Just a pet peeve of mine:
If everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would die out.
This is tiresome. Unfortunately, most people on our side focus on the implausibility of the sentence’s first part: ”It’s not going to happen so don’t worry about it.”
That’s tempting, of course. I’ve got trouble with that approach, though.
First, many of our opponents don’t view this hypothetical as implausible. They think the homosexual agenda is to recruit straights and turn the whole world gay. But to harbor a fear like that, they have to believe that such a thing is possible. That makes me wonder how secure they are in their own sexuality.
But…
I don’t think that line of reasoning gets us anywhere. It’s too subtle for someone with full-on homosexual panic to follow. It also sounds a bit like the tired and unconvincing argument that everyone who opposes homosexuality is a secret homosexual.
Some of them are, of course, but I bet a lot more oppose us precisely because they’re not closet gays. It’s morally lazy and morally satisfying to oppose things you’re not tempted to do.
I mean, it’s easy to picture some dude reclining like a sloth in the La-Z-Boy chair he’s so proud of, stuffing his greedy face with chips and beer, lusting for his neighbor’s wife, so consumed with envy that he’s full of wrath at her husband. But he feels virtuous anyway because, hey, he’s disgusted by the fairy across the street.
The other problem with pointing out the implausibility of their panicked scenario: It doesn’t dispute their implicit condemnation, which, if you spell it out, goes like this:
If everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would die out, therefore homosexuality is bad.
I’ve got a solution for that. It’s quick and easy, and will probably confuse the hell out them — in a good way. Just answer with something like this:
If everyone in the world skipped having kids and devoted their lives to the poor like Mother Theresa, the human race would die out. Does that make Mother Theresa bad?
or…
If everyone in the world spent their days trying to cure cancer, no one would be growing food and the human race would die out. Does that mean trying to cure cancer is bad?
I doubt this will convince the person you’re talking to, but in conversations like this, your best bet for impact will be on the other people listening. And they’ll probably get a kick out of your opponent rebutting you with, “What? What? No, that’s not the same — no, um, what?”
It is very important not to miss the very subtle gay bashing here–
gay people are selfish and do not care about anything except sex.
gay people are irresponsible and do not care aobut other people.
gay people have no sense of duty.
gay people don’t like children, and in fact, are inimical to them.
and so on.
Obviously your arguments are valid, but I think it would be better to compare being gay with something more neutral than curing cancer or helping the poor. I expect you don’t want to appear to suggest that being gay is inherently beneficial to society. If everyone was an actor, the human race would die out.
Or maybe people will just start protesting outside theatres…
Good point, Andrew, though I think some people believe the world really would be better off with fewer actors. How about shoemakers?
I’m not surprised that it’s so easy for them to think like this. After all, the Christian agenda is largely to recruit non-Christians and turn the whole world Christian. They believe that such a thing is possible. That’s why missionaries, televangelists, and tracts were invented.
——————-
PS: Although you didn’t actually mention Christianity/religion, I always consider it to be at least a subtext in virtually all anti-gay issues.
“But to harbor a fear like that, they have to believe that such a thing is possible.”
they DO believe that. Being gay is a choice, and i suspect a lot of them have to do an alan chambers on a daily basis. And if being gay is a choice, and if gay sex is so addictive and wonderful that it can turn a truly straight man gay, then it could easily happen.
If everyone in the world was homosexual, there would be no unwanted children.
One more: Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing. I see no reason to think a world populated entirely by homosexuals would forgo sperm banks, artificial insemination, or the occasional PVI for the sake of the race.
Max, I completely agree that a purely homosexual population would mean that there would be children who were the product of IVF and artificial insemination. However, I would go further. As all children would be the product of an intentional decision to make a baby rather than the unwanted product of the pursuit of sexual pleasure, children would be far more likely to have parents who are willing and able to make the necessary sacrifices for their children.
This reminds of a movie I saw, “Almost Normal”. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0466669/ It wasn’t the best movie out there, but the idea is, it’s kind of a wizard of oz deal, where the kid passes out and wakes up in a world where everyone is Gay. How was he born? They had “Parental Partners” where a gay man and lesbian woman would come together simply for the sake of conceiving a child, and then would share custody, and the child would have 2 mothers and 2 fathers. It was an interesting concept really. But it does more. The kid, in his dream, then starts to realize he’s straight, and has to suffer the discrimination that comes with it. Interesting idea.
Max and Jules, you two said exactly what I meant. Thanks. Also, there would be no teen pregnancy either. And although it wouldn’t be completely unavoidable, overpopulation would be less of a threat. And if it’s like in that movie, kids would have double the parents, so double the support system and double the mother and father figures in the kids life. And hey, there would be almost no abortions, since every child has to be planned to be conceived. So the only abortions would be if the mother’s life was at stake, although she would probably be checked out by a doctor before becoming pregnant (don’t really know how that works). So to summarize:
If everyone in the world were homosexual, there would be no teen pregnancy.
If everyone in the world were homosexual, there would be no unnatural abortions.
Do I miss the point here if I note that you suggest choices of things we could do that could or would make the human race die out?
Being gay as you well know is not a choice, and scientific evidence is mounting in support of being “born that way.” So does using an argument where choice is part of the equation – does this not actually shoot us in the foot? Is there another argument that could be made to highlight the absurdity of their “argument,” using attributes we are born with instead?
Heck if we were all born female, or all born male, the human race would die out too. Ask them that question – if we were all born (fill in the gender of your choice), would the human race would die out? They might answer that it can’t happen since we are born male or female (if you follow the cultural binary). The answer to that is simply – “Exactly!” They will still be confused by this answer of course.
Does this make any sense at all? Or is my logic not so logical?
“If everyone in the world was homosexual, there would be no unwanted children.” Sinbad, for the win!!
This reminds me of Desmond Morris who (if I remember correctly) in The Naked Ape suggested that homosexuality was a natural form of birth control by putting a limit on the number of individuals who’d reproduce. It’s an interesting idea, and certainly overpopulation can be a problem, but I think Morris may only be at least partly right. His idea doesn’t take into consideration the fact that there’s a lot more to human sexuality than just reproduction. Nor does he consider the number of homosexuals who want children, and who adopt–although willingness to raise another’s children could potentially be another natural benefit of someone not wanting to have children of their own.
But what really irks me is that, as I said, human sexuality is complicated. Even though Morris was arguing for acceptance of homosexuality it seems like both Morris and people who say “if everyone in the world were homosexual the human race would die out” are trying to oversimplify it far too much. After all I’m pretty sure the hypothetical dude lusting after his neighbor’s wife has zero desire to impregnate her no matter how badly he wants to go through the motions. And if everyone in the world were like that dude the human race would probably die out.
I reckon the argument that a homosexually populated world would be one without reproduction is an assumption that the replenishing of human beings is dependent on accidental conception. It’s innocent, naive and in a way, rather sweet; although I suppose the idea that gays and lesbians would just let the world decend into ruin is all part of the sterotype that we recklessly die young through excessive partying and sinful self indulgence.
I’m pretty confident that if human sexuality underwent some miraculous homo transformation that there’d be organised parental planning to ensure population maintenance.
That IS an oversimplied question which is being directed at the stupid and fearful. Yet, gay folks are the ones paying the price for this stupidity and cowardice.
There are some biological realities about homosexuality that DO make much more sense, but aren’t being entertained by the anti gay.
Such as population control, but gay folks seem to represent a utilitarian population that does EVERYTHING that heteros can. And if a child is orphaned or abandoned, can step in to assure the survival of that child.
Mores the point, hetero sexuals aren’t THAT concerned with the perpetuation of the SPECIES, but their OWN biological children. Marriage was essentially about IDENTIFYING one’s progeny. Hence the laws that females must be virgins when married. Look at all the societies that required the sons of other families, tribes and cultures, be killed. War is an ongoing and deliberate elimination of others.
People like NOM and FRC emphasize BIOLOGICAL children as superior to those who are adopted, and adopted by people not of their ideal. They aren’t concerned with ALL CHILDREN and that those children have a home with adults that care and love them and give them stability, but they are working to assure a caste system against those children who don’t have op sex parents. Period. Or any parents at all. So in effect, their zeal to exclude gay parents, hurts THOSE children. And NOM, et al don’t care.
So they DO commit selection, another kind of eugenics and Darwinist principle, but it’s not NATURAL selection. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I really appreciated Rob’s post and all of your comments, particularly those about the biotech innovations involving reproduction that really have changed that old implausible hypothetical. But that hypothetical has always been wrongly stated by the those who believe it. It’s not, “If everyone in the world were homosexual, the human race would die out.” To be true, disregarding for the moment the new realities in reproduction, it has to be, “If everyone were exclusively homosexual, the human race would die out.” Not all of us who consider ourselves gay are Kinsey 6′s; not all of those who consider themselves straight are Kinsey 0′s. (I’m not implying that I’m anything other than a 6.)
BTW, if the stigma of homosexuality and just plain homosexual experimentation disappeared – as a result of your efforts and others’ or just because hell froze over – I think it’s very reasonable to believe that more people would try it, even some people who will truly turn out to be basically 0′s. But there’s no reason to think that everyone who tries it will prefer it, or will stop behaving heterosexually, or to be literal, will become exclusively homosexual.
BTW(2), not to start a controversy, but I believe there really are Kinsey 1′s, 2′s, and 3′s. When all the 1′s through the 6′s are counted, I think — but don’t know — that we’re still a minority. But I’m thinking there are some 2′s and 3′s who believe — indeed, know — that they have chosen to deny the gay part of themselves in order to get married and have children. And they probably project that a lot of people have the same choice they have. I don’t have that choice.
I first read the argument phrased more or less this way in a book that was very important to me personally called Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality by John Boswell. I read it in 1981, the year I came out to my parents before I’d ever had sex with a man. It was hundreds of pages of, for me, very difficult reading, but it clarified many things for a young mind that desparately needed clarity. I’ve long since lost my copy; in fact, I had to google the title and author to be able to credit it. I recommend it to everyone,
Sorry this comment is so long, but the post reminded me of the argument from the Boswell book and I wanted to share it with you.
gayyy people are takingover man!!!! take cover were doomeeedd!!!
To be quite honest, wicca, christianity, judaism, hinudism, islam, buddhism, and most other religions see homosexuality as wrong and a unproductive thing to do.
I guess there is always religions like sectarianism hindues or other religions, like the episcopalians, or something like that for gays or what ever.
The abrahamic religions itself make up a good percentage of the world.
Islam, and Christianity alone make about 3.5 billion people. 7.2 billion people on earth.
I got some studying to do….