Short answer: don’t be ridiculous.
I’ve been trying to read widely, including Christian blogs in my daily blog circuit, popping into the odd Christian forum now and then, as I don’t want to isolate myself from ideas I don’t agree with. It’s been difficult, though, to stop my head from exploding sometimes. This blog is not for religious comments, though. The purpose of this post is to address an argument I’ve seen people make who to justify without turning to the Bible why homosexuality is supposedly immoral.
Some STDs are much, much more prevalent among homosexual men than among any other population group in the USA. Those using this fact to try to justify their condemnation of homosexuality often choose not to notice that the formula
[STD] is more prevalent among [group A] than among any other population group
can be applied to a whole load of population groups with some or another common factor, sometimes really surprising ones. Southerners, women, men, lesbians, teenagers, black people, white people – the list goes on and on. So if you’re going to condemn group A for having a higher rate of disease X, you have to apply the same logic to group B, group C, group D etc. Following that road, we have to conclude that it’s immoral to, for instance, be a resident of a certain city. It just doesn’t make any sense.
What’s really sad is that ending the conversation with “Just goes to show, it’s immoral,” leaves you locked out of a vast and important part of the discourse. You don’t get to ask why? because you’ve already decided you know the truth. Factors ranging as widely as exploring how the stats were collected and learning fascinating things about this process will now never enter your mind. You will never be open to a deeper understanding of how society’s condemnation of homosexuality has influenced behaviour, and what changes are occurring as a result of increased tolerance. You will never get to apply your mind to how a culture of irresponsibility in certain gay communities can be combated, how things can be changed, because you’ve already condemned a group of people as beyond hope unless they play by your rules.
There was a time, not long ago in human history, when you could have replaced ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ with ‘black’ and the article would have remained valid. I can only hope, as I’ve stated in my previous post on a related issue, that a day will come when anti-homosexuality will be viewed with the same disapproval and contempt as blatant racism is now.
There is another very valid point relating to this issue, but I’ll discuss it in a separate post.