Recently, homosexuality as an issue has cropped up in the media that I browse through more often then it has in the past. That trend might be restricted to the media I read and watch, but I feel it’s worth addressing.
I just finished listening to the audio book of Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, and I loved it (though I’ll save my final judgment about whether it’s a good book till I listen to Speaker for the Dead, because I feel too much was left unresolved to fully judge it on its own). Imagine my surprise while listening to MacBreak Weekly, Mr. Card’s opinions of homosexuality were brought up. It really shocked me. So, I took a look at his Wikipedia entry, and followed a couple of the links provided. It made me think about how a person can feel that way, and still think of homosexuals as good people. Because it’s clear to me, that is how Mr. Card feels on the matter.
Also, Crooks and Liars recently posted a response to a youtube video about an Anti-Gay speech a member of the Oklahoma state legislature gave to her constituents (No, I don’t regularly surf Crooks and Liars; I found it on Digg). I can’t say I agree with either side’s rhetoric fully, though I do find Sally Kern’s statements notably more dangerous and/or unhealthy.
Orson Scott Card’s opposition to homosexuality seems fully based on religion. Though I won’t address his personal interpretation of the issue specifically, I will address, in general terms, religious opposition to homosexuality. There’s no argument one can make against religious opposition without attacking the religion itself. I won’t bother. I’ve got innumerable bible quotes that make a literal interpretation of scripture look certifiably sadistic and insane, and I’ve also got information about biblical translations that help debunk the bible’s assumed opposition to homosexuality in the New Testament (nothing in the Bible was written in English, so if you’ve only ever read one English translation of it, you’ve missed a hell of a lot of the nuances). The problem isn’t the Bible, though. The issue is that this is something the person believes without question. You can’t argue against religion. The individual can only ever come to his or her own conclusions, because no amount of physical or logical evidence can dissuade someone from believing something they already know can’t be proven. It’s like punching fog.
However, the logical and statistical arguments against homosexuality, like some of the ones made by Sally Kern, can be addressed.
The cultural argument—that gay culture will destroy straight culture somehow—frankly baffles me, so I won’t bother addressing it. The health argument, however, is very straight forward, and so I will use common sense: Sodomy and oral sex are no more physically dangerous when performed by homosexuals than they are when performed by heterosexuals. The gender of the people performing these acts simply doesn’t matter.
However, there is a greater potential to contract a sexually transmitted disease when engaging in sexual activity with bisexual or gay men then there is when engaging in similar activity with straight partners (these diseases are by no means restricted to homosexuals, but they do appear to spread faster among gay men). The reason for that is not because of homosexual sex. The reason is the promiscuity inherent in certain aspects of gay culture.
It logically follows that sexually transmitted diseases will spread more in cultures with more sexual activity, and that, if the sexual activity level remains constant, the rate the diseases are spread will increase exponentially, as more people within that culture contract the diseases. I think it’s pretty well known that men generally have more demanding libidos than women. In straight culture, women generally act as a moderating factor (not always, but generally). In gay culture, the female moderating factor does not exist, and men are left to decide what is appropriate amongst themselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as long as all people concerned act responsibly. The question is: Are men generally responsible creatures by nature? I submit that we are more responsible by choice, and if we’re presented with the opportunity for nooky, we’re more likely to partake, then ask if we were responsible about it after the fact.
That’s my biggest issue with sexuality in general. I don’t limit my opposition to promiscuity to homosexuals by any means. One of my best friends has heard my criticisms of open relationships so often, that it has simply become boring, and now I just cheer her on when she decides to be monogamous (Grats on moving in with the guy, btw!).
I am in favor of promoting monogamy everywhere. I’m an indiscriminant monogamy pusher, and I’m proud of it. In fact, it’s one of the biggest reasons why I support gay marriage: I think (and hope) it will promote monogamy. I also think it’s a matter of equality, and if the government insists on sticking its nose into the loving, monogamous, and domestic relationships of straight people, they should do it for gay people too. But, like I said, monogamy is my issue with this post.
I do believe that most opposition to homosexuality is based primarily on religion, and that those religious people run to the health statistics to support their point. However, I adamantly believe they are attacking the wrong issue. Homosexual sex is not a problem. Promiscuity and irresponsible sexual activity among people of all sexual orientations is the problem, and I feel that is what needs to be addressed.