I love to peruse youtube and see all the kooks that get themselves a fancy webcam.
But, how can you justify being anti-gay by being pro-life? Does that round the circle of ignorance and stand firm on the false assumption that homosexuality destroys the creation process? Yes, there is the fact that two males cannot procreate, but that does not mean we are anti-creation. By no means am I slowing down the “creation” baby-making process by being gay.
Now I will say that I have been clean for two years. Two years ago I would not be able to defend my stance on this topic, for it was routine for me to go out and club straight kids with a jimmy bat.
Too bad his parents were not gay.
June 10, 2008 at 10:18 pm
To further argue alongside my colleague, close friend, and fellow Queen blogger Brandon, I pose a similar logic. The redneck snake handling backwoods trailer park dude seems to be defending his anti gay beliefs with any moral justification he can thread together. His argument is one I am glad to say I have not heard in mass from anti gay propaganda. His statements may have held up in the old testament era as simple ritual guidelines or for the simple fact that the Jewish people wanted to expand their religious beliefs by furthering procreation. Procreation is while necessary to the continuation of the human race by its innate nature, but the world as it stands today is overpopulated.
If this man actually had any logically cohesive thoughts, then he must conclude that regardless of orientation if you do not produce offspring then you are in the wrong, that you are morally, socially, and legally subject to the judgment of the likes of his kind. Keep in mind this would include people who have physical defects and are therefore sterile, or even heterosexuals who choose not to marry or even not to have children. He cannot hold such premises if his conclusions do not apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
If his argument is held for no other reason than the necessity of procreation then his mention of homosexuality is irrelevant. If this is the argument he truly held, then he simply should denounce anyone regardless of orientation, who does not partake (by choice or otherwise) in procreation. He is arguing backwards, starting at his conclusion that homosexuality is wrong and looking for any justification for his beliefs. Unfortunately that is not how one should logically think things through, let alone argue verbally in a public forum. If he thinks gay men are the only ones who go at things backwards then he lacks the intelligence to even review and critique his own arguments. I do not hold hatred for him, just his beliefs and ignorance, I pity his lack of education, as well as those who are persecuted by his beliefs. Even if in some parallel universe his logic had some merit, modern day technology even brings reproduction itself into scrutiny. Through advances in technology sperm from a donor can be used to fertilize an egg from another donor, thus eradicating any necessity for marriage or sex, if reproduction is the only thing that justifies a relationship. His logic is in deep need of disinfecting.