I really cannot understand it. Every day here in Texangelical Hell, I am surrounded by a constant and persistent undercurrent of homophobia. Often the gay-bashing is quite blatant as derogatory slurs and obscene references are casually tossed into conversation; these comments are usually fueled by a touted “disgust” for homosexual practices. This is irritating, but largely dismissive as I find that it only brands the speaker as childish and incapable of rational adult thought.
What I find more offensive is the subtler–-and purportedly justified-–condemnation that results from people who assert a moral high ground. These are the people who will spout the trite definition of marriage being between a man and woman, usually citing the Bible as their infallible reference. When pressed for specific passages, however, I find it amusing that very few Christians are ever able to actually quote a direct passage from scripture that condemns homosexuality. (I am not making the case that such passages do not exist, just that the people who cite these passages have never actually read the material themselves.)
Then there are the sad attempts to intellectualize an opposition to homosexuality, particularly against gay marriage. Such mind-numbing diatribes usually revolve around the supposed threat to paternal obligation if homosexuals were allowed to marry and raise their partner’s children at will. The gist of the argument usually states that if gays can elect to raise the non-biological offspring of their partner, then parenthood becomes voluntary and deadbeat dads (or even mothers, the case sometimes asserts) cannot automatically be expected to provide for their own biological children. It is a long and twisted path of convoluted logic that arrives at this point. Regardless, even assuming the point is valid, it has already been proven inconsequential by the multitudes of barren couples who adopt and raise non-biological children; paternal–-and parental–-obligation has remained safely intact.
Beyond the issue of adoption rights, another argument against gay marriage–-and this one is truly my favorite–-is to suggest that marriage should exist for child-rearing and procreation purposes only. Since homosexuals can never physically procreate without an outside sperm or egg donor, it is deemed that they should be denied an institution that supposedly exists solely for familial purposes. Even ignoring adoption as a source of children for gay and straight couples alike, this supposed requirement for marriage implies an uncomfortable realm of disclosure in obtaining a marriage license. By this logic, any person who is physically incapable of reproducing is automatically barred from marriage. Must we then require an embarrassing physical examination to ensure the functionality of the reproductive organs of all applicants for marriage licenses? Also, what about couples who decide to never have any children? If the wife of a childless middle-aged couple reaches menopause and eliminates any chance of biological offspring, should their license be revoked and their marriage dissolved?
In the end, I have learned to just shut my mouth and stare over the shoulder of the individual spewing such puerile trash; eventually, the tide of verbal excrement recedes and I can blissfully continue to ignore whatever else they may choose to rant about. Oppositions to homosexuality based solely upon disgust and morality are general espoused by people who cannot be bothered to genuinely evaluate the irrationality of their statements. Likewise, it is just as fruitless to argue against crudely intellectualized arguments; such moronic dribble is usually accompanied by an uncompromising arrogance that prevents any worthwhile debate. Vitriolic hatred of this magnitude has no basis in reality and, as such, is something that I will never be able to comprehend.