May 26, 2012

Is Homosexuality Healthy?

Every statistic I've ever seen in regards to people who practice homosexuality militates against the thesis that homosexuality helps contribute to human flourishing. For example, in the areas of disease prevention, life expectancy, substance abuse, suicide rates, and the long term benefits or lack thereof in regards to families, every area I am aware of goes against the idea that homosexuality contributes in a positive way towards human flourishing. So the question is: in what way does homosexuality contribute to human flourishing? It is good to recognize the legitimate health concerns that homosexuality produces.

Look at the scientific data on the subject - much of it is provided by the CDC. People must stop emoting and instead research the truth.. However you define homosexuality, the fact is that anal sex produces negative health results. As do other MSM activities, such as postillionage, plugs, rimming and fisting. I think we all should look at the facts objectively here. The stats on what homosexual sex produces are clear. Why is it some people become very emotional or agitated about that? Here are some examples:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/9/06-0282_article.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html


I use this type of data to show that general revelation i.e. the sciences confirms special revelation i.e. the Bible. Meaning, the two cannot be at odds and will always confirm each other if the general revelation is interpreted properly. In this case the task of the discerning person is fortunately rather easy, however grim. And I do not think it helps matters to bring in anecdotal examples of frat boys or other groups of people when the actual data on the ground is overwhelmingly in favor of the thesis that homosexuality produces health problems. And it does so in a disproportionate way over and against other lifestyles.

Does it lessen the effectiveness of my argument because I first and foremost hold to biblical authority? This does not seem logical to me. What I mean is this: in what way does any one person's underlying motivations or epistemological presuppositions have a bearing on specific points in their argument? It is either valid or it is not.


When people want to justify these behaviors, they may leave the realm of the hard data and resort to emotional arguments. In fact, many secular folks I know will give a definition of love that's very poetic and heartfelt. But it seems that they would need to provide us some kind of objective basis for accepting your definition. For example, scientific research or biological reasons would suffice to help us except an atheistic definition of love. I think it is a cop out not to utilize your metaphysical presuppositions when defining love. To not do so shows an inconsistentcy on your underlying world view. I personally do not see how a materialistic outlook gives the naturalist the necessary tools to define love in any meaningful way.

In any event, i
t seems if we really do love homosexuals, we would warn them of the risks and potential harm they face, not affirm their dangerous behaviors! Don't you agree?


PS - Many of these conversations I have with atheists about homosexuality strike me as bit ironic on many levels. While Christians are linking articles to statistical data by government agencies and concerned with the objective aspects of the case, on the other side we have people who are defining terms from their emotional experiences and asking the other person to elaborate on how they feel on the matter. Besides, I'm not sure about how I feel about a particular matter helps determine its wrongness or rightness or healthiness or unhealthiness. 

2 comments:

  1. One of the articles you mention names "black homosexuals" so does this mean that being black is bad now? You don't mention that.

    Sooner or later you will need to learn the difference between correlation and causation in scientific studies. There may be all sorts of causes for these correlations that are unrelated to being gay. You seem to jump to that conclusion without proper evidence based upon your presuppositions.

    I'm am truly surprised that you didn't mention Paul Cameron's study since it is what most Christians bring up on this topic even though it is widely discredited for the manner which he gathered the data.

    I notice you don't bring up lesbians in this article I find that strange, perhaps it is because they actually suffer lower infection rates that straight people?

    In any case, being gay doesn't cause diseases, bacteria and virus' cause them, unprotected promiscuous sex with any gender can potentially cause these problems.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That article was by the CDC. It states that black men who engage in MSM are more likely to have some these health risks. The article never says it is bad to be black! Do you really think the CDC would say such a thing - please read more carefully in the future.

    And despite your assertion, homosexual sex does cause more disease - the anus is a hotbed of germs and it is not meant to be stretched so much ... matters are worse when you bring in all the mouth-to-anal activity. Please excuse the graphic nature of this but you need to face the facts.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comment!

Follow by Email

There was an error in this gadget

CONTACT INFO:

To find out more about the ministry of BACKPACK APOLOGETICS or to schedule a speaking event at your church or school, contact Vocab:

E-mail: vocab@vocabmalone.com