Bigotry still prevails
Appalled.
That’s the nicest word I can think of to define my feelings about the vote for California’s Proposition 8, which bans marriage between homosexual humans.
As has been discussed all over the digital tubes since last night’s election, the turn against gay marriage was largely funded by the hate and bigotry of the Mormons. I can’t say that this is particularly unexpected or surprising behavior.
And though also not unexpected, what I find most disturbing, most hypocritical, and most ironic about this amendment of a state constitution is that one of the main factors in the Proposition’s passage was the large turnout of African-American voters. About 70% of African-American’s voted for the ban, while 30% voted against.
Let’s restate that.
By coming out in droves, making a historic renunciation of discrimination based on the content of pigment molecules in one’s skin, the one group most discriminated against throughout American history is partially and disproportionately responsible for the codification of discrimination within the state’s constitution.
Prop 8 Votes
No, I am not solely blaming African-American’s for this legalized bigotry. Not at all. But their vote is by far the most hypocritical (though a similar argument could be made for the “judge not lest ye be judged” crowd).
We have known for many years now that the tone of one’s skin has no bearing on the intelligence, morality, skills, or inherent “value” of any individual (despite some who still argue for genetics-based racism). This election was an affirmation of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s iconic dream. Even if race was not the motivation for African-American votes, their votes and everyone else’s votes for Obama can certainly be seen as a vote against racial discrimination.
Yet here we have an infamously homophobic community codifying discrimination against another group of people, based solely on superficial biological differences.
Each year, the evidence piles higher that homosexuality is itself purely biological in nature, just as skin tone. I’m not gonna pour through the evidence, other than to note just the latest research from this past summer showing clear similarities between homosexual men’s and heterosexual women’s brains and between homosexual women’s and heterosexual men’s brains. No doubt there is still MUCH research to be done. However, it seems pretty clear from current research (and just by asking any gay person you know) that sexual attraction to the same gender is not a “lifestyle choice”1.
For you heterosexuals that don’t believe this, either because you are ignorant of the research, don’t actually know any homosexuals, or just can’t accept that God would create gay people, all I need to do is ask you one simple question (using the example of men, but the reciprocal can be used for women):
Was there a time in your life that you decided “You know, I think I’m gonna choose to find women hot” or “I’ve decided to find female breasts sexually arousing”?
No. There was no such decision. Sexuality is pure, hardwired instinct. I know from personal experience how strong that instinct is, as does any heterosexual man on his first encounter with the intriguing, mystifying, strangely compelling lump of flesh we know as the female breast.
What IS a choice is whether a homosexual person decides to live as the person they know that they are, enduring a lifetime of bigotry and discrimination, or to live a lie in order to fit into the world of bigotry. That is certainly no easy choice to make. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and sadness.
Yes, homosexuality is biological in nature (whether arising through brain development or directly by genetics). In general, all humans are born with predetermined sexuality (which can actually range on the spectrum of pure heterosexuality to homosexuality). You can’t “catch” gayness from being raised by or around gays.
Thus I find it so utterly maddening that anyone in modern society can claim that discrimination based on superficial skin color is now gone or dying, while in the same breath tick a box to rewrite a constitution banning a loving couple from legally joining – all because the couple’s genitals happen to be of the same type.
You should be ashamed, and I am ashamed for you.
To be sure, we will one day have equality among all peoples, regardless of such traits as skin color and sexuality. It may take a few years or it may take a few generations. But it is coming.
I just find it sad that so many think they’re on the leading edge of progress, while in reality they are still holding us back, pointing at the splinters in the eyes of others and blinded by the logs in their own.
- note: as with EVERYTHING in biology, there are bound to be some exceptions(↩)
Don’t forget Florida and Arizona banning gay marriage too – 28th and 29th states to define marriage as one man and one woman. Once, twice… three times the bias!
Yeah – also my original home state of Arkansas banning adoption by homosexuals…
ignorance breeds ignorance
Nicely put.
And you’ve made clear where the focus for the next round of activism in California has to go: making clear the analogy between racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Have you seen thereasons gays shouldn’t marry?
Hee hee hee.
LOL!
I love it. Man, what was I thinking?
Screw the Gays.
Hi Christie,
A local Irish news show rang me asking me to come on after reading that blog post. So much for us Irish having a sense of humour. They actually thought I was dead serious.
Good article Irradiatus. Here the Catholic Church are doing their best to prevent samesex couples even getting the basic of tax rights.
What I’d like to know Irradiatus, is how you justify making the leap from biology to morality. Assuming that certain people are biologically predisposed to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex, that says nothing about the morality of homosexual behavior or any supposed “right” to have that behavior legally recognized as legitimate. You are making an unjustified leap from “is” to “ought,” based on the assumption that biological predisposition equals moral legitimacy, which in turn creates a legal right. Certain people are also biologically predisposed to alcoholism and certain psychological disorders, but we don’t consider this fact to grant these things moral legitimacy or create any legal rights. What makes homosexuality different? If homosexuality is the result of biological predisposition, why should it be treated differently than other psychological disorders?
How do we define ‘morality’ in general then, if you take religion out of it (which, seeing as we’re NOT a theocracy, we must)? What you and I find immoral may be completely different. And how much of it can we legally define in our government? Obviously we both consider it immoral to murder someone, and have made it illegal. But most would say adultery is illegal, too, and we have no laws against that. Where do you draw the line?
By the way – his point on homosexuality being natural, I believe, is that homophobics use the ‘it’s not natural’ argument to say why it’s immoral – which, as you pointed out, is a flawed argument anyhow, since we don’t define morality on what’s natural or not. Of course, homosexuality being natural just helps shut up the argument all together.
Besides, your argument implies that homosexuality is some kind of defect or condition – like it can me ‘managed’ or ‘treated’ by therapy or something how alcoholism can be – that’s simply not the case. There is no ‘cure’ or ‘fix’ – they’re just physiologically different, like having a different hair color or different eyes or being short or being tall.
I know I’m late to the party on this posting, but you put my feelings on this vote into words better than I ever could have. I was almost nauseous when I saw the results of this vote. It’s nice to know that the concept of the double standard is still alive and well in this country, and in California no less, the alleged bastion of all things liberal and foward thinking. Let’s hope that the pundits who so often claim “as California goes, so goes the country” are wrong on this one. It won’t be the first time they have been wrong, but it may be one of the most important times.