11 Feb 2006

Family Values - the big lie

This is a duplicate post of the one I've posted on http://blog.sayoni.com

The Simpsons

"Did you hear that Marge? We are supporting family values here!"

Taken from synergisedsolutions.com

***

Family values. The big fuzzy cloud where all reasoning stops functioning.

Try as I might have, I still have yet to extract a coherent argument from any family groups all these years. How do gay people undermine the family unit? After all, if I am going to be destroying some invaluable family value by kissing girls, I should at least know what that is, right? But, I decided to do them a favour, and by painstakingly combing through several family values’ sites[and incurring irreparable mental trauma as a result], I am extracting the points that aren’t clouded by religious fervour.


Jerry Falwell, I am doing you a big favour by actually bringing some coherence to the ravings of your minions.

“We will see a breakdown of the family and family values if we decide to approve same-sex marriage, and if we decide to establish homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle with all the benefits that go with equating it with the heterosexual lifestyle.” Jerry Falwell

As an argument to make the public rally for their side, “family values” is a worthy cause, something with great moral appeal to every one no matter what their religion. It is easy to get fathers and mothers anxious over the integrity of the family to donate, by claiming they defend family values. It is even easier to get schools and the government to approve their cause, to protect the fragile state of the modern nuclear family, endangered by a menacing environment saturated with sex and violence.

And lest we forget, family values face their most dangerous adversary today: the Homosexual. The Homosexual, in all his capitalised glory, sleeps with every other person who comes his way, and injects his veins with crystal meth. Who seduces little kids from the playgrounds and recruits teenagers to become a Homosexual, like him. Who eventually dies from being whipped one too many times by his newest lover or AIDS.

Sounds familiar?

No, I didn’t think so. Because, the Homosexual in this construct is a figment of imagination at its worst, and a rarity at the best. It is a convenient lump of mashed bad eggs from the gay community, very useful in convincing the layman of their argument on the part of these “family groups”.


Okay, so we can’t go there. Let’s see what else I can dig up against gay people. Let me be rational and go point by point.

1. Gay people are paedophiles. I don’t want them molesting my children. Look at NAMBLA! Am I supposed to support such people?

Homosexuality is defined here as mutually consensual sex between two adults – paedophilia obviously doesn’t fit here. Homosexuality does not equal paedophilia. There is no conclusive link between the two, and drawing non-existent connections between the two is as good as saying global warming is causing George Bush to invade Iraq.

Statistics show that majority of child molesters are heterosexual. So, your child is more likely to be molested by a straight man rather than a gay man. Also, among those men who molest small boys, it has to be noted they often do NOT identify as gay.

NAMBLA is a pariah among the gay community, and almost 100% of us are strongly against its agenda. We do not even consider it a gay organisation – we have sisters, brothers, and even children. We do not want them to be in danger from child-molesters. Look at any gay website, and it is unlikely anyone would even list NAMBLA as a gay resource. Sex with minors is illegal, and completely wrong.

2. Granting gay marriage/rights will undermine the heterosexual marriage structure.

Let me imagine… it is the day after the government has legalised gay marriage, and all the wives and husbands wake up, and realise they are gay, and decide to divorce their spouses and marry someone of the same sex. Horrors of horrors! The family unit is gone! The human race will become extinct!


Sorry, Jerry. I simply can’t understand how this is going to happen.

I can understand, though, why family groups are concerned with the decline of the heterosexual family. Divorce rates are increasing, delinquency is turning into criminality, and dysfunctional families are on the rise. I am concerned too – but homosexuality is not the cause of this. Neither can it aggravate the situation. The reasons for the decline of the family is rooted deep in the failure of the social structure we lived with until now.

If anything, granting family rights to gay people would only help the state of the family, as gay people would have legitimised union to look forward to, raise kids etc.

To prove my point, I’d like to point to Massachusetts, which has legalised gay marriage. It has been a couple of years, and still there is no sign of the heterosexual structure breaking down.

In a nutshell: to beat back the gay community in order to save the heterosexual marriage is akin to building a dam to stop the volcano from erupting.

3. The only stable family structure is that of a man and a woman with children

This is very offensive to all the single mothers and fathers out there, who’ve slaved single-handedly to raise their children to be productive members of the society. If single parents can do it, and there is no lasting damage on the children, what is wrong with two men or two women? After all, two hands are better than one.

And I am strongly contesting the point about the heterosexual unit being the only stable one: the rising divorce rates speak for themselves.

4. Children raised by gay parents turn out gay/depressed/suicidal

I’d like to point to the study here. Clearly, the kids are all right. There is no conclusive evidence that gay parents rear gay kids, unless genetic evidence is taken into account.

Sorry, Jerry… I ran out of points. The rest were just lots of religious pronouncements, which no rational person would even consider as a valid argument.

If anything, I’d like to ask the family groups… why are you making so much of a fuss over homosexuality? Is it the last of your tenets, the last pillar left to knock over? There are certainly more important things to be concerned over than homosexuality. Rising divorce rates, for example. Why aren’t you doing something about that? Where were you when fathers were raping daughters? When fathers were hitting mothers? Instead of doing something about real social issues such as this, you choose to waste your efforts on marginalising the gay community.

Gay people are not against family. We have families of our own too. There is no rational reason why a queer would wake up in the morning and say, "I am going to destroy a family today, just for the fun of it."

In fact, these family values' groups have an adverse effect, by perpertuating homophobia, one is only helping widen the rift between millions of queer people on the planet and their immediate families, especially parents. Now THAT is how a family can be destroyed.


Oops, looks like even *I* can’t help you formulate a proper argument. You’re own your own, buddy.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase a famous Russian, happy families are all the same, unhappy families are all unhappy in their own unique way.

Gay rights is an emotional issue over which otherwise quite rational people find that their powers of reasoning have suddenly deserted them. Despite the large amount of evidence indicating that gay people are as likely to be good parents, child molesters, murderers, competent presidents etc their critics still have a tendency to respond by reflex with the morals of their grand parents generation.

Gay people carry on being nice, straight people get over it. If gay people are equal enough to die for their country then they are equal enough troll around Ikea at the weekend with the kids. Why they should want to do this is another matter altogether.


http://fuckdaddyandthefireangel.blogspot.com

sglaksa said...

Gay people are not widely accepted. They should just keep it quiet, like live a second life or something.

pleinelune said...

Really? Then, since people are racist, I, as an Indian, should paint my skin white and live a secret life?

clyde said...

lol...surely sglaksa is just taking the piss. And pleinelune, you should paint yourself yellow. You're still a minority if you're white in Singapore.

The last time I checked anyway...

rench00 said...

ah... but while white is a minority, it is prized over yellow. expat packages damn good you know...

the issue here is not about being the minority. it is about discrimination of one and favoring the other.

i must admit though, i feel uncomfortable about homosexuals. especially gays. i don't ask them to take on double lives. but i still feel uncomfortable seeing them openly demonstrating their affections publicly. when i see them, i'd rather pretend that i didn't. i know. i am discriminating, narrow-minded, etc. i apologise. it is my conditioning.

Anonymous said...

Well, can't expect everyone to accept everybody or everything. Some are born innately with such behaviour. In fact, we should show some sympathy towards them instead. In my opinion, if we can't generate some love for them, for at least we do not hate or harm them.

Saltwetfish said...

rench00, I think it may be same as seeing your parents (!!) making out in front of you.. no? Anyway, I also feel uncomfortable with couple straight and gay over-petting in the public. I guess its a matter of normalisation.

Saltwefish said...

Actually, I think we may need to reconsider this statement:

"Sex with minors is illegal, and completely wrong"

Is sex with minors wrong because its illegal or its illegal because its wrong or both??

Its a slippery argument because we can say that since gay sex is illegal in Singapore, therefore its completely wrong.

Then again polygamy is illegal in most countreis and therefore its completely wrong, however... Muslims laws does allow for more than one wife..

Then again, killing is wrong and illegal. But its not illegal to kill someone during war times, but is it still wrong (??), this is something that each person have to answer themselves.

What about minors, what age is a minor? is 16 years old really a minor? Can young children not have conscent? Is 16 an arbituary age or an exact science. If so, why do different societies sees the age of consent differently?

pleinelune said...

If you want to argue whether sex with minors is right or wrong, that's another whole essay altogether.

First of all, that's not a crucial point in the essay: main thrust, I feel it is unethical to take advantage of children below a certain age, whether they consent or not. However, here, my argument rested on the abuse of YOUNG, unpubescent children (anywhere from 0-12 years). I doubt anyone can justify this based on "consent" of the child.

rench00 said...

i don't think homosexual people need sympathy, nor are they looking for it. i believe that they just want an opportunity to be themselves.

isn't that what we all want though?

yes... i suppose my uncomfortableness with homosexuals is because i've been conditioned to think that homosexuality is unnatural and not normal. i hold nothing against homosexuals, i agree that they should be allowed to be themselves, but if given a choice, i'd rather not see them being homosexual (i.e. if i can, i'll look away, pretend they are not there, etc etc).

clyde said...

The subjects of underaged sex, polygamy, homosexuality and war are all very different and I don't think can be justified simply in terms of whether one is legal or not. The arguments only become "slippery" when you follow this logic of turning to the law for morality rather than questioning morality itself. Underaged sex is widely unaccepted obviously because children are not mature enough to make such personal decisions. They are particularly vulnerable and prone to manipulation and abuse and Im sure any right-minded parent would want the law on their side on this one. It's not an exact science, but it's close enough.

Killing may be wrong in the eyes of God, but certainly not in those of governments that decide to go to war. No one enjoys death, but I do believe in a point where war is neccessary. If the Allies had decided not to challenge the uprise of Nazi Germany and the Rising Sun, we'd be speaking German or Japanese by now as a first language.

And personally, I have no gripe with homosexuals and they have every right to make out in public as the straight person next to them. But then again, even when seeing a straight couple making out, Im tempted to shout "Get a room!!!"

Onikaze said...

I really enjoyed this article. It's nice to see someone stating the same things I have stated whenever this discussion is brought up. In my local paper today, there was a blurb about a woman who got into a fight with her boyfriend and.. get this.. bludgeoned him with her four-week-old baby. The child's skull was fractured and he had internal bleeding in the brain.

Divorce and infidelity rates rise. People crank out kids that they don't care for. And now, children are being used as clubs. Homosexuals are no threat to "family values." Heterosexuals are tearing those apart quite nicely on their own.

My wife and I were discussing this once and theorized that this is a lot like the treatment of blacks a few decades ago (and to a lesser extent still today). They were viewed as inhuman... the possibility of a white person marrying a black person would destroy the fabric of American society... blah blah blah blah. Unfortunately, it also likely means that - like the blacks - homosexuals will have a long road ahead of them. On the flip side, it also shows that there is the chance for progress as there has been in the push for black rights.

Heterosexual couples take for granted all of the things they claim make up "family values." Therefore, they neglect and abuse those things. Homosexual couples.. since they have had to fight for these things.. would value them much more. I think, therefore, that granting homosexuals totally equal recognition and rights would IMPROVE values when you look at the statistics.

Plus, I think most people that argue against homosexuality are basically guys and women following their lead as a "good Christian wife should." (barf) So, a lot of it, IMO, stems from their own personal insecurities. The laughable thing I've noticed about this is how guys go ga-ga for lesbian porn, but then call homosexual men an "affront to God and nature." Uh, yeah.. nice double standard there.

Anyway, folks, your day will come. Unfortunately, it may not be in our lifetime.