Zero tolerance for gay haters

I thought homosexuality is not an issue any more. I mean, there used to be a time when people would only talk about gays on the quiet. I was too young then to have a say. But I noticed that everyone found that topic somewhat embarrassing. Then, the comedians came and took it up. For a short time, gay jokes were perky, daring and had a slight notion of being perceived immoral. Soon, gay jokes became so common that comedians left them behind and went on to new taboos to make fun of. For me, this showed me that society had finally accepted homosexuals as normal members.

Now, the government of Uganda wants to put gays to death. The approval of the new law is still pending, but it is not very improbable that the state of Uganda will officially kill gay people beginning with February 2010. It's sad, isn't it?

Not that this would be particularly new. But in our times, it used to be islamic dominated states that were into executing homosexuals. It seems that Uganda is now willing to prove that a state of christian leadership does not have to rank behind in this regard. They say it is about the morals of the population. They say, homosexuality just came up in Uganda because of the colonial masters of the past. But they don't mention that the current anti-gay laws in their country come from the time when Uganda was a colony.

Lately, I watched this interview on YouTube (video in new window). It makes me angry to see what a dirty little pig Richard Cohen is, claiming that he can change homosexual people into straight ones, and how ugly he hides that behind his fake, rehearsed friendly smile. If it were not for the moderator, who by the means of her excellent journalistic approach restored part of my trust in journalism, then the video would just make me wanna puke. I recommend it to everyone to see it, because on the one hand, Cohen gets the shit beaten out of him in an adorable, professional manner, and on the other hand, you can see a gay hater's mode of operation in action.

Well, that interview made me think. I remembered a talk that I had with someone out of my peripheral connections, a conservative, traditional arch christian who argued against homosexuality. Of course, I argued against that person's standpoint immediately. Unfortunately, I was in a bad tactical position, because I did not want to piss off that person completely. So I was rather tolerant in my line of argument. Now, having put a little more thought into the topic, I regret that. I would really like to go back in time and say the following instead (think of a voice like George Carlin's):

What you're spouting there is not from yesterday, it's from ancient history. It is inhuman, misanthropic, and it grosses me out. How could you come into this total loss of reason, degrading people just for seeking love, just like you do! It's just that the sexual attraction of that people gets started by members of the same sex, this is the only difference. The only difference! The only way for those people to get accepted by you as normal human beings would be to disguise themselves as heteros and live together with a partner of the opposite sex, even though they would find that repulsive. Who are you to dictate this? Do you even have the slightest idea of what our forefathers had to go through in order to free us from dictatorship and dictate? How can you arrogate yourself to wanting to take back the achievement of freedom? And how come you are so horribly fixated on the sexual desires of strangers?

I am angry about myself because I did not have the balls (haha!) to say that. I won't be tolerant to gay haters any more. That's not some kind of joke, it is existential for the persons concerned. My view on gay haters has changed due to Uganda and Cohen. In the past, I viewed them as socially ignorant and maybe even pitied them a bit. Now I am disgusted by them. The arguments are always the same foul, stinking pile of garbage:

• They say a gay couple cannot raise children appropriately, because a child needs both father and mother. WTF? When I was a kid, the genitals of my parents did not concern me at all. It's not about how the parents look naked, but it's about what the parents actually do.
• They say the bible is against homos. Regarding that: For one thing, this topic is not crossed even once in the new testament. For another thing, god says in the old testament that we should go out and kill gay people. Whoever worships such a god deserves my full and utter despite. Whole-hearted, genuine despite. This pseudo argument is nothing but a poor excuse for a real argument.
• They say Allah has not made the male genital for being inserted into the anus. Supposedly, gay people are constantly sick because of this, and the doctors don't say anything in public because they have secretly agreed on keeping silent on this matter. No joke - this has actually been put forward as an argument to me, in all seriousness. This would mean that Allah also does not like heterosexual anal sex, and the discussion partner did not even tell me what Allah has conceived agains lesbians. As if this would not already be enough, the whole argument unveils itself as a laughable pretense when it comes to the world wide conspiration of doctors.
• They say being homosexual is against nature. Nature!

Nature! What's that supposed to be, human nature? Animals of the same sex are shagging all over, you just have to look at it. Studies claim that homosexuality among animals appears more often when there are only few females. That is natural!

What shall we regard as natural? Many would say, it's man in his "natural habitat". Which is to say, without modifying his environment by himself, and without using tools.

Surprise: Such a state has never existed in history. It is just a romantic fantasy image. Even the genetic ancestors of Homo Sapiens used tools. Neanderhals and their ancestors lived in tents that they made out of the bones and skin of slain mammoths. They had already started cultivating useful plants and keeping animals. Homo Sapiens, at the very moment when that species came into being, adopted this culture from his forefathers. Humans have never ever lived in that so-called natural state. If it's that what you mean by natural, then this would mean that naturalness for humans does not exist at all. And you can't simply take over the naturalness of Homo Sapiens' ancestors for humans, because the organisms of our ancestors worked differently, they had a different perception, a different sociality and different cognition.

Now, if you choose to include the modification of the enviroment and the usage of tools, and you choose to accept this as natural, where does this take you? - Exactly, to our modern present-day world. Our modern world developed solely due to the usage of tools and our active modification of our environment. It is impossible to draw a meaningful, sharp line between human naturalness an human un-naturalness that brands our living conditions of today unnatural. And it's not just a peculiarity that I am writing about here, this is consequent thinking and asking questions. (You should also always have this in mind when you hear that pseudo scientific para-babble nonsense like "natural medicaments" or "natural aromas". That's just plain nonsense.)

What does this show us? The claim that homosexuality is unnatural is also just a pretense. Whoever tries to put this forward as an argument has never really thought about it. Why didn't he think about it? Because he already started with the premise that he does not want to like gay people, and this argument appeared to be serving that purpose on first glance. So better not think about it; it would be tragic if that house of cards would collapse because of too much thinking.

And that's why I firmly believe that you should have no scruples and confront gay haters very clearly and explicitly. You don't need to be considerate of their opinion because they did not invest any work whatsoever into questioning their own arguments. Those aren't real arguments or self-earned opinons, it's just rhetorical blah blah, which they presumptiously vomit out in front of you and then tell you that his heap of shit is a serious argument. They clad in an armour of pseudo arguments that crumples into dust upon even the slightest breeze of reasonable thought. And in their thinking, they have been guided right from the start that they wanted reasons which allow them to condemn homosexuals. This is detestable, and they can be happy about everyone who gives them a fair warning. It is like telling a colleage that he left his barn door open. For the moment, there might be a slight notion of shame, but in the end, you spare him and all the others of the greater embarrassment.

Homos are absolutely normal people, not better or worse than everyone else. They are not unnatural, they are not per se bad parents or irresponsible. They are just as amiable, gracious, human and natural as everyone else. The whole embarrassing thruth behind the anti-gay brain disorder cannot conceal that this is all just about one tiny difference. And this is only about what people you choose to share your love with, in a freely chosen partnership. Some people find no rest until they have enforced their personal opinon upon everyone else. Reasonable people think that a fulfilling sex life is everyone's private matter, and no one has a right to interfere.

In finishing this article, I want to rehash something that has almost fallen in oblivion: the gay joke. As I wrote in the beginning, I had originally thought we don't need it any more. But now I am thinking that a little loosening up won't do any harm.

A gay couple lives together in an apartment. One of them lies in the bathtub as the other one bolts in with a spoon in his hand. He fills the spoon with water, says "nee-naw" and leaves. This gets repeated 10 times, until the other one asks what the hell he is doing. The answer: "Oh honey, how shall I put it? The kitchen is on fire..."