The irrationality of homophobia

Reads: 655  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 1

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Editorial and Opinion  |  House: Booksie Classic
In this essay I try to dismantle the "logic" behind homophobia, from a survivalist point of view (my own deffinition of survivalism, the biological sense, not the paranoid group of people who are constantly preparing for disasters). Its contents may serve as armament for the knight against homophobia, as simple reading, or as ungodly nonsense for those of you who this essay cries out against.

Submitted: October 25, 2015

A A A | A A A

Submitted: October 25, 2015

A A A

A A A


THE IRRATIONALITY OF HOMOPHOBIA

1 in every 10 people worldwide (those are the statistics) can be classified as not heterosexual. We are all aware, or at least we should be, of the persistent hatred and discrimination towards homosexuals and other not heterosexuals in our world today, a dislike and a phobia that are exemplified by the politics of leaders such as our beloved Putin, as well as by members of the ordinary public. It is in order to analyze this hatred, and to test its rationality and logic, that I write this essay. Should we really discriminate gay people? Are they really as evil and sinful as the church tells us they are? Are they wrong, and should they be stopped and punished? It’s all very well to look at this matter from a moral point of view, but since that is such a relative and insubstantial thing, I will also attempt to look at the subject from a biological and survivalist point of view, to try to offer a more balanced discourse, and deviate a little from the traditional sentimental approach. So without further ado, here goes.

First of all, let’s properly define “homophobia”. It’s interesting that the term actually doesn’t mean a hatred of homosexuals, rather a fear of them. But since fear often leads to hate, it is perhaps a more appropriate term than simply calling it a “hatred of homosexuals”. Either way, before I properly start I feel it’s necessary to state that things have improved, in certain areas, and in certain ways. For example in many countries homosexuality used to be simply illegal and now it isn’t. And homosexual matrimony is also on the rise, where it used to be viewed as the most terrible of suggestions. That said, things aren’t perfect, and they are actually getting worse in certain areas (ehem, “dobby the house elf!”). But the question is why? Why all this hatred? Well the answer may lie in the concepts of difference and ignorance, and the things to which these things lead. Difference is often viewed as negative, it represents disharmony within a group of human individuals. It represents a potential lack of cooperation, a vital thing in group animals such as people. Sometimes (this is the beauty of evolution) that difference can be viewed as positive, usually when direct advantages can be seen, such as a vastly strong individual who can gather more food or do more work more quickly, or vastly superior intelligence, which can be applied to find ingenious solutions to difficult problems, and hence aid the continuation of the group (although tribalism, power lust and self preservation may turn these positive things into negative ones). But often, especially when no immediate gain or advantage can be seen in that difference, it is viewed as negative and tribalism rears its head to destroy the object which is viewed either as a threat, or simply as something with no use that must be gotten rid of.  This sort of difference is often viewed as dangerous though, and hostility is usually undertaken to deal with it. An example of this besides homophobia is for instance racism. The hatred of gays may in some cases be so strong because of the importance of sexuality. As we know, one of the most important goals of survival is sex, the individual is born, must manipulate the environment to stay alive, and reproduce to continue the survival of the species. The intelligent homophobic (who is practically nonexistent) would say that from a survivalist point of view it is correct to hate homosexuals, as they do not reproduce with members of the opposite sex, and therefore they do not contribute to the continuation of the species. This argument is unfortunately for the homophobes, invalid. Take infertile individuals for example. They cannot reproduce, and yet they are not hated as gay people often are. Homosexuals can donate either sperm or eggs, so thanks to today’s technology; they would be able to aid the continuation of the species where infertile people would not (not that infertile people should be discriminated, they may contribute to the survival of others without reproduction, so they are still beneficial from a survivalist point of view). So if homosexuals can contribute if they wish to the continuation of the human race, and infertile people cannot, why are they hated more than the latter group? The smart homophobe (again, I have never met one, but you never know) would say that the infertile man may want to have a baby with a woman, but cannot, whereas the homosexual man simply would not want to have a child with a woman in the first place, therefore the infertile man could be forgiven, since he had the intent, but not the power, unlike the gay man. But what if the gay person wanted to have a baby? The same logic applies; it’s not his or her fault that they are homosexual, just as it’s not his or her fault that the infertile person is so. There is no choice for either party, so to discriminate one and not the other doesn’t make any sense.  And if the homophobe tried to contradict that logic, then they are tearing their own argument apart. The problem comes because the ignorant think that gayness is a choice. And that is thanks to the church. This often terrible institution takes it upon itself to spread all sorts of strange information; the church is effectively a brainwashing machine that targets the ignorant, and creates blatant lies such as “homosexuality is a choice”. Ironically, many members of the church, past and present, have been and are homosexuals. So again, when the church comes out with homophobic nonsense, it is practicing its usual blatant hypocrisy. And strangely, the church seems to be violently against homosexuality, and yet many big religious men are in fact paedophiles. And they don’t seem to focus on that at all. How can it be wrong for a woman to love another woman, but no hatred is given to the priest who rapes an 8 year old boy?

Homosexuals are actually beneficial to the world in many ways. Due to wars, poverty and inadequate parenting among many other things, there are a great many orphan children in the world. And homosexual couples if they desire to raise a child will often adopt these children, which is a good thing in more ways than one. Not only is it good for the child to enter a loving parental atmosphere, necessary for proper development, but it is a good thing population wise as well. Today there are far too many people living in the world, overpopulation is a serious problem, and many of the terrible things that go on happen because of it (basic fighting for limited resources, which wouldn’t happen if there were fewer humans to need said resources). So in theory it is better to adopt than to biologically create a new child, which will only add to the increasing population and the problems it implies. And here, homosexuals can potentially help. Not only by adopting the children that already exist, but by not being as likely to have any of their own (except in cases of bisexualism, sperm or egg donation, and artificial insemination). And should they do this, they have no more guilt than any other person who has a child, naturally or artificially. Whether or not people should have less children starts to get complicated, from an emotional point of view, yes they should, from the point of view of population, no they shouldn’t. But in the case of homosexuals, they must remind homophobes that they can, should it be necessary, if they bring up the “continuation of the species” argument.

Education and social interaction are another reason why homophobia continues today. People with a higher level of education and a higher understanding of human nature, and human emotions, generally aren’t prone to the disease of homophobia. The problem comes with ignorant and or intellectually incapable individuals who have no understanding of the things mentioned before, and act only upon the feelings they have, without analyzing those feelings from a moral perspective. And those feelings and prejudices aren’t helped by those with whom they interact socially, who are often of the same characteristics. The same social pattern occurs with educated and empathetic people, who tend to relate with those of similar mental and emotional characteristics, and in this case it is normally a positive thing when it comes to the rejection of homophobia.

Another of the constantly increasing reasons against the rationality of homophobia is the “group animal” aspect. When I say group animal aspect in this particular context I mean the functions of humans as social animals. Yes, there is often negative tribalism, but humans as group animals depend upon each other within those tribes, they work together to obtain resources, they form friendships and other relationships that are mutually beneficial, and therefore are aiding the species to survive (I won’t go into depth about how these relationships work and exactly how they are beneficial, that will require another essay, I simply hope that the dear reader accepts the previous statement without expecting me to back it up at this precise moment). The question to the homophobe is, so are homosexuals incapable of these relationships previously mentioned? Do they live in a bubble and ignore humanity, reject it, and refuse to aid it? Are they effectively not human? Of course not. Homosexuals effectively are as capable as any able bodied and able minded heterosexual to work, and they are as capable as any normal and functional individual to aid other individuals, homosexual or heterosexual, in their emotional necessity. Gay people can aid the survival of the species the same as anyone, their sexuality doesn’t make them some sort of useless individual who lives on another plain of existence as some homophobes might suggest.

The classic argument (if it can be called such, perhaps a better word would be statement rather than argument) that homophobic individuals use to defend their ideas is the classic “it’s not natural” approach. This is actually very interesting, and can be related to such things as pollution, and nuclear disasters. The reader may be wondering where on earth I’m going with this, so I will tell them. You see if you look at it logically, there is absolutely nothing in the universe that is unnatural. Pollution and nuclear waste are in fact absolutely natural (not that I defend them). They are the results of human manipulation of the environment, and since humans are animals, and part of nature, this is no different from how any other animal manipulates the environment. The results are just simply more devastating, or at least usually. I will cite the example of stromatolites, tiny rock like organisms that are nearly extinct today, but had life forms very similar to themselves that lived it is thought up to 3.5 billion years ago. These ancient forms of life were quite revolutionary, they were the first organisms to emit oxygen as a waste product, and are responsible for the oxygen rich atmosphere that we depend upon today. This however wasn’t such good news for the anaerobic life forms around at the time, oxygen was unbelievably toxic for them and because of it, the first of the great many mass extinctions of life on earth took place, in what is known as the “oxygen revolution”. Humans aren’t the only animals capable of harming other life forms via their waste, and really people fall short of the apocalyptic results achieved by the stromatolites. Anyway, getting back to the point, there is nothing in the universe that is unnatural, and therefore homosexuality is perfectly natural. Perhaps what the homophobes mean is that it isn’t as common as heterosexuality, but as I’ve stated previously, difference can be viewed as positive or negative, and in the case of homosexuality, the reasons to view it as negative can be outweighed by the reasons to view it as positive, or at least as neutral, something that causes no threat to the survival and continuation of the species. Another argument against the unnaturalness of homosexuality is the enormous amount of other species that display homosexual behaviour, either by sexual relations, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

Humans are therefore by no means the only animals that partake in homosexual activities, but according to Stephen Fry, they are the only ones that display homophobia. And one thing is very true, if homosexuality was so wrong and so evil, and so negative, then how come it has no negative effect on our species? Surely if it were so terrible, there would be some evidence, in humans or other animals, of its disadvantages. But I can’t see any. So if it is harmless, why condemn it?

The smart homophobe (I don’t need to repeat myself do I?) when reading this essay might say “you say that nothing on earth is unnatural, then that means homophobia is natural”, and yes, they are right. However there are a great many natural things that cause suffering, and suffering is usually viewed as negative. So as natural as it may be, homophobia is a negative thing; the same as any unjust discrimination (don’t even get me started on racism). Anyway to end this paper, I hope that its ideas serve as weaponry for the reader to confront the homophobes with, should the situation arise (who sounds tribalistic now huh? (I’m a human)) or simply as something to enjoy. And to the homophobes who may read this, I probably won’t convince you, as you people seem not to listen to reason. But please, try to have an open mind. And well, when you either don’t understand what I’m talking about, or simply reject it as ungodly nonsense, I wish I could say I feel sorry for you. But I don’t. (Again, I’m a HUMAN, and will display tribalistic behaviour). And if you have no knowledge or opinion on the subject, this can help you to form one. Well, there’s nothing more to say. So well, have a nice day, morning, evening, night, life, death, or whatever the formalities dictate.


© Copyright 2019 SkorobyNightfall. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:

Comments

avatar

Author
Reply

More Editorial and Opinion Essays