Say what?
Douglas Burns of the Carroll, Iowa Daily Times Herald has presented us with one of the most poorly reasoned opinion pieces I've seen in some time.
The admittedly somewhat ripe Iowa Family Policy Center- a conservative Christian group which says that it will withhold support from anti-gay "marriage" former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad if he, rather than their favored Bob Vanderplaats, wins the GOP gubernatorial nomination in June because Branstad isn't anti-gay "marriage" enough- is headed by a gentleman named Chuck Hurley. Mr. Hurley recently made the controversial statement that homosexuality is more dangerous to one's health than smoking.
That might be a debatable point, but it's not absurd on its face. Anal intercourse always causes physical injury, and gives various bacteria present in fecal matter access to the bloodstream. Moreover, it's no secret that the life expectancy of male homosexuals is significantly lower than that of the general population.
Rather than challenging Hurley's argument, Burns devotes his article to arguing that homosexuality can't be bad for your health because it isn't voluntarily chosen. Not that I'm equating any of these with homosexuality, mind you, but by that logic no congenital sickness can be bad for your health, either. Heart attacks, traffic accidents, cancer, and strokes- none of which are voluntarily chosen- would, by Burns' logic, also necessarily be good for you, since people do not choose to have them!
Burns also argues that it is "obvious" to most people of the current generation that people are born gay rather than choosing homosexuality. The evidence suggests that in fact there are numerous factors which go into determining sexual orientation . Some studies report that nearly two-thirds of lesbians, for example, have been either raped or otherwise sexually molested. The same twin studies which show a higher incidence of homosexuality among identical twins of gay men also prove by the very fact that nearly half of those sharing the identical genome of gay twins are not gay that homosexuality cannot be exclusively genetic. It is clear from the evidence both that pre-natal and perhaps even genetic factors strongly contribute to homosexuality, but the evidence also strongly supports the presence of environmental factors as well.
On the basis of what evidence is the truth Burns' simplistic opinion "obvious" to anybody? Surely the more acquainted one is with the science, the less obvious any "either/or" attribution of homosexuality to nature on one hand or nurture on the other becomes. Burns' argument that one is simply born gay, period, is as simplistic and mindless as the position of ignorant extremists on the other side that it's merely a choice.
Despite the evidence that homosexual behavior is indeed injurious to health, I have little doubt that smoking is not only considerably more dangerous, but demonstrably so. Burns had a strong argument to make. It's a shame that he wasted the opportunity by making such a bizarre and ridiculous one.
HT: The Beanwalker
The admittedly somewhat ripe Iowa Family Policy Center- a conservative Christian group which says that it will withhold support from anti-gay "marriage" former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad if he, rather than their favored Bob Vanderplaats, wins the GOP gubernatorial nomination in June because Branstad isn't anti-gay "marriage" enough- is headed by a gentleman named Chuck Hurley. Mr. Hurley recently made the controversial statement that homosexuality is more dangerous to one's health than smoking.
That might be a debatable point, but it's not absurd on its face. Anal intercourse always causes physical injury, and gives various bacteria present in fecal matter access to the bloodstream. Moreover, it's no secret that the life expectancy of male homosexuals is significantly lower than that of the general population.
Rather than challenging Hurley's argument, Burns devotes his article to arguing that homosexuality can't be bad for your health because it isn't voluntarily chosen. Not that I'm equating any of these with homosexuality, mind you, but by that logic no congenital sickness can be bad for your health, either. Heart attacks, traffic accidents, cancer, and strokes- none of which are voluntarily chosen- would, by Burns' logic, also necessarily be good for you, since people do not choose to have them!
Burns also argues that it is "obvious" to most people of the current generation that people are born gay rather than choosing homosexuality. The evidence suggests that in fact there are numerous factors which go into determining sexual orientation . Some studies report that nearly two-thirds of lesbians, for example, have been either raped or otherwise sexually molested. The same twin studies which show a higher incidence of homosexuality among identical twins of gay men also prove by the very fact that nearly half of those sharing the identical genome of gay twins are not gay that homosexuality cannot be exclusively genetic. It is clear from the evidence both that pre-natal and perhaps even genetic factors strongly contribute to homosexuality, but the evidence also strongly supports the presence of environmental factors as well.
On the basis of what evidence is the truth Burns' simplistic opinion "obvious" to anybody? Surely the more acquainted one is with the science, the less obvious any "either/or" attribution of homosexuality to nature on one hand or nurture on the other becomes. Burns' argument that one is simply born gay, period, is as simplistic and mindless as the position of ignorant extremists on the other side that it's merely a choice.
Despite the evidence that homosexual behavior is indeed injurious to health, I have little doubt that smoking is not only considerably more dangerous, but demonstrably so. Burns had a strong argument to make. It's a shame that he wasted the opportunity by making such a bizarre and ridiculous one.
HT: The Beanwalker
Comments