Mr.
Robertson was not the only one to be disappointed. I was, too, but for a very
different reason.
LGBQT politics can be a minefield for the unwary, and I’m fully aware that the Woke Police will be waiting in the bushes to ambush me. So I’ll start by putting my cards on the table to avoid any misunderstandings.
As
a heterosexual with two grown-up children I have to admit that as a teenager I
regarded homosexuality as unnatural and disgusting. Such views were the
cultural norm, reflected in its illegality at the time. Naturally enough, I
unconsciously absorbed these attitudes.
But
as I grew up I became aware that in all societies, throughout recorded history,
a minority of men are attracted to other men, just as a minority of people are
left-handed. I began to wonder if homosexuality was as ‘unnatural’ as I had
believed. Eventually, evidence and logic prevailed, and both the U.K. and New
Zealand have decriminalized it.
Some
religious zealots state that one’s sexual orientation is a ‘choice’, to which
one must ask why 95 percent of people must be predisposed to ‘choose’ to be
attracted to the opposite sex.
Research
shows that genes and pre- and post-natal environmental factors influence sexual
orientation. The simplest evidence comes from studies of monozygotic twins,
which are genetically identical, and dizygotic twins, which are not. When
sexual orientation is compared, similarity of sexual orientation is higher in
pairs of monozygotic twins than in pairs of dizygotic twins, showing that genes
play a role.
But
genetics is not the sole determinant, because not all pairs of monozygotic
twins have the same orientation.
This
is why I believe it to be morally wrong to discriminate against people because
of who they are.
At
the heart of the issue is the distinction between ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’. To
tolerate the views of others means that one is not obliged to agree with them,
still less ban or ‘deplatform’ them, no matter how ignorant one considers their
views. And one is most certainly not obliged to respect views one considers
obnoxious, such as the Radical Islamic teaching that death should be the
punishment for apostasy, adultery, or homosexuality. In a liberal society
nobody has the right to require respect for all beliefs and practices. On the
contrary, we have a right, and indeed on occasions a duty, to mock them.
This is why I take issue with
Grant Robertson. Unlike him, I believe that no one should be forced to publicly
endorse a political view they do not hold. Imagine how those condemning the
Manly players would feel if they were compelled to wear slogans declaring
“Jesus saves!” or “Allah is Great!”
I
would go further, for even if I were one of the rainbow community, I like to
think that though I would wear a rainbow jersey voluntarily, I would most
definitely refuse to do so under duress. Compulsory conformity is the way to
totalitarianism.
Historically,
homosexuals have been punished and discriminated against for their sexuality,
but I think it’s fair to say that apart from rearguard action from conservative
religions, the battle is effectively over.
So,
perhaps it is time to regard people who are the products of religious
brainwashing as victims rather than perpetrators.
Whichever
way you look at it, it’s clear that ‘diversity’ doesn’t appear to include
diversity of thought.
Martin Hanson is a retired King's College science teacher and author of school textbooks, who now lives in Nelson.
6 comments:
Forcing minority beliefs and issues onto the majority never works.
It just breeds resentment and probably less tolerance than there was before.
The same applies to the haphazard scattering of the Maori language through official documents and announcements, repetitive use of Te Reo on our news bulletins and RNZ, and the renaming of government departments and public bodies.
The vast majority don't understand it and resent having it forced on them.
Red Robbo, like most socialists, believes that he and his mates have all the answers and that the rest of us should conform with his woke, "inclusive" views. Socialism invariably is about less freedom, more control and less tolerance....exactly the opposite of what it proclaims to represent.
Grant Robertson should know better but we are unfortunately saddled with people in charge who are ignorant of history and logic.
Another point I came to with regard to same sex coupling is that homosexuality is also common amongst many animals.
I hope some people who still hold prejudices against homosexuality can read your article with an open mind and be enlightened.
MC
The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by the breadth of the scientific evidence. Even the APA recognises this in their official position statement and notes that sexuality is fluid and can change throughout life.
Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.
However there is a strong relationship between being sexually abused as a child and adopting these behaviours. Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.
There is also plenty of evidence that engaging in such behaviours results in further health problems. There is a consistently observed higher risk of poor physical and mental health outcomes for those engaging in such behaviours compared to the general population. These outcomes include depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicide. The outcomes are similar for those who live in societies that have long publicly accepted and affirmed such behaviours such as Sweden and most of the difficulty cannot be explained via the social stress model.
Has he considered that society was quite correct in correcting those who engaged in such behaviours? Give 80% of young men who report such attractions in adolescence no longer experience them as adults and the outcomes for adults still engaging in such behaviours are poor to say the least, is this not looking out for the best interest of young persons to discourage them from embracing such a life course?
Mr Hanson is right to criticise Mr Robertson but he fails to recognise that Liberalism itself is its own religion with its own dogmatic beliefs in freedom of speech and toleration without limit. He need only look at the broken and divided society that has been created by his religion to realise it is a false one that has not resulted in true happiness for most.
The issue you're obliquely touching on here Martin is the question of 'news' as entertainment. You see, it's no longer sufficient to just report the news as a story in and of itself. That is, the news (in this case the fact that seven Manly players refusing to wear the rainbow jersey was the 'news') itself is longer just the news itself. It's also all about peoples' 'reaction' to the news; their 'emotion.' Hence this constant (infuriating) need for network news 'reporters' to be interviewing random people on the street.
So, Grant Robertson was always going to be asked how he 'felt' about the fact that seven Manly players had refused to wear the rainbow jersey...because he's gay! Thus guaranteeing a reaction (from a senior politician, no less), and adding another layer to the 'story.'
To 'anonymous', I've never heard liberalism described as a religion; it's the polar opposite. If homosexuality is a 'choice', how come the great majority 'choose' to be heterosexual? Must be an innate tendency to 'choose' that.
'PS - one more point - You don't seem to have read what I said: "not all pairs of monozygotic twins have the same orientation", showing that environmental factors must play a part. Sexual orientation is thus not fixed.
Post a Comment