On Oct. 3, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was on Mike Huckabee's radio show dropping some homophobic horseshit about how gays will never have a "sense of self-fulfillment" in their lives because homosexuality is "outside of how God created men and women."
Is it me or is "outside of how God created men and women" a strange way to say that? It's as if God was thinking, Well, I've just finished creating Adam and Eve, so now I think I'll invent homosexuality, but it has to go outside, somewhere safe, so they can't get to it.
But we know what Perkins was trying to say. He was saying that God didn't create homosexuals, which makes me wonder if Perkins isn't 90 minutes short of a 5-Hour Energy shot. After all, Perkins believes in a Judeo-Christian deity, so even the simplest syllogism will dismiss his theory:
Premise: God created all people.
Premise: Homosexuals are people (really).
Conclusion. God created homosexuals.
It could be argued that what Perkins was saying was that God did not create humans to be homosexual—that they made that choice on their own. This, too, is easily disproven by syllogism:
Premise: God created everything that exists.
Premise: Homosexuality exists.
Conclusion: God created homosexuality.
It seems clear to me that God created homosexuality to be inside of how he created men and women—not that Perkins has enough brain-gas to power any kind of critical thought. The guy probably thinks "syllogism" is what you get when an etymologist is aroused by polysyllabic words. Still, how on Earth can anyone who believes in a deity that created everything argue that something that clearly exists wasn't created by the deity?
This goes back to the argument about whether homosexuality is "natural." Most anti-gay activists will say it's not, and that's the reason gay people shouldn't be permitted to marry. I disagree on both counts.
First, anyone who doesn't have a bucket-full of syllo-jism between their ears will tell you that homosexuality is as natural as an outie belly button. According to Harper-Collins English Dictionary, "natural" means, "existing in, or formed by, nature." The fact that human beings are both "existing in" and "formed by nature" means that they, and their varying characteristics, are natural. If that's not enough proof, a quick glance at the animal kingdom should extinguish any doubt.
In 1999, a study by researcher and biologist Bruce Bagemihl titled "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity," revealed that homosexual behavior has been observed in nearly 1,500 species. For instance, you've got all those gay dolphins mounting each other's blowholes off the coast of Australia. Queer giraffes have been necking since the Pleistocene epoch. Lesbian vultures love to eat each other out. A ton of elephants are on the down-low. Fruit flies are pretty gay, (I will resist the temptation to pun the obvious). Dragonflies have more queers cruising a single disco swamp than the entire LGBT community of San Francisco. And then there's the bower bird, which isn't known to engage in gay sex but is famous for having the best-decorated nest in the neighborhood—not that there's anything wrong with that.
The point is, it's not just humans who have a percentage of their population playing for the other team. Homosexuality occurs quite often in the animal kingdom, as well, to which Aristotle says:
Premise: Anything that animals do is natural.
Premise: Animals do homosexuality.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is natural.
It's like the word "supernatural." For years, I've been saying, "There's no such thing as a supernatural being or activity." According to Harper-Collins English Dictionary, "supernatural" means "being above or beyond what is natural." So, whether monsters exist, whether aliens exist, whether ESP, telekinesis, remote viewing—whatever the so-called supernatural entity or phenomenon, if it exists, then it's as much a part of nature as farts and fat asses.
And that brings me to the most important point of the point. It doesn't matter if homosexuality is natural. If "natural" were the determining factor of what should be permitted, we'd have to legalize murder and rape, which both naturally occur in the animal kingdom. We'd have to legalize burglary. We'd have to legalize polygamy. We'd have to legalize cannibalistic filicide (the eating of offspring). We'd have to legalize patricide, fratricide, matricide, uxorcide, sororicide and senicide, and then, when we're done legalizing all those behaviors, we'd have to ban all the unnatural stuff like pharmaceuticals, plastics, computers, telephones, Twinkies, Silly String and Nicki Minaj.
So, if not nature, what should be the standard for what we deem illegal? For the answer, I direct you to another Greek scholar, Hippocrates, who mandated that physicians "do no harm." Amen, brother. Do no goddamn harm! It works both ways. Because, one way we do harm is by making laws that restrict people's freedoms. Therefore, we should ensure that laws only prohibit harmful things, and every- thing that harms nobody be kept legal. Or, to let Aristotle drop it old-school style:
Premise: Everything that harms nobody should be legal.
Premise: Gay marriage between consenting adults harms nobody.
Conclusion: Gay marriage between consenting adults should be legal.
Write to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org. Edwin Decker blogs at www.edwindecker.com. Follow him on Twitter @edwindecker or find him on Facebook.
Make sure not to miss the Sordid Tales podcast!