Anti-Gay = Gay?

Some people seem to have a problem with my opinions. Visit Science Avenger: Rabid Anti-Gayness = Gayness?
for one such example.

I respectfully disagree with Science Avenger's opinion on my own expression of opinion.

But I do have some facts to back up my opinions, whereas Science Avenger seems willing to point to opinion as being evidence of fact. I will point to, as evidence, his willingness to link to Wikipedia and a point of view (not a fact) to back up one of his statements.

First off, my own overuse of quotes. I agree that I probably do tend to overuse them. My intention is to highlight common uses of words when the common usage does not match the dictionary definition of the term. It is not my intention to use scare quotes. However if I am truthful, I guess my usage does not always match my intent.

Second, without quoting, I will remark upon Science Avenger's bringing up the argument that all "homophobes" (I disagree that being against homosexuality is a disorder) are closet homosexuals or something. I will admit that I consider myself a bisexual who chose (or was taught) to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle. I do not fear that I am strictly homosexual, however it is my understanding of my own human existence that at least some us (most of us could be argued) have a choice. I look back at my own adolescent years as I first started experimenting with human sexuality to base my opinions on "truth" ("scare quotes" intentional) when the subject of homosexuality is brought into the arena.

I will note that some homosexual extremists are entirely too dismissive of this point when some attempt to bring this point into consideration is made (the point that some have choice). I have even heard some claim that there are no such thing as bisexuals. They have claimed there are only heterosexuals and homosexuals - the rest are liars.

I will accept that some homosexuals can not in any manner become aroused by the thought of sex with a member of the opposite sex. However I heard one male homosexual explain that the reason he successfully engaged in sex with a woman (lesbian) in order to give birth to a child was because he "looked at pictures of naked men" during the intercourse. Yeah right. Personal experience teaches me that some heterosexual men choose to be heterosexuals. While I do not have personal experience to point out examples of where bisexuals might choose to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, I suspect this is also true.

Now it is my opinion that the heterosexual lifestyle is best for humanity. It is my belief that much of the morality taught in the Bible is in fact true, that a monogamous heterosexual relationship is best for the species. This comes from one who DOES NOT claim that the Bible is infallible.

However just because something is taught in the Bible does not mean that it immediately must be false. That last sentence may or may not be amongst the things that influences the Science Avenger's thought processes, however I sometimes suspect it is true.

Let us examine one "statement of truth" by the Science Avenger:

STDs are not a threat to wipe out humanity, and given that 99% of their spread can be controlled by individual decisions (ie wearing a condom, being celibate,
or being monogamous), that is not likely to change.

First I could take issue with the opening phrase. Perhaps STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) are not a threat to society because we can still hope that the lessons taught in the Bible about how to deal with human sexuality might take root. STDs however are a threat to the general well being of our species. Willingness to tolerate other than a monogamous heterosexual lifestyle has led to increasing transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. This occurrence could be tolerated by our species as long as a shot in the butt will cure the STD. However evidence is that STDs are increasingly developing resistance to all known treatments. Mankind has shown itself to not be as resilient in developing new treatments as the bugs have been resilient in developing resistance to existing medications. These are the facts (no scare quotes) and the refusal of Science Avenger to take such facts into consideration proves how he puts the blinders on when it comes to science and human sexuality.

Second, I note how that the answers Science Avenger comes up with to deal with the problem, "wearing a condom, being celibate, or being monogamous" are all values that are taught in the Bible with how to deal with human sexuality. The Bible also teaches us how we should instruct our children to deal with it.(In editing I am going to add that "religion" does not encourage the use of condoms. However the Bible does not argue against such use.)

It is my opinion that Science Avenger exhibits evidence that the real agenda of the Science Avenger is not to teach that science is right, his agenda is to prove that the Bible is wrong.

It is my opinion, that in order to deal with the looming health crisis brought about by sexual freedom, society might need to retreat back to the Scarlet Letter A, although I would subject "studs" to the treatment just like I would subject "sluts" (in the interest of sexual equality). Perhaps we will have to return to blood tests before a marriage license is issued. New treatments from medical science are becoming harder and more expensive to come by. Just how much expense should society have to pay in order to enable promiscuous sexual behaviour whether it be heterosexual or homosexual?

I also take issue with Science Avenger's appraisal of the "purpose" of evolution. I thought I heard something about evolution involving survival of the fittest! It is my opinion that the powers of human reason have been part of the explantion for why our species rose to the levels it did. I do not see anything wrong with our species continuing to exploit this power in order to help the chances of our species continuing to exist.

Perhaps I was taught wrong. I was taught that "human instinct" (quotes because I am unsure instinct is the explanation) comes in a pyramid. Personal survival stands at the top of the pyramid. At the bottom I was taught it is natural for a human being to worry about the survival of the species.

I will close with this point that Science Avenger attempts to make:

Consider worker bees and ants.

Oh yeah? What about these examples from nature? Let's see. None reproductive elements of insect societies exist as slaves to guarantee the existence of reproductive elements of their society. OK, homosexuals should be slaves to heterosexuals then? I think we can use our powers of human reason to decide this would not be a good outcome. Perhaps Science Avenger only used a poor example. However the poor example serves to prove the point of how poor his consideration of "science" is.

I would encourage anyone who has read the above to read everything that Science Avenger had to say on the subject by visiting the link to his article I provided at the beginning of this post. I am going to hear something about "quoting out of context" (which the Science Avenger himself is guilty of) and want to limit the damage caused by such a claim. Go read it all for yourself.