Friday, December 23, 2005

Response to Mr. Armstrong, Part 1.

I had the chance to read Mr. Armstrong's second installment of his response to my email critiquing his debate with a homosexual. Although he does raise some very valid points, particularly in regards to the scientific information he cites, he nevertheless winds up proving my point: even though he argues from many different angles against homosexuality, the primary reason he opposes the gay rights movement is because it is contrary to his religious beliefs. This is made clear when he writes that "Christians... must oppose homosexual legal activism because it is directly contrary to Christian teaching (my emphasis)."

His words will be italicized.

Not at all, because the presence of such corruption of morality during the course of history does not prove that homosexuality was either usually normative nor that it was or is morally defensible.

It doesn't prove as much, no, but it does prove that discriminatory behavior against certain segments of the population was not based on any real evidence, but rather, based on religious and/or racial bigotry; on the misguided belief that one's religious worldview is inherently superior to that of others, and hence, that all views/lifestyles not in conformity with such religious beliefs must be outlawed. This smacks of religious persecution against the minority and as far as I am aware our constitution does not allow for that to take place within our legal institutions. You admitted, as I previously noted, that Christians must oppose gay activism because it is directly opposed to Christian teaching. That's fine -- I just don't know how well such an argument would hold up in court, especially in light of what our constitution says.

I'm sure many christian right lawyers will cite this and that scientific study, arguing that, unless we outlaw all forms of homosexual behavior, our nation will suffer dire consequences (presumably at the hands of their god). Homosexual behavior may or may not be harmful to those who engage in it -- that is not the point; it has never been the point. If it were, and if such a view (especially if con) were valid, we'd also have to outlaw sex between an HIV-positive/AIDS-infected person and a HIV-free/AIDS-free person. But we don't, because our nation's belief in individual liberty allows for people to engage in self-destructive behavior. Granted, our legislative branch of government is not always consistent in upholding this cherished belief as is evidenced by its fatuously drafted legislation against certain drugs, but just because bad legislation is written into the books doesn't make it right.

Later in your response, you provide a considerable amount of medical/scientific evidence "against" homosexuality. The medical/scientific points may or may not be valid in the debate to secure equal rights (not "special" rights, as conservatives contend) for homosexuals/bisexuals/transgendered people but this has nothing to do with its moral component and, more imporantly, its legal component. We know that doctors inadverdently kill
195,000 people every year, but that doesn't warrant the outlawing of the medical profession, nor does it render it immoral.

New blog, thank Dave Armstrong.

After having read Mr. Dave Armstrong's initial response to one of my emails critiquing one of his papers on homosexuality, I thought it'd be a good idea to set up a blog of my own. I'm not very familiar with how this Internet innovation works, but I'm hoping I shall learn rather quickly.

I'm a 17 year old bisexual agnostic male. Though many of my friends, teachers, and family members have lavished praised on me for my supposed "great" intellect, I suspect I'm actually very stupid. Don't believe me? I'm a high school drop out.; I haven't taken my GED exam (even though I purchased a GED study book almost a year ago); I have no clear path ahead of me. True, while in school, I always scored very well in my classes, but this was the result of... OK, maybe one I'm one of those "stupid smart" people you've heard of before.

When I finally do take my GED exam, I'll probably apply to Arizona State, and major in Biology. I aspire to be a doctor (a high school drop out pursuing a career in medicine??? "With Aphrodite, all things are possible." ;-) ). Biology and chemistry are the two branches of science I find most interesting. Physics... well, let's just say I hate math. I've considered a career in law, but I think I'll serve society best in a hospital saving lives, preventing the loss of a mother, son, father, husband, wife, and so on.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I'm a former Catholic.

Well, this is my first incoherent post. I'll be posting my further exchanges/responses with/to Mr. Armstrong, among others, on this blog.