No Debate
Jim Muir, a reporter for The Southern Illinoisan wrote, in "Buster Reveals A Larger Argument":
Here's a challenge for you. If you disagree about Buster the Rabbit, why not, instead of calling me names, explain why lesbian parents should be on a children's cartoon? Convince me I'm wrong and show me the error of my ways.
I don't really like to respond to such testosterone-pumped challenges, and I generally refuse to join the "debate" about gay equality since there can be no sensible "debate" on the issue, any more than there could be sensible "debate" about the civil rights of black people (yes, I'm making the insidious comparison); all such "debate" is just disguised posturing and dissembling by people who are uncomfortable and embarrassed at discovering that they've been wrong and who don't want to be told to do the right thing, damn it!
This puts me in mind of fanatical supporters of the president's elective war in Iraq. Apprently the reason why we must send our young men to be murdered in Iraq is because we must defend freedom and liberate Iraq from the insurgents, from people who would "tear down Iraq". Never mind that it was our invasion that "tore down" a reasonably peaceful country and brought on the insurgency ("don't make me punch you!"), we now have to defend our manly honor in a fight that we provoked in the first place.
When it comes down to it, after years of heated discussion and "debate", there are no "arguments against homosexuality"; it's as silly as debating arguments for and against breathing. The "debate" and its unlikely urgency are both the products of the fevered imaginations of its "opponents"; it leaves the rest of us, now forced to be on the other "side", breathless with wonder at why the "issue" could be so vitally important to the opposing faction. The only unnatural thing about homosexuality is the unusual amount of attention it draws from those who would point at it and yell "unnatural!" Is it natural that these people should take such an interest in something that has so little effect on them? In fact, normal people are typically unconcerned about what it is that two guys do together when they're naked in the bedroom — come to think of it, normal people don't even think about it.
And before one heads down that road erroneously marked "They Shove it in Our Faces" keep in mind that the Stonewall riots and all subsequent gay-rights movements have been simply efforts to reclaim a normal lifestyle, a reaction to relentless persecution of homosexuals by fanatical conservatives whose lives were not complete unless they were vilifying faggots. And, in this post-Freudian age, we can easily set aside self-serving complaints by homophobes that surely they can dislike homosexuality without fearing it: their emotional reaction is out of all proportion to any sort of considered, rational response.
Those of us who know, know that homosexuality is as much a natural part of us as breathing. If it weren't for the hysterical homophobes manufacturing their specious "arguments" against homosexuality, there would be no "debate". If it weren't for their inexplicable ranting, there would be no "homosexual controversy": it is entirely manufactured by opponents for no good reason.
And this is why right-thinking people feel caught up short when strident homophobes yell out "give me one good reason why lesbian parents should be on a children's cartoon" — there is no answer, good or otherwise, because the question is ridiculous misdirection. The real question is "give me one good reason why lesbian parents should not be on a children's cartoon."