Recently, I saw an essay titled "Why Homosexuality is Biologically Wrong". Although recognising the satirical nature of the essay, I have chosen to write a refutation directed towards those who make such statements via conviction of ignorance.
"What is the most basic purpose of life? To survive, reproduce, and raise young. According to evolution, desireable characteristics are kept and others are lost through natural selection. Homosexuality does nothing to continue a species because no offspring are produced from the relationship."
Although it is true that homosexuality is, ipso facto, unable to produce offspring (at least via natural means; recent medical advances are changing that), it is untrue that homosexual persons do not contribute to the advance of the species. Homosexual persons are able to assist in the care of other couples' young, or to hunt for the tribe without risking leaving young uncared for. Such behaviour, while not directly responsible for genetic propagation of the individual, certainly does assist with the genetic propagation of the species. Furthermore, forbidding homosexuality would not force anyone to become heterosexual, and as such would not increase genetic population.
"Humans differ from animals in that we have the ability to choose."
Yes, humans certainly can choose. However, the choice is not between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but between homosexual behaviour and heterosexual behaviour. In any case, the ability to do so does not mean that there is an obligation to do so. There is no reason to force people who love each other not to express such love merely because they are the same gender. Even if I were to concede that homosexual persons are unable to contribute to genetic propagation (though this was refuted in paragraph 1), I would argue that, particularly in the modern age, not everyone needs to contribute to genetic propagation, and it may indeed be ideal that not everyone does.
"People who are homosexuals can contribute to the advancement of our culture and our humanity, but do nothing to further our species in the most basic of terms."
This is simply a continuation of the points discussed in paragraph 1. I will not reiterate them here, and merely ask that you refer back to them here if you feel a need to do so.
"In one major case, AIDS being this case, homosexuality has actually done more to harm humanity that help it by irresponsible infected people spreading the infection. While there are many modes of transmission of AIDS, the highest transfer of the virus occurs when men have sex with men."
Firstly, it should be noted that AIDS is not transferred; HIV is. AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrom) is the effect of HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). However, this is a common mistake, so I shall interpret your statement as you likely intended. Even so, you are incorrect. Although the highest rate of transfer within the western world is indeed via passive anal intercourse (id est, the "receiving" partner), the highest rate of tranfer in Africa, where the majority of the world's HIV cases occur, is indeed via heterosexual intercourse (van der Graaf, Diepersloot, 1986). However, even within the western world the statistical tendency for HIV to infect homosexual men is misleading. The tendancy is caused not by homosexuality, but by anal sex (AIDS, 2009), and the likelihood of HIV transmission is equally likely in both homosexual and heterosexual anal sex. It is also of note that maintaining a sexual partner, rather than frequent casual encounters. Forbidding homosexuality would drive such behaviour underground, resulting in an increase in frequent sexual encounters and a corresponding increase in HIV infections (Epstein, 2007).
"I do not hate homosexual people, but I do disagree with homosexuality because of the harm that it brings to humanity."
As previously shown, homosexuality does not bring harm to humanity. Therefore, there is no reason, by your own logic, to disagree with homosexuality.
"I believe that people are entitled to the pursuit of happiness, but i do not agree with causing other people harm or impeding thier pursuit in order to accomplish thier own happiness."
In which case, certainly, you would be willing to support equal rights for homosexual persons and couples.
"There is a new bill on the table for the president to sign. This bill is attached to a defense bill as an ammendment to the current hate crimes bill. If it passes, what I wrote in the first paragraph could be interpreted as hate crime because it is not a physical act against a person, but disagreeing with thier choices."
As USConst amend. I states, "[c]ongress shall pass no law...restricting the freedom of speech". USConst amend. XIV held that such restictions also applied to the states. Therefore, there is no chance of the law being held to make your statements a hate crime.
"Under current federal law, hate crimes apply to acts of violence against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction only if the victim is engaged in a specific federally protected activity such as voting."
Actually, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (28 USC §994) required the United States Sentencing Commission to increase sentences for federal crimes based upon "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person". The guidelines were implemented in 1995.
"The House bill would extend the hate crimes category to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability and give federal authorities greater leeway to participate in hate crime investigations. It would approve $10 million over the next two years to help local law enforcement officials cover the cost of hate crime prosecutions."
Your source (FOX News (I note that FOX News is considered a rather biased organisation, but I shall accept their report of the name of the bill)) says that the bill in question is the Matthew Shepard Act. The Matthew Shepard Act does little more than provide for federal hate crime protection of transgenders (not, as you claim, homosexuals (an already protected group)) and for federal assistance in enforcement of state and local hate crime legislation.
"Federal investigators could step in if local authorities were unwilling or unable to act."
This is untrue. Federal investigators would only step in if requested by local authorities (HR 1913 RFS §3(a)(1)). Thinking logically, why would federal authorities waste their time investigating a crime in an uncooperative jurisdiction?
"This is a violation of free speech and press."
As stated in paragraph 7, this law could not be held to violate the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Indeed, "[n]othing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution" (HR 1913 RFC §8). In other words, the bill recognises that some may interpret a violation of USConst amend. I, and specifically avoids it (though such a statement is, of course, unnecessary).
"I hope he doesn't sign it, but if he does, this nation will change quite a bit."
I, and many on this site, on the other hand, would much like to see such a statement from our government that transgendered persons are equally human as those who are not transgendered. However, I would hope that this legislation would not cause significant change in the nation, as for there to be significant change would show that many in the US require a federal law to treat our transgendered friends as human. However, I rather suspect that there will be more change than there should be due to this law.
WORKS CITED:
* van der Graaf M, Diepersloot RJ. (1986) Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV/HTLV-III/LAV): a review. Infection 14, 203-11 PMID 3539811immunodeficiency syndrome Ann N Y Acad Sci 437, 340-349 PMID 6242000
* AIDS. (2009, July 17). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:09, July 17, 2009, from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... =302637593
* Epstein, Helen (2007). The invisible cure: Africa, the West, and the fight against AIDS. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. ISBN 0-374-28152-1.
