Chance are that by now you’ve already heard about the idiotic comments Texas Governor Rick Perry made about homosexuality by comparing it to alcohol abuse: “I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way.” There’s not a whole lot that I can add to the comments that are already circulating the Internet. I made the mistake of cycling through the “trending” page on Facebook about the story and my eyes are still burning. Truth be told, that problem applies to both those who agree and disagree with him. In any case the whole spectrum of responses to Perry’s comments has been covered by now. So what can I say about it that somebody else hasn’t?
I probably can’t say much in that regard but I have to get some points about his comments out of my system. I’m looking for a line of consistency here. If Perry is comparing being a homosexual to being an alcoholic, and he’s against gay marriage, then is he also against alcoholics getting married? The scary thing is that I can see ultra-conservatives actually taking that line of reasoning. But how would they be able to enforce such a law? Blood-tests at the altar? Perhaps I’m taking that scenario too far. But if Perry can make rash assumptions so can I.
To try to make sense of his comparison between homosexuality and alcoholism we have to look at his understanding of genetics. It seems as if he’s referencing the idea that there’s something in genetics that makes one gay. I’ll let you do the research on that one as it would take too much time for me to do so and it doesn’t really affect my argument here if he’s right or not. But if somebody is gay because of their genetics, which is why they chose to do it, then his premise doesn’t make sense. If he had the genetic encoding to be an alcoholic then he will want to become an alcoholic. (I tried to use parts of his above quote in this paragraph but then I realized that the grammar was so bad that I couldn’t work it into my writing.) His argument suggests that gays can somehow ignore their sexual preference. That has only been shown time and time again to lead to disaster.
Furthermore, what exactly does he mean when he says “the homosexual issue”? Homosexuality isn’t an issue. It’s a lifestyle. Bigotry is an issue. And unlike one’s sexual preference that is something that one can change. It’s times when I hear people spouting off nonsense like this that I get the urge to publicly engage in homosexuality, despite my own preference, just to piss them off. I think I’ll go have a drink instead.
By the way, you’ll notice that I didn’t attack his indefensible stance on homosexuality being evil in the first place. Even if I was a conservative that agreed that there’s something wrong with gays I would still not find his quote comparing them to alcoholics as something that makes sense.