Intolerance

Every so often, after a topic has been in the works for so long, I get an urge to summarise my thoughts on the matter. Usually I have done so here, but since no one visits my website (or so I assume: no one has a reason to, at any rate), I suppose I might as well publish it here, where people can read it, if so inclined. As an advance warning, it is fairly likely to be rambling and of variable coherency.

In this case, the last drop that pushed me to summarise was this article—having followed a number of threads on certain message boards lately, I occasionally find myself wanting to be able to post a link to a previously prepared statement on the subject. The topic at hand is, of course, homosexuality—or more to the point, homophobia. To get my own point of view out of the way, I'll paraphrase some astute member of Gamedev.net who stated that the appropriate reason to be tolerant of homosexuals is that there is no good reason not to. (I don't even like using the word tolerant, as it seems to carry undertones of a wrong that one can live with, rather than something that's not wrong to begin with, but never mind that for now.)

What I began to ponder was, then, a deceptively simple question: Why are [some] people homophobic? I'm sure that a lot of people who are both much smarter than I am and (in particular) better versed in human psychology have already attempted to answer this question (or done so successfully, I don't know); I'm not trying to provide an authorative statement, but merely set my own private musings down for posterity. To my untrained mind, it seems that there are three fairly comprehensive categories (or motivations).

1. FUD

Category 1 contains people who are morally or philosophically opposed to homosexuality because they personally feel that it is wrong or repulsive. I don't think there will be much debate on this point—we oppose that which we feel is wrong. I think rape is wrong, so I am morally opposed to it. Some people think homosexuality is wrong—and here we are.

All right, I admit it. I'm not at perfect ease with alternative sexual orientations. I suppose that if I saw two girls kissing, I could cope with that (quiet, you), but if I saw two guys, I would quite possibly feel that it was—for lack of a better word—icky. Maybe this makes me a terrible person, but that's not the issue.

[Edit (January 25, 2007): I've got over this in the years since I wrote it. I stand by the argument as a whole to exactly the same degree. I've also got over my dislike of broccoli (see below), and I think that's about equally relevant to the argument.]

If you will allow me a brief detour, I will confess some other flaws in my character. For instance, I don't like broccoli. In fact, I despise it. I loathe cauliflower—and don't even get me started on brussels sprouts. I don't understand why anyone would voluntarily eat the nasty things. My dark army of dislikes and hatreds is, in fact, of considerable size; to pick something more or less at random (or at least arbitrarily), I don't ever want to drive a Lada, since they're very ugly and reputed to be terrible cars.

Now—I'm sure you saw this coming—I don't understand the sort of guys who are attracted to guys. On the other hand, I also don't understand the sort of people who find cauliflower gastronomically exciting, but this doesn't mean that I think it is immoral. If I went on a moral crusade against broccoli-munchers, or launched a campaign to purge the country (what country? Pick one!) of Lada drivers, I would be laughed out of North America—yet there are people who base their intolerance on grounds every bit as flimsy.

Whenever we consider whether some thing is morally wrong, we must ask ourselves Whom does it hurt, and why? To return to the previous example, rape is a vile and terrible crime, because it permanently scars the victim. Being attracted to members of one's own sex doesn't hurt anyone any more than does eating brussel sprouts.

2. Circular and non-arguments

Possibly the most dimwitted category of people are the ones who cite no grounds at all. This group is full of people who believe themselves to be tolerant even as they spew bigoted opinions. You will typically hear (or read) statements along the lines of of course gays have the same right to live as anyone else, but if we allowed gay marriage we'd be telling people that it was right, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but we shouldn't expose children to two men* holding hands on TV; what if they start asking questions?, or it's fine, but we shouldn't be promoting it. Presumably category 2 people are actually coming from some other category entirely, but are completely unaware of it (or deny it in order to preserve some credibility, which they then squander with logical fallacies).

I don't think I need to belabour the idiocy inherent in those sorts of arguments. If there is nothing wrong with it, then there is no need to shelter anyone from it, and there is no danger in promoting it (much as I don't see what promoting has to do with sexual orientation).

To go on a tangent with respect to children, the one argument I have ever heard against the rights of homosexuals that seems based on solid fact is one to do with adoption rights: We shouldn't allow gays to adopt, because the children would be picked on. I think this is sadly entirely true. Of course, following exactly the same lines of reasoning we might come up with some more creative suggestions: We shouldn't allow coloured kids in white schools, because some of the white children would pick on them, or how about We shouldn't allow women in major corporations, because they'll get sexually harrassed?

3. Religious arguments

A very commonly cited reason why homosexuality is bad is, of course, that the Bible says so. (It might as well be the Koran, I suppose, or—as far as I know—the Vedas or the Elder Edda—but in the discussions I tend to come across, it's usually the Christian one.)

This is the only category that it is difficult to argue against. This is not because it's any more valid. If anything, I think it's less valid, because it's a sign of people refusing to think for themselves (at least category 1 people are thinking, and category 2 people are clearly incapable of doing so). I've already ranted on the topic of not thinking for yourself; suffice to say, here, that I think it is inexcusable. If you believe that some God, or Gods, or Goddess[es], or Great Green Arkleseizure created the world (or sneezed it out, as the case may be), then that is entirely up to you, and I can respect your beliefs (the Arkleseizure excepted) as long as they are founded on some sort of solid thinking and, much more importantly, don't get in the way of future such. Religious scriptures are coloured by the times in which they were written, politics, and the personal policies of their writers, transcribers, and translators.

I know a number of Christians whom I like and respect greatly, but if you say I disapprove of these people because a book written two thousand years ago by a heterogenous group of church leaders, later edited, censored, and added to, then translated repeatedly, tells me so, then I'm afraid I can't respect you. If you believe that some God designed your brain, then it seems to me that you should believe in applying it to moral judgements, not regurgitating what some church leaders (who are surely sinful and fallible according to that same scripture) tell you.

* For some reason, these arguments always focus on men.

If I had a paid account (which I don't want), I would here post two polls. The first question would be If you are a homophobe, which category do you belong to?; the second, If not, which category do you think is the dumbest?

Note: I reserve the right to fix spelling and grammar, rephrase, clarify, edit, and completely alter the post above if flaws or fallacies are pointed out to me. If you want to argue, take the safe route and quote.