I've decided to cover a rather difficult and controversial topic for my second post. That of homosexuality. Deep stuff...
First things first, I'm straight. So this does not come from personal experience, but rather a bystanders view of what occurs, and his questions as to why. Personally, I see no problem in it. We live in a modern culture where equality is supposed to prevail, and the understanding that people stray from the 'norm', in all its stifling boredom. The problem being is that a number of people do not feel this way, and reject the modern acceptance that women can love women, and men can love men. Nick Griffin, in his esteemed position as the head of the most controversial, racist and homophobic party in the British democratic system, is a prominent example of one who fails to grasp that such things happen.
However, to offer a counter argument to their belief one must analyse the beliefs. What arguments can be used against homosexuality? I shall take a few in turn, and refute them.
For the survival of the species, it is a nightmare. The human body is designed to produce more children when men and women come together, not when a man and another man do. Thus it can be argued that it 'violates natural law'. Indeed, it is detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole, but there are some important counter arguments.
First and foremost, do we really need more people? It may be cold and horrifically logical, but one counter argument is to say that our population has already reached the level where our world cannot support it. This refutes the argument that we need more children, as we have too many! That is not to say that it's the solution to our population problem, but it's an argument against those who say it is detrimental to the species.
Another assault people use is that gay people can be 'cured', as if it's a disease. In fact, it was on the British Register of diseases until as late as the 1970s. People use this argument to say that it is not natural, a flaw in a person that can be ironed out, usually through abuse and discrimination. The counter argument is simple; there is growing proof that people are hardwired a certain way. Heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are there from birth, and remain dormant until puberty. Indeed, heterosexuality is the most common, but that's not to say that just because the other two are 'uncommon' (1 in 20) that they are unnatural. There are plenty of uncommon traits that are natural; ginger hair being one.
It is important to remember that much of the discrimination against gays comes from religious teachings. The old testament of the bible includes two distinct pointers on the matter. One is amongst the 613 commandments given to Moses, which states (in a round about way) anyone who 'lays with a man as one lays with a woman...' should be killed. The other, later on, says that although homosexual feelings are natural, they should be suppressed.
As a non-christian it easy for me to ignore this, and so not go around battering gays to death. But neither do Christians. Churches do not organise the planned death or lynching of homosexuals. For once, the bible is wholly ignored. If the very people who adhere to their holy tome do not follow it, why should others use it as an excuse for discrimination and prejudice?
A final attack that I'm going to cover is the stereotype of gays as pedophilic, sadomasochistic weirdos. Simply because people so not fit the 'norm' in one way does not mean they will diversify into different, and more obscure things. It is simple to refute this argument. It does not happen, and so the stereotype (and invention of a less developed time that plagues us now) is wrong. Such differences are no more common amongst homosexuals than amongst straight people.
And I shall leave it at that. There is no rule about heterosexuality and homosexuality that means we have to bully the minority of people who are hardwired differently at birth. So why should we?