Bri's Own World

I just want to start out by saying that I am not religious at all, but I have read the Bible ( and the Koran and the Book of Mormon) so I have some knowledge of these things. I am going to focus of Christianity in this case, as it is the dominant religion of our country.

We are told in the New Testament that those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior will be welcomed into the gates of heaven. It doesn’t say that Christians will be welcomed, save for that one rule in Leviticus.

That brings me to my next point, which is pertaining to the rules and laws laid out in the Old Testament. Many Christians will tell you that they don’t believe gay people deserve the same rights because the bible says its wrong. But most Christians consume pork products, which the bible also says is wrong. Once upon a time, pork used to be a very diseased animal, and outlawing the consumption of pork was beneficial to the population. But with modern advances, it is no longer dangerous to eat pork. So this argument that the bible tells us homosexuality is wrong doesn’t really stand as Christians break these laws every single day.

Okay, I am running a 103 degree fever, so I am too messed up to think up more than one last argument. And this isn’t totally related to religion. But I think we need to take a hard look at what marriage means today in America.

In the past, marriage was really an exchange of property. A woman went from being a daughter to being a wife. It was really a case of a man taking posession of a woman. But today, marriage is an agreement of love and fidelity between two equals. And that definitly doesn’t exclude same-sex marriage.

This is a response blog to The Maker’s gay rights blog.

I did not hear about this blog of his until the morning after, when a friend (who happens to be gay) printed out several copies and handed one to me. “Read this,” he tells me.

Of course, I’m always happy when people go to my website of their own free will, so I gave it a look over. And, admittedly, my first reaction was chagrin and anger. He misquoted and misinterpreted me! The Maker and I have recently had an e-debate over email about this very subject, and all the points in his blog were ones that we’d already fought about. Then I got confused, because the week before, in Trig, he told me that he had revised his opinion because obviously, it’s not someone’s choice to be homosexual, so why should we restrict any rights?

Then I read his blog again. It says he doesn’t “necessarily” agree with the things he was about to write. I’ll admit that this was a badly phrased pre-reading statement, but he means well, guys. In Ford Prefect’s blog about Tolerance, there was a comment from someone asking for The Maker’s arguments AGAINST gay rights, even if he didn’t believe him. True to his word, The Maker posted just these.

HOWEVER, he does not believe the things he wrote. As he said, in speech and debate, we have to be constantly reminded of the “other side”. Those arguments are the “other side” of gay rights arguments. So please, cut the guy a break. It’s perfectly fine to argue against his points, but please, no personal attacks. Especially when he doesn’t believe in those things.

Something else was brought up in the comments section by Adventure Captain Pants, how it would be beneficial for the neutrality of the site if we could get a non-bigoted religious argument against gay rights, because that’s erally the only argument you can use against them. All others, as demonstrated in The Maker’s blog, fall through. So, if anyone is interested in writing a blog from the religious perspective, KEEPING IN MIND that you have to remain non-dogmatic and non-offensive, please let me know. I’m ashamed to admit that neither I nor most of my admins are very religious and cannot offer this other side. If you don’t already have an adminship and wish to write a guest blog, email me at brianna [at] brisownworld [dot] com with your blog. Please check for spelling and grammar, because I’m not going to correct it for you.

So, once again, leave The Maker alone. Argue about his blog, but not about him.

Since it was requested, I will lay out my argument against homosexual rights, and I hope it does not leech interest in the much more intriguing Tolerance is Bad blog. Keep in mind that I don’t necessarily believe or support what is listed below.

I will say this again: I do NOT believe or support everything below: I apologize if I offend anyone, and I do know all the fallacies in this reasoning. This is my argument against Gay Rights, since Mr. Prefect asked, and, again, I do NOT believe everything posted below. I know that many of them are partially unsound: hey, everything mostly is, and especially for arguments advocating intolerance.

Also, I would like to mention that I was originally pro-gay, and would scream at everone against gay rights, but then I had a conversation with our esteemed webmistress concerning a philosopher we both knew. She brought up that he was not such a good person to believe, amoung other things, and that I shouldn’t follow his opinions. Many other people, including Mr. Aardvarki, who I had know had also attested to his alledged incompetance, and that originally sowed doubt into my opinions. I got better, eventually.

Again, I would like to reiterate that I do NOT believe most of the things down here (except the pollution clause, as pollution messes up so many things, and many chemicals simulate hormones and chemicals that are known to cause homosexuality, as Mr. N will attest. The homosexuality and AIDS clause is a real, if unpopular, theory, as many scientists refuse to admit the possibility that AIDS is not caused by a virus.). I deeply apologize if I offend anyone,

First point, and I have supported this all my life until Mr. N told me it was totally wrong: Genetics has nothing to do with it. The epiginome and prenatal chemical conditions have a little bit to do with it *, but mainly it’s the environmental effects. Tabula Rasa and all that: one’s sexual orientation is determined by choice and what they experience:

Thesis: Homosexuality is bad, and we should not encourage people to be homosexual, or condone homosexuality.

1: Homosexuality is bad because it is not how it’s supposed to work
a) It’s not natural
b) It’s not productive
c) It detrimentally affects both the homosexual individual and society.

a: Species did not get where they are by being gay.
This doesn’t mean homosexuality is not found in nature, it just means that it is not how it’s supposed to work. All species have a 1-2% anomalous population who are chemically messed up,(2) so homosexuality is accounted for, but, again, species did not get where they are by being gay.

b: From a genetic standpoint, the primary point of a species is to reproduce.
Some anomalies, such as sterile people and homosexual people, do exist, but, in a genetic standpoint, they can live normally and then die naturally, not passing on their genes and thus not affecting anyone else. But, now the homosexual population is increasing, so something must be wrong.

c) Being gay hurts everyone.
1: From personal expirience, most gay and lesbian people I have known are perverted and profane, rude, and basically just bad people. I have counted three people who are good enough to accept and be accepted, and every other gay guy I met is a jerkoff.

2: Another edition of Discover Magazine discusses a certain doctor’s theory on AIDS. I have been looking for this article with little success, and I don’t remember his name, but I think it’s German, but I would encourage all interested partys to look into it. Basically, since we have spent so much time trying to find exactly what causes AIDS, AIDS might not be caused by a virus. Back in the 70′s, gay men used a certain type of drug called Poppers to facilitate intercourse. These drugs actually lowered their immune system, and this evolved into AIDS. Coupled with the fact that, back then, a gay person might have had over one hundred companions in his lifetime, AIDS could have spread among the homosexual population and then spread through blood contamination to all sorts of people. This is why the first AIDS victims were homosexual, and while only 10% of the entire population is homosexual, 25% of the AIDS population is gay. There is a disproportionately large amount of homosexuals who have aids.

3: Homosexuality is a mental disorder:
It has been conclusively determined that homosexuals have a reciprocated hypothalamus,
something not normal affecting their brain. Although we do not look down on people with mental disorders, having a mental disorder is not something most of us would aspire to. (Note: this was originally upheld by the American Psychologists Assosiation.)

2: Someone could be born gay, someone could have seen jacked up muscular men so much that they turned lesbian, or someone could be bisexual because they are really desperate. Homosexuality is attributed to choice, social influences, environmental conditions, and a little bit to prenatal chemical conditions. The last one accounts from the 1-2% of homosexual humans, but the actual figure for homosexuality is more around 10%. This can be because:
a) more people are choosing to be gay
b) more people are turning gay because of social or environmental influences.

a) This could be the result of a degenerate culture, which now not only causes gun violence and prostitution, but now homosexuality

b) this could be the result of pollution and chemicals (Heard about Nalgene? Chinese toys? Chinese milk?) that contaminate the earth now more abundantly, contributing to prenatal chemical conditions. So not only does pollution cause cancer and Global Climate Change, it also causes homosexuality.

3. Even if people were born gay, they can change.
a) DNA changes in real time
b) We suppress genetic impulses all the time
c) The Empirical method.

a) please bear with me, I’m SO tired of explaining to all the ignorant plebeians about genetics. First, genes change in real time: people have studied twins, and their genes are identical at birth but start getting different as they get older and are subjected to various social, psychological, and biochemical influences.

b) We suppress the detrimental genetic impules sexual urges and tenancy to violence all the time, and the government takes pains to treat people who were born violent or addicted to drugs, so why should we condone homosexuality, just because “we were born that way”. I would like to site Mr. Bennett who has only one leg and continually assures everyone that it doesn’t matter.

c) We are not our genes. We are subjected to countless social, biochemical, and stuff whatsit thingamabobs that really determine our being. So what about genetics and all that junk? Be who you want to be, that’s the American idea.

Now consider the analogy of paraplegics:

Paraplegics can be paraplegic because they were born so, they suffered an accident or act of violence and became so, or (I know this is unlikely) they chose to become so.

And one would admit that, while paraplegics are not necessarily bad people, we do not want to many paraplegics rolling around.

So, even if gay people were not necessarily bad, and every population has it’s exceptional people, we do not want too many people to suffer from mental disorders, so we should not encourage people to be gay by condoning them, or offering too much incentive to be gay.

So, we should not encourage people to become homosexual.

Yet again, I reiterate that I do not necessarily believe all these arguments, and I, personally, believe that gay people should have thier rights. I apologize if I offend anyone.

Besides, isn’t the first step to being accepted accepting other people? Tolerate dissenting viewpoints!

I would include the counter-arguments, but I’ll leave that to our devoted viewers and our esteemed webmistress. I do realize that, basically, most of this is irrelevant to why gay people shound’t have rights.

*a 2006 Discover magazine edition revealed that mothers giving birth to male babies still had a bit of testosterone in their womb, which makes subsequent male babies more likely to be gay. The key word is more likely, while prenatal chemical condition effects sexual orientation, it is not conclusive.