are being f***ed by those of you ignore reality in favor of demonization!
The end of a sane society? [BP News]
Your thoughts
So funny I was going to ask G-A-Y what your feelings are in regards to "the ex-gay movement". Now I have my answer.
Keep Up The Good Fight!
Posted by: Alonzo | Nov 19, 2007 3:48:51 PM
I understand you think bestiality is wrong, but I wouldn't call it a victimless crime either. Like pedophilia is child abuse, bestiality is animal abuse.
In response to Kelly's "Most homosexual activists will agree that pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. But on what basis do they justify their conclusion?" I would say "Because both are harmful and abusive."
Posted by: Chris | Nov 20, 2007 4:32:18 PM
I understand you think bestiality is wrong, but I wouldn't call it a victimless crime either. Like pedophilia is child abuse, bestiality is animal abuse.
In response to Kelly's "Most homosexual activists will agree that pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. But on what basis do they justify their conclusion?" I would say "Because both are harmful and abusive."
Posted by: Chris | Nov 20, 2007 4:32:55 PM
Chris: You're absolutely right that it is most likely animal abuse. It was just my attempt to say that those who are into that could poss. make this argument.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 20, 2007 4:50:03 PM
"Like pedophilia is child abuse, bestiality is animal abuse."
Pedophilia is not child abuse, in and of itself. A pedophile is not a child abuser unless s/he actually does so.
In my saying this, I ask that you please understand the following: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE. I AM NOT PRO-ABUSE (OF ANY KIND), I AM NOT PRO-CHILD MOLESTATION, I AM NOT PRO-NONCONSENTUAL SEX, I AM NOT PRO-RAPE, AND I AM IN NO WAY A FAN OR ADVOCATE OF THOSE WHO IDENTIFY WITH THESE IDEOLOGIES.
Thank you.
Posted by: b | Nov 25, 2007 11:23:30 AM
comments powered by Disqus
