There comes a time in a debate when one must decide whether responding to the absurdities of the other side might risk legitimizing one’s opponent rather than put the argument to rest once and for all. When it comes to the same-sex marriage issue, for example, I’ve often been encouraged to remain quiet lest my continued writing about the subject bring more attention to the small yet influential groups that have actively argued against it. However, when their rhetoric turns to hate speech and outright lies, as it often does, I believe we are compelled to push back. Each and every time. And since it is impossible to have an intelligent debate based on facts with those individuals, we must therefore ridicule them not by stooping to their level, but by pointing out how preposterous their arguments are.
The main problem with the groups that have actively opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage in Taiwan is that they do not have a viable argument to start with. Their views on the issue tend to come from a narrow — and certainly not universal — interpretation (some would say misreading) of a holy book that is read by less than 10 percent of the people in Taiwan. Their argument is built on a highly restrictive definition of marriage — strictly between a man and a woman, and for the sole purpose of procreation — and, when that fails to sway the population, a biblical flood of fear-mongering with the recitation of various plagues that will come down on society should we allow homosexuals to get away with their “sins” — AIDS, bestiality, incest, polygamy, chaos, destruction of the “blood line,” rampant immorality, natural disasters, and so on.
And that’s pretty much all there is to their argument, so much so, in fact, that the same scare tactics have been used the world over and been repeated over the years. As I have documented, (see also Chapter 2 in by book Black Island) U.S.-inspired Evangelical groups are behind this campaign to deny the right to form a family to a minority based solely on their gender (there are token Taoist and Buddhist members as well, but the whole affair is undeniably conservative Christian-led).
They — and by they I refer to the Protect the Family Alliance types — were at it again at the weekend after Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) officiated his second joint wedding ceremony in Taipei in which 123 couples, including eight same-sex ones, took part. (The ceremony is of purely symbolic value and does not confer a marriage license, which can be obtained by applying with the city government and remains unavailable to same-sex couples.) Similar ceremonies have also been held in Taoyuan.
Photo: Kairos News
During a press conference at the Legislative Yuan, Chang Shou-yi (張守一), secretary-general of the Alliance of Religious Groups for the Love of Families Taiwan (台灣宗教團體愛護家庭大聯盟), asked whether Mayor Ko would in future also “bless” other forms of (“perverse”) unions, such as that between a father and his daughter, a man and his dog, or polygamous arrangements. As if this wasn’t ridiculous enough, the group held a number of skits depicting a variety of such acts, one of which included a hapless puppet dog.
Chang’s remarks were absurd, with no scientific basis, no compelling argument whatsoever. That logic is akin to calling for a ban on the sale of kitchen knives because once we make those legal, who knows when we might be able to purchase nuclear bombs at the corner store. And yet, absurdity hasn’t prevented opponents of same-sex unions from repeating them. Ad nauseam. They warn against a slippery slope that simply will not materialize. More harmful is the process of dehumanization, in which homosexuals are regarded as degenerate and slightly “less than human,” precursors to all kinds of aberrant behaviors, when in reality all they ask is to be allowed to form a family just like the rest of us. In their view, by pushing for legalization, homosexuals (and their defenders, like me) have an ulterior motive — total, rampant, absolute sexual freedom — that would result in an erosion of social morals and ultimately the collapse of society itself. But there is no such motive. Nobody is bent on destroying society — at least not the men and women who want their love, and their union, to be recognized, and thereby to be allowed to contribute to society. If the Alliance is genuinely worried about the threats to this country, it should perhaps turn its efforts on, say, global warming, international terrorism, or efforts by the Chinese government to annex Taiwan, all issues about which the purported defenders of our morals have been utterly silent.
The other point that was made at the weekend is that marriage should be for procreation alone — and by that logic, only between a man and a woman. Never mind IVF, adoption, or the many heterosexual couples who, though legally married, choose to not have, or cannot conceive, children. Should their marriage, then, be annulled, since they are unwilling to or incapable of fulfilling their God-dictated obligation?
Here I go again, arguing about logic. Silly me. These people deserve contempt and ridicule, and as much publicity as possible so their contemptible views, the arrogance of their beliefs, can be known by all. It is their conservatism, hate speech, intolerance, and religious fanaticism — not the enlargement of human rights to loving individuals — which threaten the fabric of society.
10 comments
No matter what one’s personal opinion, opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage is a legitimate, alternative viewpoint. Obviously a segment of Taiwan’s population hold this view. Seeking to delegitimize this alternative viewpoint and to blame it on external forces is undemocratic and intolerant. It is no different than the KMT blaming the Sunflower Movement on external forces, rather than an expression of genuine opinion of some.
I have to disagree with you. Opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage is not, as you argue, “a legitimate, alternative viewpoint.” It is discrimination, in this case based on an other individual’s sexual orientation. It is the organized denial of a human right to a category of people. Under your logic, it was also “a legitimate, alternative viewpoint” to deny black people access to public transportation or to restaurants frequented by whites, to push Jews into ghettos, and so on. It’s not “undemocratic and intolerant” to seek to delegitimize the claims made by groups that engage in lies and fear and that use their influence to deny others’ human rights. Otherwise what you’re saying is that it was “undemocratic and intolerant” to criticize Apartheid. And yes, the ideology behind this, the language used, comes from abroad and is largely inspired by extreme Evangelical organizations like IHOP, many of whose preachers have been invited to Taiwan — by Taiwanese (e.g., Cher Wang and her husband) — to spread their ugly gospel. Hence your comparison to the Sunflower movement falls completely flat.
I’m replying to Mr. Cole. There seems to be a problem with the “Reply” button. Taiwan does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You are mixing up being of same sex orientation with important and far-reaching legal measures such as the legalization of same-sex marriage, which involves issues such as child custody, inheritance and property rights, divorce proceedings, etc. While a narrow majority supports legalizing same-sex marriage, a significant portion of Taiwan’s people does not. A recent poll from June resulted in 54% in favor and 44.6% not in favor. Even presidential candidate Tsai is very cautious in her comments and said that it took a long time and a lot of dialogue before the US supreme court made its decision. She is obviously keenly aware that pushing the issue would alienate many voters.
Sorry about the reply issues. We’ve been working on fixing that. Fair enough, but ultimately this remains an issue of denying a certain group of people rights that have been extended to the larger group. And the main problem is that the group that opposes legalization hasn’t been able to come up with a single valid argument and has instead adopted unscientific — and in many cases downright incendiary — positions (e.g., spread of AIDS, slippery slope leading to incest, bestiality, etc). I’m all for a facts-based debate within society, but when one side uses fear and fabrication to hold the rest of society hostage, that’s a problem and it needs to be pointed out. Many societies have legalized same-sex unions and none of the ills that we have been warned against have materialized. I’m from one of those countries (Canada).
I’m certainly not in favor of some of the more extreme propagandizing on this issue. As a reporter I’m sure you must know that unscientific fear and scare mongering takes place everyday in Taiwan’s politics and social debates and that emoting is more common than fact-based discussion. My objection is that you paint all those who are opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage with the same broad brush of fanaticism, bigotry and intolerance. That’s unfair to many who want a rational discussion of the issue.
Amen to that. Then don’t let the fanatics highjack the issue, for this is what’s happened (and not just in Taiwan). Help organize real press conferences and events where facts are brought to the table, not skits depicting adults having intercourse with their pet dog or religious figures predicting chaos, bestiality, pestilence and so on should same-sex marriage be legalized. Hold rallies where ordinary citizens are not harassed, blocked and surrounded in a public space by masked, silent individuals, where participants do not pray to “heal” homosexuals, all of which occurred during the Nov. 30, 2013, rally against 972, which I witnessed and documented. I know that Christianity and Catholicism counts many members who are “moderate.” The problem, as with other things, is that the moderates have remained silent when the radicals spoke in the name of their religion. And if you don’t think that religion has anything to do with the issue, then help organize events where secularists take the lead.
If two people want to get married, then that is their business and nobody else’s (except perhaps the people officiating). This should never have been a political question or issue to even begin with, and the more this issue rumbles on, the better the opportunity is to get the State out of the business of marriage altogether (and the social engineering which that allows).
J.M.Cole writes…
“It is discrimination, in this case based on an other individual’s sexual orientation. It is the organized denial of a human right to a category of people.”
The trouble with this though is that laws against discrimination set a very dangerous precedent. There was a court case a short while back in Northern Ireland about a bakery who refused to bake a cake with Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street under the slogan “Support Gay Marriage”. Suppose the tables were turned: what if the bakers had been gay and had been asked by a Muslim customer to bake a cake with “Death for Gays”, or “Support Sharia Law” as the slogan – if they had refused, would they then have been found guilty of religious discrimination? It is not difficult to imagine other possibilities.
And that is not the only contradiction.
More important is the right to freedom of association. To be free to associate with whom you wish implies that you are also free to disassociate from whomever you wish. The one makes no sense without the other. Anti-discrimination laws directly and clumsily impinge upon this right. Should a gay nightclub be prohibited from refusing entry to a group of religious anti-gay nutters? Of course they should not be – but they should be permitted to do so, because that nightclub is private property. Private property, free trade and freedom of expression all go hand-in-glove with discrimination and the freedom of association it allows. So why not let the bakers refuse the order? It is their business after all, and they are effectively handing money over to a competitor anyway. Let them (possibly) ruin their own business.
We need discrimination, and when I say “we” that includes homosexuals. We need it when we choose among all the people we interact with, whether colleagues, friends or lovers. Discrimination is the foundation of civil society. It is the basis of boycotts and ostracization, just as it is the basis of affiliation, organization and trade. Civil society is vital and we can’t afford to let the politicists have the State start dicking about with it. In many cases, discrimination may be the best protection that minority groups can get.
@Jakub,
I spent a considerable amount of my life in UK and France and, unfortunately for you i am born and bred in Italy (although i reside in Asia). Now, while this doesn’t mean i am God on Earth, it does mean that i understand my own country a tad better than someone sending me a random link. Now, that said, let’s go to the constructive part. Italy is a country where anarchy, not law, rules. This means that while a fair share of people may hate the LGBT community (in part, in all, for good reasons, bad reasons, perceived issues etc.) and the government is dragging and delaying a substantial legal status for the LGBT community, you DO SEE things that you don’t see elsewhere.
For example:
– The recent case of the crossdressing teacher coming out to his students and going to teach in women’s dresses
http://www.articolotre.com/2014/06/il-professore-e-androgino-va-in-classe-con-gonna-e-tacchi-a-spillo-suscitando-polemiche/ (No measures taken to date…..some people are asking for a discharge)
More here: http://messaggeroveneto.gelocal.it/udine/cronaca/2015/10/17/news/io-supplente-trans-accolto-bene-in-classe-1.12276827
– Gender theory courses forced upon school kids in various public (government) schools, in total disregard for legislations (as i said, pure anarchy): http://bologna.repubblica.it/cronaca/2015/03/31/news/il_provveditore_sta_col_galvani_legittimi_i_corsi_con_arcigay_-110861218/
– A transex invited into a public school to explain kids how one becomes transex: http://www.ireos.org/empoli-trans-a-scuola-tiene-lezione-di-vita/
This goes together with the fact that, as far as i can remember, nobody cares about what people do with their bodies. At max you may become the laughing stock of a minority that seems a majority (exactly like the LBGT community, in his own way) and they look a lot because they scream more. Normal people don’t care how you manage your body and what your sexual tendencies are (I beg to think we’re open minded enough). However, if while telling people that they are intolerant the LGBT community tries to impose a vision of life and a narrative that is more suitable to generate a thriving environment for them and in doing that they operate lobbies aimed at forcing all those who don’t share the view to shut up and feeling marginalized through soviet-style polprop techniques, then i think they will draw the wrong type of attention.
That said, i don’t think laws and legislation can help in making the LGBT community more accepted. At best it’ll cause more negative polarization even from people who couldn’t care more before.
That is my take, because that’s what i see.
Do you know anything about the recently formed Faith and Hope League? They’ve been passing around a petition for a referendum about the marriage equality bill with some fear-mongering propaganda. Who are these people?
I think I may have also heard something about a 公民投票 recently (a referendum or a petition?), with the claim made that a bill (perhaps the pending marriage equality bill?) packages up several other legal changes along with the legalization of homosexual marriage, one of those being a change to the age of consent (which applies to both homosexual and heterosexual relations), and another being a change to allow non-consensual divorce. If that is in fact the case, then it may be that there are people who oppose the marriage equality bill because they oppose changes to the age of consent and divorce laws, and not due to any opposition to homosexual marriage. Packaging several controversial legal changes together into one legislative bill is hardly a new tactic, but it is one that demonstrates a rather cynical attitude toward democratic process, not that many supposed supporters of democracy can be expected to care about that when it happens to suit their purposes.
However, the most important thing is the possibility of any future law on “hate speech”. When J.M. Cole writes that “opposition to same-sex marriage is not a legitimate, alternative viewpoint – it is discrimination”, he foreshadows what many of the LGBT people and their supporters (perhaps including himself) would like to see written in legislation. When it comes, and I am quite sure it will eventually, I will oppose it and I will urge every Taiwanese to oppose it, as such legislation would be a direct, and intolerable violation of the right to free speech. To paraphrase the quote attributed to Mencken:
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending “bigoted homophobes”. For it is against “bigoted homophobes” that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
Comments are closed to new replies.