Scott Lively — one of the country’s most obnoxious anti-gay bigots* since at least 2003 — has recently invoked bisexuality as an argument which defeats the case for gay marriage. According to Lively, because bisexuals are only capable of having sex with both sexes at the same time (who knew?), and because homosexuality “includes” bisexuality, gay marriage must necessarily include and embrace polygamy.
Lively also sees homosexuality as conduct engaged in by heterosexuals.
In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual.
Wow. I learn something every day.
Naturally, the nutjob is a regular at WorldNetDaily.
* To be clear, I do not consider opposition to gay marriage to be bigotry. However, if the term “bigot” has any meaning at all, it has to include wanting to criminalize homosexuality, and even wanting to criminalize gay advocacy. If Lively is not an anti-gay bigot, then no one is.
Comments
2 responses to “Lively bigotry”
I think gay marriage can probably be integrated into society and have either neutral or positive effects, and in general I’m in favor of it (which is about as close as I ever get to declaring support for any major social issue).
That said, I find the proponents’ reasoning to be quite flawed. It amounts to “I want it, it’s a private matter between consenting adults, therefore I should have it”. Using that logic, there is just as much a right to polygamy as there is to gay marriage. After all, polygamy is between consenting adults too. Unfortunately, polygamy has well-documented negative externalities.
And therein lies the rub. Marriage isn’t just a private matter. It affects both the productive capacity of the current generation and the upbringing of the next two. From that standpoint, I find the arguments of the opponents more intellectually satisfying–yes, gay marriage does in fact change the traditional definition of marriage. That doesn’t, however, prove that the change is a negative.
I think gay marriage would be accepted much more easily if proponents would stop trying to claim it’s just individual choice, which is laughable. They’d be much better off adopting an argument that since homosexuality is a fact, we’re better off integrating gay couples fully into society, and thoroughly exploring the consequences of that logic.
Except that the science is on his side, not yours.
1. No gay gene or other genetic/biological factor has been found for homosexuality.
2. Although a significant percentage of the population has engaged in homosexual behavior – and almost 1/3 of teenagers go through a period of same-sex crushes – only a tiny fraction of these people go on to identify as exclusively gay (only 1.5 percent of the population).
So homosexuals are NOT born that way, and homosexuality is not a “natural” variation. Which leads us to the next step.
3. The vast majority of exclusive homosexuals live lives dominated by patterns of compulsive promiscuity – made bearable by rates of substance abuse that are 4-5 times the norm.
A “lifestyle option” that leads to rates of depression and suicide that are also 4-5 times the norm.
These numbers aren’t improved with legal or cultural acceptance, and are confirmed by decades of data from Ministries of Health in various gay meccas (my personal favorite is Xiridou’s study showing that Dutch gays in “committed relationships” still had 20-50 sexual partners a year…. so much for gay “marriage”).
Link:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-23-Sex-survey-revelations-on-gay-identity_n.htm