How Tax Dollars Support Discrimination »« The Petroleum Coke Problem

Kupelian: Gays Just Like Suicide Bombers

David Kupelian, the #2 man at the Worldnetdaily, has a column comparing LGBT people to suicide bombers, saying both are created by parents warping their delicate minds while they’re growing up. Most of the article is an ignorant rant about mental illness and transgenderism, but then there’s this:

Consider for a moment how children in the Arab-Muslim Middle East develop the “mental illness” of wannabe jihad martyrdom. How exactly do innocent little kids come to be possessed by such overwhelmingly powerful emotions and beliefs that they’re willing to blow themselves up while murdering innocent strangers – and thinking such a despicable crime is the will of God?

If I suggested genetics or biochemical imbalances were responsible, you would laugh. Little jihadists are created when, from an early age, they are continually indoctrinated, intimidated, degraded, rewarded, tempted, lied to, punished, threatened and praised (for reinforcement) – until their little developing minds and emotions are not their own anymore. They have a new implanted identity, very different from the one they were born with.

So, if the forces in one child’s home can transform him so totally that, when he looks in a mirror, he sees someone who feels like killing infidels and himself in a glorious “martyrdom operation,” couldn’t the forces in another child’s home (perhaps much more subtle, but nevertheless powerful) transform him or her into a person with feelings and attractions he likewise was not born with – including homosexual or transgender feelings? Many lesbians, as a matter of fact, confess they hated their cruel or abusive father and therefore couldn’t bond to a man later in life. Why is this so hard to understand?

Talk about bad analogies. The more appropriate analogy to Muslim parents teaching their kids to be suicide bombers would be people like Kupelian teaching their kids to hate gay people. After all, it’s based on the same religious texts (the Muslims accept the first five books of the Bible as the word of God too) and its goal of punishing gay people merely for being gay, in the name of God, is precisely the same. And seriously, can we just stop with the “lesbians hate their fathers and gay men are too close to their mothers” canards?

Comments

  1. raven says

    In reallityland the real suicide bombers are the christofascist fundies of the Tea Party.

    Just yesterday, they threatened to destroy the USA during their debt ceiling Temper Tantrum.

    If the USA goes down, all of us go down with it. Including…the fundies/Tea Party.

  2. raven says

    Kupelian has it all wrong.

    What does warp and destroy minds is…fundie xianity.

    Fundie xianity induced cognitive impairment is a well known clinical entity.

    We see it every day, Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party, internet trolls. Kupelian shows it too.

  3. says

    If I suggested genetics or biochemical imbalances were responsible, you would laugh. Little jihadists are created when, from an early age, they are continually indoctrinated, intimidated, degraded, rewarded, tempted, lied to, punished, threatened and praised (for reinforcement) – until their little developing minds and emotions are not their own anymore. They have a new implanted identity, very different from the one they were born with.

    The earlier comments allude to this, but I really want to ask this specifically: How is the above in any way different from a fundamentalist upbringing?

  4. Jackie teh kitteh cuddler says

    I guess this asshat has never seen a father walk his daughter down the aisle to her wife to be with tears of joy in his eyes. I have. I guess he’s never seen lesbian daughters and gay sons do everything in their power to care for their ageing parents. I have seen that several times. Meanwhile, I know plenty of straight people with bad or no relationships with their parents. His bias rant is pure bs.

    Meanwhile, has he considered that when he does hear a lesbian talking about her father’s cruelty it is often in regard to the father’s homophobia? Why do so many parents mistreat their LGBTQ kids? Because of hate mongers like this jerk who tell them to think of their children as broken, evil or abominations in the eyes of a nonexistent god.

  5. says

    So, does that mean it’s Alan Keyes’ fault that his daughter is a lesbian? Did he “warp her mind” to make her that way and the throw her out of the house.

  6. alanb says

    From what little I know of Maya Marcel-Keyes she has – somehow – turned into a beautiful person. However, the idea that having Alan Keyes for a father can warp your mind in profound ways is not terribly far fetched.

  7. thomasmorris says

    Wow… I visit this site every day and read almost all of the posts, but this is uniquely… Mindless (there are, of course, much stronger words that could be used here.)

    So whenever a child’s psychology is influenced by his or her upbringing, that child can no longer claim to have a “mind or emotions of their own”? Or do we only use that kind of rhetoric when the child is “influenced” to do something we don’t like?

    Also, the analogy doesn’t even make sense on the most basic level – even if it were true (it’s not) that gays and lesbians always had “cruel or abusive fathers,” that’s different from the indoctrination he describes in the other paragraph. Presumably, those who become suicide bombers were indoctrinated (usually by multiple sources, including parents and religious leaders, as well as sometimes – sadly – teachers) to hate certain groups and to believe in the importance of ideology over self – which is a form of abuse, but not the kind of abuse he thinks leads to homosexuality. Or does he actually think that the average gay or lesbian was “continually indoctrinated, intimidated, degraded, rewarded, tempted, lied to, punished, threatened and praised” in the “ways of homosexuality?”

    Or could it be that it’s a loaded analogy to flame the hatred of the average WND reader, who will be too stupid to recognize the mindlessness of the rhetoric – only caring that the rhetoric reaffirms their already existing biases and prejudices?

    [These are all rhetorical questions, of course.]

    Sorry, it’s rare that I encounter something this moronic, and I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around it.

    -

    I remember someone I know once un-ironically described WorldNetDaily as the “most reliable” and “least biased” news source, while also praising the site’s commentators for their “common sense” opinions.

    It made me sad.

  8. says

    It sounds like he’s bought into a straw man that we think human behavior is 100% nurture. While nurture is an enormous component in our behavior, it’s not everything. We still have instincts, genetic tendencies, and so forth working underneath all the cultural layers, especially involving sexual behavior. Sex is a core behavior alongside self-preservation in animals, so it’d make sense that, even in humans, there’d be more of a “nature” component in sexuality. I see nothing inherently unreasonable about asserting that there’s some genetic, epigenetic, developmental, or otherwise “non-nurture” cause of non-hetero sexualities or non-cisgender identity, especially when you consider that humans haven’t had clear success in changing people’s sexuality despite all the efforts.

    The suicide bomber analogy is just absurd. For one thing, there really isn’t much harm caused by being LGBT. The problems that do occur are generally the result of bigots who go out of their way to harm LGBT’s, physically, psychologically, and legally. There’s also no meaningful indoctrination effort by LGBTs to speak of beyond there being more people teaching acceptance of others who are different in morally neutral ways. Indoctrination typically involves closing children off from outside opinions, depicting The Other as inherently evil, and making them show deference to authority figures, not teaching acceptance of diversity or having open discussions about issues. I’m strongly pro-LGBT rights in part because I was exposed to bigotry against them and noticed how much it had in common with racism and religious bigotry, including the transparent rationalizations and lies.

    Little jihadists are created when, from an early age, they are continually indoctrinated, intimidated, degraded, rewarded, tempted, lied to, punished, threatened and praised (for reinforcement) – until their little developing minds and emotions are not their own anymore. They have a new implanted identity, very different from the one they were born with.

    The last bit strikes me as naive and superstitious. Indoctrination is horrible, but it’s not like creating a fake identity on top of another. People really aren’t born with much of an identity. Instead, they develop one by interacting with people as they grow up and learn. It’s not like indoctrination replaces them with changelings. I want indoctrinated people to become better informed about reality and redefine themselves as a result, but I’m willing to be up front about it, rather than try to sneak in this narcissistic idea that the “real” identity underneath knows I’m right.

  9. says

    I find this idea that you are “born with” a set of “feelings and attractions” that constitutes who you are is completely misguided. Preferences, including sexual preferences, don’t come embeded in our genes: they are build over time and experience, and can change as things change us. What freaks people like Kupelian out is the idea that these preferences can be constructed against THEIR preferences, against what THEY deem normal and acceptable.

  10. caseloweraz says

    Kupelian: How exactly do innocent little kids come to be possessed by such overwhelmingly powerful emotions and beliefs that they’re willing to blow themselves up while murdering innocent strangers – and thinking such a despicable crime is the will of God?

    Well, David, this happens in exactly the same way as innocent Christian kids become convinced that they are justified in blowing up an abortion clinic, or shooting down its doctor.

  11. freehand says

    bushrat: I don’t think they really “get” irony or hypocrisy over at WND.

    Nope. They are incapable of introspection and also realistically considering consequences of an act or decision. Therefore, they do not get irony, hypocrisy, humor, science, or science fiction. They are staggeringly bad at putting themselves in another’s shoes.

    Results of this include being blind to one’s own projections; thinking that atheism is “being mad at god”; in the 1960s thinking that long-haired guys were cross-dressing; and probably in ways I don’t yet understand is responsible for Christian rock.

  12. freehand says

    I am impressed by his ability to so completely describe his own childhood (and mine) and not be aware of it.

  13. says

    I guess lesbians are supposed to love and honor their abusive fathers. Same with straight women. Denial is perfectly healthy, isn’t it?
    I got a message from my older sister telling me to stop saying our father abused us in any way. He was the perfect father. The message sounded like it was straight out of an episode of Law & Order: SVU. My father was a dry drunk and a violent rageaholic. He hit first and thought later, except he never thought. My sister, on the other hand was very promiscuous as a young teen, smoked until her heart blew out, and still drinks heavily. (She’s married to another drunk and when they both drink they get into ugly fights in front of whomever is around.) So denial works, right?
    I am an alcoholic who stopped drinking fifteen years ago.

  14. escuerd says

    tierra de antilopes:

    Preferences, including sexual preferences, don’t come embeded in our genes: they are build over time and experience, and can change as things change us.

    Traits like manual dexterity can also be influenced by time and experience, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or misguided to say that most people are born with an innate handedness. Something similar appears to be the case with sexual orientation. Both traits are (at least in most cases) determined early on, have a large heritable component, are associated with some neurological differences, and are difficult or impossible to change even if one can decide or be trained to mask the overt behaviors that the traits are associated with.

    Regarding heritability, I think it’s important to note that innate != genetic. There’s lots of stochasticity in development (especially of the brain) that has little to do with “experience” in any common sense of the word. That’s obviously not to say experience isn’t also important in a lot of ways.

    It’s true that, as the article you linked to alluded, whether some tendency is innate is irrelevant to whether acting on that tendency is moral (which should primarily be determined by its impact on others). I’d argue that the question still has moral and social relevance, though. Condemning someone for a morally neutral, but mutable difference is certainly wrong. Condemning someone for a morally neutral and innate difference is even worse.

  15. Ichthyic says

    can you please just add the tag:

    Projection

    so you can properly classify all these repeated examples of it, Ed?

  16. says

    Nature? Nurture?
    Beats me.
    The question for me is what difference does it make? There’s no excuse for the hate either way.

    I love it when fundies try to go all sciency on ya. He he…they’re so funny!

  17. says

    @escuerd:

    Thanks for the response. I think you’re absolutely right. I was mostly refering to what you mention on your last paragraph (comment 19) and this idea voiced by Kupelian, that sexual preferences define one’s identity or can be ecuated to a “new implanted identity”.

Leave a Reply