 |
Lord Ken Maginnis, a prominent Northern Irish politician, cranked out this familiar smear in a radio interview recently, and was roundly condemned for it. For good measure he also described gays as "deviant" and linked them with bestiality.
But a moment's thought exposes his use of the term "unnatural" as idiotic and detached from reality.
If you use the basic yardstick that anything you come up with yourself is "natural" while anything that has to be taught you by someone else is "unnatural", then clearly Lord Maginnis has got his nappies in a bit of a knot.
Homosexuality is an excellent example of something you come up with yourself, a personal preference that you merely act upon. Religion on the other hand is an equally excellent example of something that has to be taught you by someone versed in religious concepts and principles. A child doesn't spontaneously believe in God or spout the Ten Commandments.
In which case Lord Maginnis has got everything totally upside down, and it's homosexuality that's natural while religion is profoundly unnatural.
If Lord Maginnis wants to get rid of everything that's unnatural, some rather vital activities would disappear. The entire education system for a start, plus the health service, transport of all kinds and the English language itself. He would find himself living in a cave, wearing an animal fur, and grunting. Is that natural enough for you, Mr Maginnis?
Pic: the drop dead gorgeous Ken Maginnis
Indeed Nick, if only religion wasn't so absolutely obsessed with sex.
ReplyDeleteoh dear...
ReplyDeletebless him.....
love the specs
he looks like Jonathan King!
whooops!!!
Suburbia - Isn't it just? And so often it's something to be condemned and forbidden rather than enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteJohn - So he does. Even the mouth is the same. How unfortunate! If he'd gone into the music business, maybe he'd be less screwed-up about homosexuals.
people who really understand their religions aren't sex obsessed, at least not in a bad way ;)
ReplyDeletethat whole "natural" logic is so bizarre. i wasnt allowed to get my ears pierced as a kid because "if God meant you to have holes in your earlobes He would have put them there"
but there were no such qualms about (male) circumcision, surely a much greater mutilation
I find those that rant the most about "perverts" are usually terrified of their own sexuality.
ReplyDeleteXO
WWW
I agree with wisewebwoman. Perhaps he has a fear of homosexuals because he fears his own tendencies. Too bad he's in a position of power because he probably has followers as ignorant as he appears to be.
ReplyDeleteKylie - How about, if God meant you to go out to work, he wouldn't have invented traffic jams?
ReplyDeleteMale circumcision is definitely mutilation. It's not only unnecessary and traumatic but reduces sexual pleasure.
www - I think that's frequently the case. It's often closet homosexuals who're most scathing about queers in public.
e - He has a lot of admiring followers, like many other homophobic religious figures in Northern Ireland.
ReplyDeleteDunno about the language - I think that spontaneously appeared in man's history and therefore counts as 'natural' but love the rest of it! LOL!
ReplyDeleteSome people like to cloak their prejudices and fears in rhetoric to make themselves feel better. Some people also take refuge in religion because thinking for themselves is too damn demanding.
We are ALL flawed. Mr Maginnis included.
Jay - I guess English gradually evolved, but it still has to be retaught to every new generation.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, thinking for oneself is very demanding. It's tempting sometimes to borrow someone else's opinions, however half-baked!
He sounds like a right tosser
ReplyDeleteBugger 'natural' - give me hair dye, nail varnish, fake tan, and a 10 bedroom mansion in the country called Rose Cottage.
ReplyDeleteSx
The whole homosexuaity/bestiality link has always puzzled me. Rick Santorum, a recent presidential candidate made a similar statement, suggesting it was a slippery slop from allowing gay marriage to allowing marriage with a dog. Riiiight.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you are aware of the misogynistic origins of the term "rule of thumb"? It refers to the width of the stick allowable to beat your wife (ie., the judge's thumb). Once I learned that, I scratched the expression from my lexicon.
Myra - I wouldn't know about that. I've no idea what he gets up to in private....
ReplyDeleteScarlet - Precisely. Life without anything "unnatural" would be straight back to the Stone Age.
I just had a vision of Buckingham Palace renamed as Rose Cottage....
Agent - Yes, I read about the "dog" remark. So we have a presidential candidate who can't see any difference between a human being and a dog? Terrifying.
I didn't realise the sexist meaning of "rule of thumb". I shall also stop using the phrase.
:-) Somehow, I knew you'd want to know that.
ReplyDeleteI can't hate on the guy, just because of his beliefs. He's a product of his own generation and culture. My grandparents, if they were still alive, would have been shocked by openly gay couples, just as I'd bet the majority who have posted's grandparents would be. We just happen to be living in different times and have grown in our mentality towards those who are 'different,' whether that be race, creed, or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, others' religious beliefs are still not generally accepted by the masses.
ReplyDelete(And I will add that I, myself, have trouble accepting others' religious beliefs, so I'm not trying to put myself above anyone else here)
ReplyDeleteAgent - You know me very well!
ReplyDeleteBijoux - I agree, he's probably very typical of his generation and their shocked incomprehension of homosexuality. I don't hate him either, I'm not a hating person, I've only hated two people in my life. I just find his attitude impossible to understand (that's my own shocked incomprehension!).
I don't think there's anything wrong with not accepting others' religious beliefs, if they're plainly harmful and derogatory to other people for no good reason. We're not obliged to accept what are precisely beliefs rather than facts.
Even wearing animal furs would be unnatural. I suspect that prudes gave us that picture!
ReplyDeleteRamana - Prudes indeed. The sort of squeamish folk who wouldn't contemplate anything but the missionary position in the bedroom with the lights off.
ReplyDeleteDisagree with Bijoux - It's not a phenemenon that has appeared since his generation, just that they - he anyway - were less tolerant. And people like him - have the ability and choice to develop and learn and become more tolerant. Others have done. He hasn't.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan. I think Nurse Myra sums him up fairly well.
Paul: You're right, he could choose to be more tolerant if he wished. There are plenty of people of his generation who're quite relaxed about homosexuality - often because they have gay children or grandchildren.
ReplyDeleteStrangely enough (if you listen to listen to the masses that is) Jesus never mentioned homosexuality so I guess he thought other things like social inequality were more important.
ReplyDeleteLiz - I'm glad to hear that. How people can spend their time fuming about homosexuality when there are millions of children living in poverty is quite beyond me.
ReplyDelete