Perkins: Gay Rights = No More People!


The single dumbest argument made against equality for LGBT people goes like this: “But OMG! If everyone was gay, the human race would die out!” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council makes his version of this moronic argument in response to a caller to his radio show:

Caller: At the beginning of your show, I suppose it was a rhetorical question about what’s driving this administration. Well, simple explanation. If it’s not of God, it’s of the Devil; and you can certainly tell that the Obama administration is not of God. How can they expect any kind of peace with crazy stuff going on with any kind of certainty of working things out when you have a Muslim leader of a country over here per se trying to work things out between the Jewish people and Muslims and stuff, you know how can they expect it not to go the way they want it to?

One of my things about the gay and lesbian stuff. I have a non-biblical way to try to get the attention would be to ask those people that practice that lifestyle if it were not for physical relationship, intimacy between a man and a woman, how could they exist?

Perkins: Basic biology. You’re absolutely right. That’s why if you think about it, its logical conclusion would be if it were normal it would be extinct, the human race would be extinct within time if it were normal. So you’re right. Biology says the only we exist as human beings is that a man and a woman come together and we procreate.

It goes back to what I’ve been saying for a long time, which is that they really do seem to think that being gay is absolutely the most alluring, tempting thing ever, so appealing that if we stop punishing and discriminating against gay people, every single person on earth — them included, presumably — would instantly become gay.

Comments

  1. Mr Ed says

    You can’t have sex while sitting in the pews of a church. Just plain common sense. If everyone went to church the human race would die out. period. end of story. The only way to prevent this is atheism. QED

  2. D. C. Sessions says

    Doesn’t this same argument apply to Catholicism? If everyone went full-on religious per the RCC, the only children born would be the offspring of girls too young to go into convents and their parish priests? I don’t think that would be enough for ZPG, thus human extinction.

    It therefore follows that Catholicism, in Perkins’ world, is the moral equivalent of the Radical Gay Agenda!

  3. D. C. Sessions says

    You can’t have sex while sitting in the pews of a church.

    Lack of imagination on display here. Those robes have their uses.

  4. says

    Now, look, if it was normal it would’ve died out. As a deviant subgroup of the species they should be self eliminating. Look at the facts: they can’t open jars or cut paper, and things they need (like baseball gloves and golf clubs) are typically rarer and more expensive.

  5. says

    This is such an idiotic statement, as if somehow “normal” means “universal,” when that’s quite obviously false.

    Is it normal for people to have blue eyes? Yes, obviously. But clearly that doesn’t mean that everyone has blue eyes. Likewise, it is equally obvious that it can be normal for people to be gay without everybody being gay.

  6. says

    This argument actually makes a perverse kind of sense when you take into account that fundamentalists believe that all people are inherently wicked and only the constant reminder of eternal damnation keeps us for falling into a massive orgy of depravity. They also have a simplistic view that divides all behaviors into two categories: God-approved and sinful. Since they believe that our natural tendency is toward sin and that homosexuality is a sin, therefore, society’s condemnation is the only thing that keeps us all from becoming another Sodom and Gomorah.

    We don’t see it because we understand that people can be moral without an angry god looking over our shoulders 24/7, but that is how their mindset works. Their rulebook says homosexuality is a sin and people are naturally sinful, therefore, authorities must condemn homosexuality. That’s the only thing that keeps the floodgates from opening up.

  7. Synfandel says

    If everyone were male, the species would become extinct. Therefore, being male is abnormal. Therefore boys and men should not have rights.

    If everyone were female, the species would become extinct. Therefore, being female is abnormal. Therefore girls and women should not have rights.

    If everyone were celibate, the species would become extinct. Therefore, being a priest is abnormal. Therefore priests should not have rights.

    Wow! This analytical tool is powerful!

  8. tbp1 says

    …they really do seem to think that being gay is absolutely the most alluring, tempting thing ever, so appealing that if we stop punishing and discriminating against gay people, every single person on earth — them included, presumably — would instantly become gay.

    I realize the “homophobe as closet gay” meme can be a bit tiresome, and is easy to exaggerate, but this unspoken assumption you refer to does me think it’s probably actually pretty common. And it’s not like there’s a dearth of concrete examples we can cite.

  9. roggg says

    Straight from the horse’s mouth. Perkins admits if homosexuals weren’t persecuted, he personally (and everyone else for that matter) would have no interest in the opposite sex.

    Next up: The lack of a ban on hot dogs spells the end for the hamburger industry.

  10. says

    I think the problem is he edited it and used too much geometry jargon. I makes much more sense in its original form:

    That’s why if you think about it, its logical conclusion would be if it were perpendicular to the surface it would be extinct, the human race would be extinct within time if it were perpendicular to the surface.

    Perfectly reasonable.

  11. Doubting Thomas says

    Black and white thinking. If homosexuals are allowed to exist then everyone has to be homosexual. Can’t have both in their binary world. Like christian or satanist.

  12. marcus says

    Ed “The single dumbest argument made against equality…”
    I have to say every time I think I’ve found with the “single dumbest argument” the dumb-asses manage to find one that is even more stupid and asinine.

  13. doublereed says

    Is it normal for people to have blue eyes? Yes, obviously. But clearly that doesn’t mean that everyone has blue eyes. Likewise, it is equally obvious that it can be normal for people to be gay without everybody being gay.

    “Normal” is actually a rather nasty word in these kinds of arguments. When people talk of ‘normalcy’ in such a way, they are specifically trying to marginalize, shame, and discriminate. The word ‘normal’ should almost always make you wary of incoming bigotry.

  14. marcus says

    Something I have trouble comprehending is that there was not even one human being out of the 12 jurors who would be willing to hang the jury for a possibility of another shot at conviction. I would have never voted to acquit these murderous assholes. Never.

  15. dugglebogey says

    Saying this is the single dumbest argument against equality is seriously underestimating the stupidity of the people to whom you are referring.

    I am a heterosexual married 45-year-old man who has remained childless out of choice. Believe it or not, we know what causes pregnancy now! Well, some of us do, apparently US Representative from Tennessee Scott Desjarlais does not know, since he pressured his mistress to get an abortion, and did the same to his wife before they were married. Twice! And he’s an MD for christ’s sake. And an anti-choice Republican, by the way.

    Anyway, if everyone in the world were like ME, the species would die out too. I don’t think there’s much of a threat of that happening.

  16. Nemo says

    How can they expect any kind of peace with crazy stuff going on with any kind of certainty of working things out when you have a Muslim leader of a country over here per se trying to work things out between the Jewish people and Muslims and stuff, you know how can they expect it not to go the way they want it to?

    This sentence defies my attempts to extract any meaning from it.

  17. Synfandel says

    How can they expect any kind of peace with crazy stuff going on with any kind of certainty of working things out when you have a Muslim leader of a country over here per se trying to work things out between the Jewish people and Muslims and stuff, you know how can they expect it not to go the way they want it to?

    This sentence defies my attempts to extract any meaning from it.

    I think Sarah Palin is writing Tony Perkins’ copy.

  18. says

    Black and white thinking. If homosexuals are allowed to exist then everyone has to be homosexual. Can’t have both in their binary world. Like christian or satanist.

    The other part I see is that they’re projecting their conformism onto their opponents because they can’t comprehend that being pro-diversity actually means we accept humankind’s heterogeneity.

    …I’m tempted to replace “conformism” with “homogeny.” That would probably qualify as ironic word choice, but then again, the irony would only further confuse any wingnuts who happen to read it.

    One thing I’ve said that’d probably break their brains: I consider the type of Satanism they typically talk about to be a form of Christianity. They believe in more or less the same god, the same Jesus, and the same devil. The difference is mostly about which side they’re on and consequently, their preferred spin on the finer details.

    Of course, I don’t know much about actual Satanists and how they vary in belief. I have seen some factoids on TV, but without context or sense of proportion. Some seem to be doing it out of teenage(-like) rebellion for shock value. Of course, I’m sure some really sincere Satanists are sick of having their belief dismissed as a “phase” like many of us atheists have experienced. Some Satanists take the counterculture motive to the point their rituals are an elaborate performance art meant to ridicule Christianity. Some seem to be mirroring that phase where Christians became obsessed with (making up) minutia about angels by calling upon obscure demons or invoking Satan’s less well-known titles. I’m sure some of them like to go hipster about summoning Pazuzu before D&D made it a meme for Professor Pharnsworth to reference.

  19. caseloweraz says

    Along the same line of thinking demonstrated by Perkins, I demand that people like Roggg be prevented from using the Internets. Otherwise they’ll soon own them all and no one else will have any.

  20. caseloweraz says

    All praise to Synfandel, who has opened our eyes!

    If all people had white skin, humanity would perish because of ultraviolet light and/or sickle-cell anemia. Therefore white skin is unnatural.

  21. caseloweraz says

    Synfandel: I think Sarah Palin is writing Tony Perkins’ copy.

    Yes, and the caller’s too.

  22. busterggi says

    “they really do seem to think that being gay is absolutely the most alluring, tempting thing ever”

    Why did you think they spent so much time thinking about it?

  23. caseloweraz says

    Caller: One of my things about the gay and lesbian stuff. I have a non-biblical way to try to get the attention would be to ask those people that practice that lifestyle if it were not for physical relationship, intimacy between a man and a woman, how could they exist?

    The caller has a point. Obviously men and women could not exist without physical intimacy between them; they would all puff into vapor, or turn into asexual slugs or something equally disgusting.

    Perkins: Basic biology. You’re absolutely right. That’s why if you think about it, its logical conclusion would be if it were normal it would be extinct, the human race would be extinct within time if it were normal. So you’re right. Biology says the only we exist as human beings is that a man and a woman come together and we procreate.

    So if the human race were normal it would be extinct? Oh wait, that’s not what Perkins means. He means that if homosexuality were a normal part of human nature humans would have gone extinct — just like all other species in which same-sex attraction was once manifest. Dolphins, for example. And so many others. All extinct. We only know this happened to them because of behavior fossils.

    That’s just basic woo biology.

  24. stripeycat says

    I note they conflate sexual preference with reproduction. No-one who is gay could ever choose to have straight sex because they want a child. Or use AI, or other assisted reproduction techniques. Sexuality has to be tied tightly to reproduction, or the world might end.

  25. Chiroptera says

    … ask those people that practice that lifestyle if it were not for physical relationship, intimacy between a man and a woman, how could they exist?

    What about those people who exist because their mothers had physical relationships with men to whom they were not married?

  26. RickR says

    This shows just what an idiot Tony Perkins really is (as if more proof were needed).
    He seems to believe that without legal equality, gay people would simply cease to exist. He has the chicken/ egg progression exactly backwards. Gay people exist and are campaigning for civil equality. But if they don’t achieve it, they aren’t going to vanish in a puff of rainbow colored smoke. They’re still going to be out there, being all gay and stuff, where people can see.
    Making something like equal marriage illegal doesn’t make gays or their relationships or families disappear, Tony.

    (Actually I don’t think Tony Perkins is dumb, just one of the most vile, shameless liars out there.)

  27. Chiroptera says

    I think that Perkins is trying to say that the only way the human race can perpetuate itself is if men and women are forced into loveless and degrading relationships for the sole purpose of reproduction.

    Which, I think, says more about Perkins’ attitudes toward his family than it does about gay marriage.

  28. John Pieret says

    Tony Perkins shouldn’t be talking about “basic biology” since he is against evolution education. Besides, it is populations that need to reproduce for the species to survive, not individuals. There is always some portion of any population that does not reproduce for various reasons but the species can go on as long as the population as a whole reproduces over time enough to replace itself. Given the 7 billion of us on the planet, we seem to be up to the task.

    Of course, Perkins is not interested in real biology, he is just trotting out the naturalistic fallacy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

  29. Michael Heath says

    RickR writes:

    This shows just what an idiot Tony Perkins really is (as if more proof were needed).
    […]
    (Actually I don’t think Tony Perkins is dumb, just one of the most vile, shameless liars out there.)

    He’s a smooth operator. I think the fact he’s blond and physically attractive also makes it easier for him to present indefensibly absurd arguments tinged with bigotry and ignorance. He’s illustrative of conservative Christians’ unconscious bigotry against non-whites but also the larger culture’s bigotry towards those not deemed physically attractive. The latter being a primary reason the mainstream media has effectively made Mr. Perkins a spokesperson for the religious right.

    I think the reason Sarah Palin can’t do what Perkins can do is simply because she’s inarticulate, in spite her integrity and vileness matching Perkins’. His arguments are a smidgen better than hers.

  30. dingojack says

    Somnus (#7) – “Is it normal for people to have blue eyes? Yes, obviously…”

    Nope, ‘blue-eyes’ is doubly recessive therefore you would expect a low number of people will exhibit this trait. The converse (not blue-eyes sub-population within the total human population) is, in fact, ‘relatively normal’ (in that it is more common and therefore more likely to be closer to the mean eye colour of the total human population relative to the ‘blue-eyes’ sub-population within the total human population). Is ‘blue-eyes’ natural? Yes. Normal, well no.
    When using ‘normal’ in a sense other than the mathematical (probabilistic) sense, you’re implying the excluded group is, by contrast, ‘abnormal’. (see doublereed (#17) on the sloppy use of words that have well-defined meanings* for the purpose of marginalising & discriminating against groups and individuals)
    Dingo
    ——–
    * ‘theory’ is one of my pet peeves

Leave a Reply