Are you sure?
Ryder Spearmann
14

I take your point that gays are just men with a particular sexual appetite, and that appetite in and of itself does not give rise to protection. What does give rise to protection however, is their right to execute that appetite. Just as the faithful have a right to their faith, something arguably more fluid than homosexuality, or Joe Bloggs has a right to watch Manga Porn.

The real question for me is, why does anyone care what two men do in the privacy of their own homes? Two people love each other, or two people want to feel sexual excitement with each other — surely, that’s not a bad thing. I don’t understand what it is about the private act of sex between two men that is disturbing enough to merit a reduction in their treatment.

If it is a public act, say a gay man grabs your crotch without your consent, then you have the right to defend yourself, and it would not be homophobic, any more than pushing a female away would be heterophobic. This is an unlikely scenario though. I’ve been to many a gay bar as a straight man and never have I felt threatened. You get narcissistic victims in any group (particularly students nowadays it seems), it’s not tied to their appetite.

The comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia is a weak one, since the latter lacks consent, and induces long-lasting trauma in a child. It’s the non-aggression principle at play. Having said that, if a priest does not wish to marry two men because it is against his faith, I see no issue there either. Anyway, the gays could start their own church, it would fabulous.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.