More Snake Oil

Another 'reasoned' and 'factual' argument against gay civil rights. I don't know anything about Ryan Sorba, but I know snake oil when it's rubbed in my face (is what he said). 'Civil rights are grounded in natural rights.' Civil (legal) rights are codified from a culture's attitudes, customs, beliefs, etc., meaning they are particular and not universal. Natural rights refer to universal rights not swayed by culture, locality, belief, etc. Civil and natural rights shouldn't be confused. A polity can violate, oppress, or disregard natural rights if the legal system says it can. We see the enforcement of civil rights today when gay couples are refused marriage contracts and adjudicated as 'separate' (but equal?). And this assumes 'natural rights' even exist, a philosophical debate with deep, gnarled roots, challenged by relativists who find exceptions to the universal all the time (c.f., muslim women who want to wear the burka, when Americans generally find it ideologically offensive/oppressive). So saying, without explication, 'Civil rights are grounded in natural rights' is vague and meaningless.

'Natural rights are grounded in human nature.' If, for the sake of argument, we agree natural rights exist, we then have to make another leap into agreeing on what 'human nature' is, if it IS something at all. We'll just follow Ryan with this one, who claims we are rational by our (human) nature, and thus everything about us follows rationally, including our biology (another leap). 'An intelligible end [to] a reproductive act' is reproduction. By calling the sex act 'reproduction,' Ryan tips his hand. Of course the point of 'reproduction' is reproduction. But the point of sex is a lot more complex, linked to social relationships, community, power, play, and so on. Any primatologist will tell you sex doesn't happen solely to reproduce. And any primatologist will point to homosocial/homoerotic play among primates as proof the 'gay phenomenon' isn't isolated to rational humans. Why would animals engage in irrational, pointless biological behavior? A good theory is that homosexuality serves an important role in same-sex relationships and bonding, and a community with good bonds (and less warring) is likelier to survive and pass on its genes. Ryan mistakes 'rational' for 'apparent.' This is peekaboo logic; just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there.

The most amazing thing about any of this is the time I've spent thinking over it and writing out a response. Ryan Sorbas are dangerous (and persuasive) because they present emotional, prejudiced arguments as reasoned and factual. I'm tired of people dressing up dumb arguments. Enough.

Today, Sort Of

From Untitled Album