A question posed in an online forum has resulted in all the usual suspects churning the aether… The question: “Are Homosexuals Discriminated Against?”
Lots of discussion, much of it from advocates of “normalizing” and mainstreaming homosexual behavior, including many, many who assert that not allowing homosexuals to “marry” is adverse discrimination and others who assert that special protections and privileges for homosexuals is a worse problem.
One thing I’ve noticed in the discussion is that advocates of what are, in fact, special, society-altering privileges for homosexuals both claim absolute moral authority and superior reason to be on their side. Unfortunately, to this point, none of this group has been able to marshall anything but argument by assertion (with no supporting facts) and continual dropping of the “homophobe bomb”.
And then there are the relatively calm advocates of homosexuals being granted special privileges and protections who assert their best arguments so:
“Homosexuality doesn’t change society, it’s apart of it.”
*sigh*
Really? He either meant “apart FROM it” or “A PART of it”. Frankly, since practicing, AND admitting but not practicing, homosexuals make up only about 3% of society, and are a dead end, “apart from it” is probably closer to the truth, but probably not what he meant to say.
I “cherry picked” this one egregious example of subliteracy–of many–out of this guy’s comments, only because such lack of basic ability with the English language, though irksome, would tax my time past its limits to address in full. You see, the thing is, EVERY comment by advocates of special privileges for homosexuals in the discussion indicates the same lack of basic ability to think and to use the English language well.
It’s an interesting phenomenon. Not just every comment by the guy referenced above but EVERY COMMENT by EVERY advocate for special treatment of homosexuals indicates a presuppositional bias that words ONLY mean whatever the speaker/writer wants them to mean and that–common meanings be damned!–EVERYONE has to take the3ir words in whatever weird way they intend.
Oh, but of course. These are folks who angrily assert that they are “gay”!
BYW, the guy referenced above is the same guy who attempted to argue for the normalcy of homosexuality by asserting that Plato was a homosexual and praised homosexual behavior. Of course he did it with multiple misuses of words, bad grammar and poor orthography, but what of the basic assertions?
I believe it was the result of one or more of several things:
-
1. Misinformation from other misinformed people who already agree with his views.
2. DISinformation from people who are deliberately misleading him to form his views.
3. Stupidity and laziness. He’s failed to do any of his own homework. Someone told him (speaking or writing) something that supports his viewpoint and he failed to do any fact checking.
Illiterate boobs, reading Phaedrus’ speech in “Symposium” erroneously (or deliberately?) claim his comments on pederasty to be Plato’s views. Unfortunately for them, Plato, speaking in his own voice in “Laws” and “The Republic” openly condemns homosexual behavior. In fact, in “Laws” he recommends criminalizing homosexual behavior.
I think there are multiple lessons here–not the least of which is to fact check those who offer us enticing arguments to support views we already hold as much as, if not more than, we fact check those who argue against our views. Of course, the underlying lesson is that without the intellectual tools and mindset to be able and willing to do our own homework any of us can fall prey to the lies of demagogues.
Which is what they count on.