(continued from Part 2)
Since I spotted the article featured on the cover of SAM, a question that has never left my mind is still screaming at me: What does it matter if my child is gay? Bering comes to this question himself “Why do parents worry so much about whether their child may or may not be gay?” Hmm close enough. I’m surprised he even raised such a query. He responds with,
“All else being equal, I suspect we would be hard-pressed to find parents who would actually prefer their offspring to be homosexual. Evolutionarily, parental homophobia is a no-brainer: gay sons and lesbian daughters are not likely to reproduce (unless they get creative).”
I can’t read that any other way; Bering is excusing homophobia stemming from parents. No one should ever condone homophobia full stop. I understand that it must be hard for some parents if their child comes out, or is coming to terms with their sexuality, but the right thing to do is support your child, not to feel shame and show it, there’s nothing to feel shameful about except for letting it become an embarrassment. I suppose there should be more LGBT resources available to parents, and more parents should attempt to access what is out there, but that’s not something you should let slide and put it down to “parental homophobia”.
“Unless they get creative”, well that really made me chuckle. How dare he write with that mocking tone, suggesting that same-sex couples can’t reproduce. Bering is implying that you cannot have a child any other way than sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. And he’s ignoring the fact that many opposite-sex couples are as likely to not reproduce either. Yeah, adoption, sperm donation, in-vitro fertilisation, we really got the creative juices flowing with those.
Bering’s tone for the remainder of the article is patronising, and word choice, unnecessary, which I can only assume is his attempt at humour. He continues to use the term “prehomosexual” indicating our sexuality is set in stone from the day we are born, regardless of upbringing, environmental and cultural influence. His view that homosexuality is premeditated by genes is clarified when he answers a question he poses himself, would parents want to know if research could tell them their child is gay? He responds saying,
“Some preparation on the part of others would have made it easier on me, rather than constantly fearing rejection or worrying about some careless slipup leading to my “exposure.” It would have at least avoided all those awkward, incessant questions during my teenage years about why I wasn’t dating a nice pretty girl.”
For a second there, I thought Bering understood the need for support from parents with LGBT children. But then I realised something that made the entire article logical; Bering is a self-loathing flaming homosexual. Using the word “exposure”, like homosexuality is something that should remain hidden, perhaps for him. And he probably has his parents to thank for that, as do other kids, worrying about “exposing” themselves. If parents showed interest and understanding in LGBT issues, he really would be gay and proud.
The closing paragraph, was a joke. A disgusting joke that summed up a disgusting article.
“And another thing: it must be pretty hard to look into your prehomosexual toddler’s limpid eyes, brush away the cookie crumbs form her cheek and toss her out on the streets for being gay.”
What more can I say?
