One Wingnut's Pedophile Is Another's Science Guru? genre: Gaylingual & Hip-Gnosis

When Peter Tatchell served as the Grand Marshall of the San Diego LGBT Pride Parade, the Family Research Council jumped at the opportunity to discredit him and point to his selection as evidence that the LGBT community embraces pedophilia.

When Tatchell, in a recent article at Spiked, suggested that an individual's homosexuality is far more complex than basic genetics, the folks at Focus on the Family referenced him as a seeming expert on the origins of homosexuality...and further evidence that gays have attempted to use genetics to excuse their inappropriate behavior.

I'm not sure how one begins to square the dissonance. First, a look at the FRC's take on Tatchell.

From FRC:

It seems that the San Diego LGBT Pride Parade has a long history of problems associated with pedophilia, including hiring a number of registered sex offenders. However this year they truly crossed the lines to practically endorsing pedophilia by naming pedophilia activist Peter Tatchell as the International Grand Marshal. The fact that such a person even exists, let alone to be endorsed by an organization that also receives taxpayer funded services, is incomprehensible.

Mr. Tatchell's website (which I won't link to but which can be found easy enough) includes topic titles such as:

"Lowering the unrealistic age of consent will help teenagers: The criminalisation of teen sex inhibits advice and protection,"

"SEX RIGHTS FOR THE UNDER-16s, Young people under 16 have sexual rights too,"

"I'M 14, I'M GAY & I WANT A BOYFRIEND, Fourteen year old LEE tells about first sex, boyfriends, coming out, paedophilia, and why an age of consent of 16 won't help under-age gays like him."

"CONSENT AT 16: PROTECTION OR PERSECUTION, Young people under 16 have a right to make their own sexual choices without being victimised by the law."

How this man is not immediately arrested instead of being honored at a parade is beyond me.

Now take a look at the latest Focus on the Family video touting Tatchell's remarks as a refutation of the "gay gene" hypothesis.

So the bottom line is the FRC thinks Tatchell is a garden variety pedophile who should be incarcerated while FOF holds him up as an informed expert. The fact that neither FRC or FOF have truly researched or read the works of Tatchell is simply a testament to both groups propensity for knee-jerk reactions to anything related to homosexuality. Truth be told, Tatchell isn't a pedophile nor did his article reduce homosexuality to a thumbs up or thumbs down genetic equation.

Take a look at the following excerpts from the Spiked article.

From Spiked:

I don't disagree that genes (and hormonal exposure in the womb) influence sexual orientation. The scientific evidence for these biological influences is presented in the book Born Gay (2005), written by Glenn Wilson of the Institute of Psychiatry in London and Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in psychobiology at the University of East London.

But contrary to what the authors seem to suggest, an influence is not the same as a cause. Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that's all. Predisposition and determination are two different things.

The relative influence of biological versus social factors with regard to sexual orientation is still uncertain. What is, however, certain is that if gayness was primarily explainable in genetic terms we would expect it to appear in the same proportions, and in similar forms, in all cultures and all epochs. As the anthropologists Clellan Ford and Frank Beach demonstrated in Patterns Of Sexual Behaviour (1965), far from being cross-culturally uniform and stable, both the incidence and expressions of same-sex desire vary vastly between different societies.

The homophobes are thus, paradoxically, closer to the truth than many gay activists. Removing the social opprobrium and penalties from queer relationships, and celebrating gay love and lust, would allow more people to come to terms with presently inhibited homoerotic desires. In this sense, it is perfectly feasible to 'promote' lesbian and gay sexuality and 'make' someone queer. Individuals who have a homosexual component in their character, but are inhibited by repression or guilt, definitely can be encouraged to acknowledge their same-sex attraction and act upon it.

Were future generations to grow up in a gay-positive, homo-friendly culture, it's likely that many more people would have same-sex relationships, if not for all of their lives at least for significant periods. With this boom in queer sex, the social basis of homophobia would be radically undermined.

In this state of greater sexual freedom, where homosexuality becomes commonplace and ceases to be disparaged or victimised, gayness would no longer have to be defended and affirmed. Gay identity (and its straight counterpart) would thus, at last, become redundant. Hurrah!

Reducing Tatchell's thoughts to the pabulum contained on the FRC site or in the FOF video is laughable. The one-dimensional characterizations of Tatchell's intentions and his conclusions is at best a matter of selective reading and suspended reasoning. Then again, this should come as no surprise since these groups have done the same with the Bible for years. Such is the art of unsubstantiated certainty and a disregard for rational thought and the scientific method.

When science supports evolution, they race to condemn it by citing the Bible and pointing to each and every gap in the fossil record. When an erudite gay man cites the admitted uncertainty of science, they tout some of his words as inviolable evidence that homosexuality is nothing more than a self-serving choice. If one can engage in this level of triangulation, one might as well assert that a circle has four corners.

I think it's safe to conclude that this level of disjointed dogma makes it virtually impossible to conduct an intelligent dialogue with many of these intransigent ideologues. Watching the folks at FRC and FOF using the views of the same one instance as a valid expert and in another as a virtual make seeming judgments about the nature of all credence to the theory that ignorance is bliss. Frankly, who am I to disagree? In fact, I'll be the first to admit that these folks must be blissfully ignorant.

Post a comment

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

© Copyright 2024


Read about the Director and Cast

Send us an email

Select a theme:

Critic's Corner

 Subscribe in a reader


Powered by:
Movable Type 4.2-en

© Copyright 2024

site by Eagle River Partners & Carlson Design