The Icky Unnaturalness of Faggotry

This note is going to be a response to these sentences: "a law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do?"



The quote is from some jerk at LDS named Boyd Packer. Fuck that guy.



-----

The following is an interview I had in my head with Boyd Packer.



My initials are "TW": Hey, thanks for meeting up with me to discuss this whole thing.



Boyd Packer: No problem.



TW: So, you think that homosexuality is unnatural and that voting against it is like voting against gravity?



BP: Yes. Like I said, "a law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do?"



TW: So, what you're saying is that voting against whether a rock falls to Earth at 9.8m/s is the same as voting whether or not a behavior is accepted in society?



BP: What?



TW: That's what I said when I read the quote. But you're saying that voting whether we, as a society, tolerate a behavior is the same as voting about whether gravity exists. We can dictate what behaviors we will or will not tolerate as a society, whether it's "natural" or "unnatural," but we can't dictate the behaviors of objects and forces, or whether we tolerate them. You basically said that voting on whether or not we will tolerate the behavior of eating cheesecake (which some people are fond of and others find gross, kind of like the gay) is the same as voting on whether the Earth orbiting the Sun. One has to do with choices and behaviors made by people and society. The other is a physical law of the universe.



BP: I guess that does sound pretty retarded.



TW: Yes. Yes it does. But, anyway, I wanted to get that out of the way before we get into whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature. So, just to reiterate your point, you believe that homosexuality is not natural. Correct?



BP: That is correct.



TW: Well, that's odd since homosexuality occurs in nature. For instance, lilies and roses are two of a multitude of flowers that are hermaphroditic. This means that, in order to reproduce, they need to have sex with a member of the same sex.



BP: Oh, that doesn't count because they're plants.



TW: Okay. Well, most invertebrates are homosexuals and have the same tendency to mate with the other members of the species (all of which are hermaphrodites, and therefore need to engage in homosexual sex in order to procreate).



BP: That doesn't count either because God made them need to have filthy, gay, homo sex to procreate.



TW: Fine. How about this? Some species of whiptail lizard don't have males in the entirety of their species, but still engage in a form of false sex, (characterized as a vestigial act kept over from when there were males in the species).



BP: They have no choice because there are no males!



TW: *sigh* Fine. Black swans do it. They sometimes have threesomes with females to procreate too. Actually, children of black swans with homosexual parents tend to live to adolescence more often. Penguins do it too. So do dragonflies.



BP: Oh, but those aren't mammals and not like us in any way.



TW: I thought you didn't believe in evolution.



BP: We don't.



TW: That argument was from a taxonomic and evolutionary standpoint though.



BP: No, it wasn't.



TW: You admitted that mammals are more similar to us than birds and shit. How is that not at least kind of indicative of evolution?



BP: Common design, common designer.



TW: What? That doesn't even make sense. First, God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. I imagine it would have a big imagination. So why did it just copy a primate design over and over again, especially for the supposed "magnum opus" of creation? Second, does that imply that different designs are from different designers? Like our eyes versus the eyes of an octopus versus bugs and their segmented eyes?



BP: You're trying to divert the conversation.



TW: No, I'm not. You're changing what constitutes a valid point.



BP: Then why haven't you answered my point. See, I win?



TW: GRRRRAAAAARRRGGGGHHHH!!! FINE! FUCKING BONOBOS DO IT! OVER HALF OF THEIR SEX ACTS ARE HOMOSEXUAL! YOU HAPPY?!



BP: Well, they don't know any better. They're not human.



TW: Oh, Jesus Christ!



BP: See? You said "Jesus Christ"! You DO believe in God.



TW: Are you really that stupid? You're just grasping there. Anyway, back to the real discussion, humans ARE a part of nature! We're natural! If we have homosexual sex, then it automatically occurs in nature!



BP: But the Bible says...



TW: The Bible first mentions homosexuality in Leviticus. Do you know how long after the supposed beginning of the world that was? 2400 years after the world was made! So, if they were running around and doing that before they knew it was "wrong" then it must be a natural instinct to do it. Hell, even in the LDS's dumbass apology said that homosexuality began as a "feelings or inclinations" and that "it’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation". So, presumably, if there were no rules against it and no detrimental effect on society or individuals, but still feelings toward it (thus, no reason against it) it would naturally happen.



BP: Yes, but...



TW: And why the fuck is homosexuality condemned because it's "unnatural" but you can broadcast spoken fucking language over the internet while you're wearing a manufactured suit in a temple that you presumably drove a car to after you combed your hair, brushed your teeth, took a shower and a shit using your indoor plumbing, and put on your glasses?! Go hard or go home with that "natural" shit!



BP: Well, what we...



TW: Suck it, Packer. *Tom delivers a backhand to Packer, who then drops like a burning trash bag full of the Book of Mormon*

-----



I apologize for that ending. It got really militant really quick.

The Mormons responded to the HRC petition

Ever since the 180th Semiannual General Conference, where Boyd K. Packer gave his speech condemning homosexuality, there was a large outcry and even a petition from the Human Rights Campaign.

The Mormons responded today by saying that "Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down." I would agree with that if it weren't for Packer's comments that gay marriage was one of "Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage" and that gay marriage "must be wrong" implicitly calling it "wicked" and saying that voting for gay marriage would be to "legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature," furthermore saying that "a law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do?"*

All of those statements seem quite a bit like tearing someone down for acting on their feelings that don't harm anyone in any way. Saying someone "must be wrong" and saying their marriage is one of "Satan's... counterfeits" is just as bad as calling someone a "faggot". Actually, I'd say it's worse, since getting called a "faggot" probably doesn't have any justification and someone can chalk it up to ignorance. But knowing that someone actually disdains you enough to try to find justification for why you're "wicked" seems much worse.

*Hey, I'm going to write a whole new post on this statement alone!