Monday, May 16, 2016

Hate group polemicist has the gay and trans conspiracy all figured out

Gary DeMar
According to Gary DeMar, writing for, and president of, the anti-LGBT hate group American Vision; “Homosexuality and Transgenderism: The Goal is to Redefine Everything.” That's good to know Mr. DeMar. Presumably the dreaded Homosexual Agenda™ has morphed into something spectacularly more sinister.

So let us begin this little venture into the mind of Gary DeMar:
There’s a larger agenda behind the LGBT+ movement. If the government can convince enough people that something as absurd as transgenderism is real and should be protected by law, then it is in the position of redefining anything, even when what’s being redefined is obviously irrational and harmful.
I have not seen DeMar's curricula vitae but it seems safe to assume that it does not include medical school. If it did then he might know that gender dysphoria is very real. We protect insane Christians from harm. Although they choose to be religious extremists we accord them equal protection. No one volunteers to be transgender. Providing equal protection  is neither irrational nor harmful.

And then we are really off to the races:
This type of pressure politics has been going on for a long time. Evolutionists claim that something came from nothing, and biological information systems self-organized, and resulted in the development of the most intricate “designed” lifeforms that no human has been able to replicate using every man-made tool available to him.
I think that I will take a pass at defending the fundamental underpinning of everything that we know about biology. Yes — People who accept Evolution as settled science (and it is) are likely to support LGBT rights.

Separating some of the assertions are quotes from the 2015 film Ant-Man (which I will not repeat).  I shit you not. Apparently Mr. DeMar has seen this film. I have not. Eventually:
Killing unborn babies is the essence of freedom, same-sex sexuality is a matter of “pride,” and men can be women and women can be men or any of 56 different varieties of gender, and all normalized and protected by the State. How can any of these positions be defended in a world where rationalism seemingly rules the day?
I am not inclined to defend reproductive choice (something that I full support). Suffice it to say that a fetus is not an unborn baby. Yes, Gary, the natural world is far more complicated than scripture. People take pride in being gay because of the shame heaped upon them by conservative Christians (although that tide is turning). I don't know where 56 came from but biological gender and gender identity are not binary concepts. Nature provides an amazing palette of sexuality. Is DeMar suggesting that we should be irrational?

In an attempt to denigrate science DeMar pretentiously quotes some material out of context from Richard C. Lewontin for the New York Review of Books — a 1997 commentary on Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Sagan's intent is just the opposite. Furthermore, human sexuality is the object of mountains of peer reviewed scientific research published in esteemed scholarly journals. As a society we have a pretty good handle on sexual orientation and sexual identity. It's not controversial.

Later on:
Everything an evolutionist uses in an attempt to disprove the existence of a Designer was designed by a designer and built by people following the designers’ design. The pure rationalist has become irrational.

If you are going to win an argument, you must get down to the operating assumptions of what’s being argued. We first heard that homosexuals were born that way, just like heterosexuals are born with desires for those of the opposite sex. While numerous scientific studies have been done to find a genetic link, nothing is conclusive. And even if there were a genetic link, it would not mean that the behavior was either normal or moral.
There you have it. The science is irrelevant. Homosexuality is neither normal not moral. According to that mountain of research, sexual orientation is a continuum with heterosexuality and homosexuality at the extreme ends. People towards the ends identify as gay or straight. People around the middle identify as bi. It seems pretty normal to me. Moral? Some religious people (not all) believe that the Bible proscribes homosexuality. However, morality is better defined by how we treat our fellow man. Don't you think?

DeMar is confused by sexual orientation and gender:
There are males and females. People who engage in same-sex sexuality do not become a new sexual category. There is no third gender. The same is true of people who identify as transgender. It’s all made up. These new categories of gender and sexuality are social constructs.
Two gay men having sex are still two men. Gender is not an issue. Gender dysphoria is very real and none of this is a social construct. Nor is any of this new. Transgender people appear in the Hindu Upanishads circa 600 BCE. We can trace homosexuality to ancient Greece and Rome.

And then this oy veh:
How would genetics explain bisexuality? Where are the genetic markers for men who “identify” as women, and women who “identify” as men? Again, there are no genetic markers.
No. No. No. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender.
Facebook has 56 gender categories. Check out “From Agender to Ze: A Glossary for the Gender Identity Revolution” to see how absurd but seemingly “scientific” this movement is. Are we to believe that all of these are based on genetics? In reality, people choose to identify with one of the 56 categories. And I say, “So what?” People can self-identify as anything. It’s their right, irrational as it is, but it isn’t their right to use the law to force me to accept their fiction.
Aha, that's where the 56 comes from. How people want to be identified online has nothing to do with either sexual orientation or sexual identity. Sometimes one of my alter egos is identified online as a conservative Christian. Facebook does not intend to be a scientific representation of gender identity. A group of 20-somethings deciding what is cool has nothing to do with the realities of social science.
Should people who exhibit aggressive behavior and rape be accommodated because their behaviors have a biological or evolutionary cause? Of course not. But why not? Because there are moral standards that people can’t shake even if they can’t account for them. What is the source of those moral standards? Why do they apply in some cases but not others?
One party to a rape is not consenting. Therefore, a different standard applies. Simple enough. You just know what is coming next:
Pedophiles argue that they were “born that way” or their brains are wired differently. How could anyone prove otherwise? Are we to accommodate people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children? While the desire to engage in sex with children cannot be criminalized, the behavior is. Why? Is it only because the sexual act is not consensual? Would it be morally acceptable if there was consent? Given the operating assumptions of materialists, there really aren’t any moral laws. If rape is part of the evolutionary process, and it was that evolutionary process that got us to this point in evolutionary time, why is rape considered to be criminal?
Children cannot legally or morally consent to sex with an adult. Therefore, acts of pedophilia are rapes per se. Surely Mr. DeMar knows the difference between rape and what two consenting adults do. Perhaps he does not.
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield “was a tenured English professor at Syracuse University, a skeptic of all things Christianity, and in a committed lesbian relationship. Her academic specialty was Queer Theory, a postmodern form of gay and lesbian studies. Today Butterfield is a mother of four, a homemaker, and wife of a Presbyterian pastor named Kent. They live in Durham, North Carolina.”
And? There are legions of opposite-sex married men and women who are now married to someone of the same gender. What is the point?
When is the last time (or even the first time) you have heard anyone approach the subject of same-sex sexuality and transgenderism and the more than 50 other gender identifiers on the basis of the fundamental presuppositions that undergird worldview of forced compliance of sexual abnormalities?
Probably recently in an email from some other hate group. This guy is also fixated on the notion that Facebook defines social science. What all of this amounts to is fear of people who are different. Different is not abnormal. Irrational fear is abnormal. Homophobia is abnormal. Transphobia is abnormal. No one has ever forced a heterosexual person to become homosexual or a cisgender person to become transgender. The fear has no rational basis. Therefore, it is irrational. Get a clue and then take some fucking Xanax.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.