Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Conservative Librarian

An Economic Case Against Homosexuality

134 Comments
Sunday, November, 01, 2009 10:51 AM Richard writes:

Incredible

As an IU student, I suppose I take for granted the fact my professors are by and large open-minded and intelligent individuals. If they are conservative and have hateful rhetoric, they certainly don't post it on blogs, but ah, perhaps this is a difference between IU and Purdue?

Regardless, I am appalled. First and foremost, AIDS is not a gay disease. It is not necessarily the result of just needle usage or anal sex (that degenerate sodomy you were referring to). It can also be spread through vaginal sex, as well as a number of other ways you failed to mention. What this means, professor, is that AIDS is a disease that affects all of us, heterosexual and homosexual, man and woman, etc. Though safe-sex education (not abstinence education) has helped, numbers are still increasingly today, and over 25 million have died since its inception.

Secondly, abstinence-only education is not effective. In 2007, a federally funded study of four abstinence programs found its students no more likely to abstain than those in a comprehensive program (this is from a Newsweek article, which will also be linked at the end of my post, since you are so uneducated). It is not practical and dangerous. By leaving children in the dark about safe sex and telling them to think of Jesus when they want to engage in sexual behavior, you are encouraging the spread of STDs.

I was not aware that such individuals existed in the world of academia – much less because you seem so ill-informed on how AIDS spread, who it affects, etc., as well as the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education. The links for my data are here, so you may educate yourself:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/219818

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 02, 2009 12:40 AM Christopher writes:

Oh please...

Abstinence-only education teaches children to think that sex is dirty. Sure, from a Christian perspective, couples should wait until marriage to have sex, but that is because we believe that human sexuality is such a special and powerful thing that it should be respected and treated carefully.

How about making an economic case against fast food? or television? How many people are killed by obesity every year?

As a Christian, I apologize for the "conservative librarian". My prayer as of late reads off a bumper sticker: "Lord, save us from your followers."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 05, 2009 9:59 AM Ben writes:

Appalling

My god. I'm glad Pastor Robertson retired a few years ago so he wouldn't have to read such bile spewing from one of his flock.

Is this really the rhetoric Faith sends these days?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 06, 2009 10:07 AM Benjamin writes:

I am appalled

I am utterly appalled! I can't believe the completely uneducated, unfounded and hateful things coming from this article written what I am sure is such an intelligent and respected figure of academia. Shame on you for spreading hate, fear and discrimination. This article reminds me of Hitler-like propaganda, though I am not calling you Hitler, sir. This just is were it all started with the Jews, and I am ashamed. Try replacing blacks, hispanics, women, arabs or other suppressed yet supported minorities in place of homosexuals in your opinon and see where that gets you and of what it might be reminiscent ... I am deeply saddened by this hate, especially coming from a loving brother in Christ, an academic and a fellow human being.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 06, 2009 12:43 PM Kevin writes:

Nice try to mask bigotry

First, there are several faults in your logic. The first is that AIDS is a purely homosexual disease, which could not be farther from the case. Billions of dollars are spent every year to fight AIDS in Africa, and since only roughly 10% of the population of the entire planet is gay, that would mean there has to be some other explanation of the 28% of people with HIV in Lesotho.

For a split second, lets pretend that it is in fact a "homosexual disease". What on earth gives you the right to bar a single liberty from lesbian couples? And what makes you think that barring rights from homosexual couples will, even for a second, cause them to have less sex? I can find any married man to tell you it is the opposite case when a couple ties the knot.

The biggest reason for the increase in expenditures is solely because of the fact that it is by no stretch of the imagination a "gay" disease anymore, you seem to be stuck in 1974.

Your equation of a monogamous homosexual couple to the tragedy that is prison rape is simply appalling, there is no excuse for that kind of statement.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 06, 2009 12:44 PM Kevin writes:

Nice try to mask bigotry (part 2)

Last, arguing that same-sex insurance plans somehow hurts the economy is just plain baffling, and makes you think you don't even know how economics work. Since the couple lives together, they have roughly the same risk factors as that of married straight couples (any difference I can assure you is accounted for in insurance algorithms). That means that when the combine policy, that is less money that both of them need to spend on their own insurance, better yet less money that their employers need to spend on their insurance. With that saved money, the employer can hire new workers, buy new equipment, or simply invest it. The person getting that insurance saves money on medical bills, which can go on to simply spend it, stimulating the economy. There is no way that this does NOT help the economy, unless you are under the impression that gay people simply should not be allowed to have insurance at all.

I have no idea where you learned economics, but you have been lied to.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 06, 2009 12:59 PM Mike writes:

Thinking Forward

Great job in stirring up outrage against homosexuals, Professor! I'd even go so far as to call it 'Gobbels' level work.

But now that you got all your readers in a tizzy about the costs of homosexuality, why are you silent on solutions? Making homosexuality illegal won't make it go away. And leaving all those infected with HIV to die without treatment will won't work. Before they die they'll spread the virus to others. And the percent of Americans who never have a blood-transfusion, or sex before or out of heterosexual wedlock is so small that ignoring HIV would pretty much wipe out the entire population in profound suffering.

So what is the intended change you hope your blog will initiate? Concentration camps? Individual acts of frustrated violence and denigration against those precived to be homosexual? Or is it just self-aggrandizement-- a complicated way of claiming to be better than everyone else?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 06, 2009 4:56 PM Chel writes:

Appalling

though not in the way you think it is. As a Purdue student, I try to keep informed by reading our school newspaper, the Exponent. The amount of hatred in that paper getting published every week is astounding. The Exponent regularly publishes stories all but applauding the efforts of groups on campus to denounce decency and morality. I think they actually take pride in being so "open minded" and "tolerant" as to allow students to offend those that hold to some form of religious belief. How is this tolerance? Doesn't this "unbiased" form of respect go both ways? Apparently not. Gay activists regularly make a mockery of anyone trying to use the Bible as a text condoning homosexuality as a sin. This man was simply trying something, anything, else to use in his defense. Arguably this is not the best argument that could have been made but it is his argument; his opinion. That is precisely were my disgust lies. Just today there were three opinion articles published in my newspaper demanding this professor’s head on a platter. I’ll repeat that once again – they were demanding he be fired for expressing his personal opinions in a non-Purdue related blog. How is this tolerance? How is this unbiased? The answer is simply that it isn’t. Currently it seems that in America, tolerance is a one way street; our mouths are being pried open and we are forced to choke on the acceptance of a lifestyle our belief says is wrong as it is crammed down our throats. How long before my pastor will be jailed for preaching that homosexuality is a sin? Personal businesses in other countries are already being targeted with this behavior. Owners of small businesses are being fined for refusing to endorse the homosexual lifestyle by providing certain services to them. To clarify – under no circumstances do I believe that anyone should be denied basic health care, food, or other necessities to live life.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 06, 2009 4:57 PM Chel writes:

cont.

I include under this heading anything that does not actively project the appearance of endorsing their lifestyle (eating in your restaurant, shopping in your store, etc.) However, when you chose me as a photographer and I tell you that I do not photograph non-traditional ceremonies because of my personal beliefs, I am not denying you anything other than my own services (which is hurting my business through loss of income more than your lifestyle). My father owns an excavating company. Are you then telling me that if a homosexual activist group picked him out from an advertisement that he should be forced to provide his services for the construction of their new “action center”? In doing so, he would likely be seen as endorsing this lifestyle by those around him and, not in the least, by his own conscience. Believe me, in this economy there are plenty of other business out there with no moral qualms whatsoever who would jump at the opportunity to provide services for what would most likely be a large structure with a high potential for income. He is denying them nothing other than his own services (based on his personal beliefs) which can easily be obtained elsewhere and yet this group would most likely pursue legal action against him. Again I’ll repeat, how is this tolerance? How is this unbiased? Today, you can face losing your job for your personal opinions. Tomorrow…..I don’t know, and I’m not sure I want to.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 06, 2009 4:58 PM Chel writes:

cont.

I include under this heading anything that does not actively project the appearance of endorsing their lifestyle (eating in your restaurant, shopping in your store, etc.) However, when you chose me as a photographer and I tell you that I do not photograph non-traditional ceremonies because of my personal beliefs, I am not denying you anything other than my own services (which is hurting my business through loss of income more than your lifestyle). My father owns an excavating company. Are you then telling me that if a homosexual activist group picked him out from an advertisement that he should be forced to provide his services for the construction of their new “action center”? In doing so, he would likely be seen as endorsing this lifestyle by those around him and, not in the least, by his own conscience. Believe me, in this economy there are plenty of other business out there with no moral qualms whatsoever who would jump at the opportunity to provide services for what would most likely be a large structure with a high potential for income. He is denying them nothing other than his own services (based on his personal beliefs) which can easily be obtained elsewhere and yet this group would most likely pursue legal action against him. Again I’ll repeat, how is this tolerance? How is this unbiased? Today, you can face losing your job for your personal opinions. Tomorrow…..I don’t know, and I’m not sure I want to.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 07, 2009 11:54 AM Sam writes:

Thank you

Just want to say that I find it HYSTERICAL how heated liberal wieners get when somebody from the opposite end of the spectrum shares his beliefs. It's perfectly acceptable in this pathetic nation for a liberal to gripe about Bush/Christianity/anti-gay rights/anti-abortion groups/anyone else who doesn't believe what they believe. But the moment a conservative starts stating his OPINION (when he's not even declaring something a fact or trying to force others to believe it... when it's merely personal opinion), those proud little liberals blow up and make it their duty to cut conservatives down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that in the real world we call that "hypocrisy".

Not only are liberals hypocritical dimwits, they're also morally absent. Liberals want rights for everything and everyone, no matter how despicable the request for rights is. Sorry, but I think homosexuality is disgusting and unnatural, among other things. My Christian faith tells me it's wrong, yes, but beyond that I just find it to be a vomit-inducing practice. I find it morally reprehensible. I find it a crime against humanity and nature. But that's my personal opinion. So, considering every liberal I've ever met loves to attack personal opinion and disregard the fact that I'm one individual person who feels that way, go ahead Richard, Christopher, Benjamin, and whomever else has the desire... go ahead and attack me too. Just because YOU love the gays, it doesn't mean everyone else does. And no, it's not ignorant for someone to dislike the gay "lifestyle" or to be against gay rights. It's not ignorance, it's a matter of personal preference and opinion and belief based on one's own moral compass. Something it seems most liberals lack.

Liberals can continue to try to shove their abhorrent views down conservatives' throats, but conservatives will never stop believing what they do. Fact of life. Get over it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 07, 2009 11:55 AM Sam writes:

cont.

(By the way, thank you Professor for having the courage to state your views regardless of the backlash. Thanks for exercising your right to free speech while we still have it. You're a stand-up guy, and I applaud you on behalf of everyone who thinks these liberal clowns are wrong.)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 07, 2009 3:16 PM Kay writes:

To Sam (and the author)

First, Sam, I think it's HYSTERICAL that you think "liberals" and Obama haven't gotten any negative feedback from conservatives. Really? For just a second, let's at least agree that when people share their OPINIONS in this seriously flawed - but great - country of ours, we have the RIGHT to disagree openly, without fear of things like JAIL or TORTURE. So if you're not able to manage feedback from others without getting scared or intimidated, then don't bother sharing them at all.

Second, since you and the author of this article are so quick to wave your Christian flag, let me give you a quick lesson you may have missed in church: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." This guy, Jesus (you may have heard of him?), said it. So the disgust you so readily share with the readers here seems to - oh, I don't know - directly contradict the teachings by which you pretend to abide. Do you know what that makes you? A hypocrite.

Now, all that being said, homosexuality is not disgusting and it is not a choice. We are all made in God's image (remember hearing something about that too?) and for you or anyone else to judge another person is NOT YOUR PLACE. Leave that for God. And given the filth you seem to be spewing, I'd be more worried about where you stand than your neighbor.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 07, 2009 3:28 PM Sol writes:

Purdue Libraries are fraudulent...

I completed a PhD at Purdue this past summer, and my experience with the Purdue library system was increasingly more disappointing over the course of my five years of study. Moreover, during the last four years of my studies, I was very close to an individual who worked in two different areas of the library system and witnessed first-hand a number of very foul, racist incidents.

The Purdue library system is totally mismanaged. While there are some really wonderful people who work at the library, the overall mood and attitude of the administration is one of indifference to the system and the students it serves. Rather than making substantial, important changes, the administration spends thousands of dollars "re-marketing" its logo and "brand."

The staff is full of racist, anti-intellectual conservative bureaucrats who sabotage progressive efforts at the library--for instance, one woman (a circulation manager) has admitted to personally selecting books from the circulating collection that she finds offensive and transferring them to the subterranean repository, which effectively makes them invisible to the general public.

I was chagrinned to find out that personnel working behind the "reference" desk at Purdue's biggest library were only staff and grad students. The ref librarians, for the most part, bitterly complain when they are expected to work the desk and serve the students. Bert Chapman says a lot of stupid things, and he is, unfortunately, symptomatic of the Purdue library system in general.

The staff and administration of the Purdue library system need to be investigated for a number of illegal and immoral practices that take place in their back offices.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 3:20 AM Anthony writes:

Ignore the imbecile

Such an individual needs to be ignored. He will not change his thinking. I find it amazing that he teaches in a LIS program. Most of the people I've encountered in my program are very open-minded.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 3:29 AM Kevin writes:

Rebuttle

To Chel:
" Arguably this is not the best argument that could have been made but it is his argument; his opinion."
not really, economics deals with numbers and sound logic. This article had neither.

" I’ll repeat that once again – they were demanding he be fired for expressing his personal opinions in a non-Purdue related blog. How is this tolerance? How is this unbiased? The answer is simply that it isn’t."
Because it is insulting to your university to have people associated with it spouting such bigotry. Professors have been fired for less.

" How long before my pastor will be jailed for preaching that homosexuality is a sin? "
There is a BIG difference between holding a personal opinion and claiming that economics and sound reasoning in any way support that position. This blog entry offended me as an economist, if it were simply an opinion piece I could care less. However, he is dragging my science through the mud to support his personal agenda. That is simply wrong.

"He is denying them nothing other than his own services (based on his personal beliefs) which can easily be obtained elsewhere and yet this group would most likely pursue legal action against him. Again I’ll repeat, how is this tolerance? "
Why on earth should you be tolerant of intolerance and bigotry?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 3:33 AM Kevin writes:

Response (2)

Chel: there are laws against discrimination like that, which is a very simple reason why it is wrong. I don't know why you expect tolerance when you are breaking the law.

Sam: "Just want to say that I find it HYSTERICAL how heated liberal wieners get when somebody from the opposite end of the spectrum shares his beliefs. It's perfectly acceptable in this pathetic nation for a liberal to gripe about Bush/Christianity/anti-gay rights/anti-abortion groups/anyone else who doesn't believe what they believe. "
I am just offended that he is bastardizing my science to support his personal agenda. I do not recall every asking it to be taken down, I just personally find it bad on all fields.

"Not only are liberals hypocritical dimwits, they're also morally absent. Liberals want rights for everything and everyone, no matter how despicable the request for rights is. Sorry, but I think homosexuality is disgusting and unnatural, among other things. My Christian faith tells me it's wrong, yes, but beyond that I just find it to be a vomit-inducing practice. I find it morally reprehensible. I find it a crime against humanity and nature. But that's my personal opinion. So, considering every liberal I've ever met loves to attack personal opinion and disregard the fact that I'm one individual person who feels that way, go ahead Richard, Christopher, Benjamin, and whomever else has the desire... go ahead and attack me too. Just because YOU love the gays, it doesn't mean everyone else does"

I don't really care what you believe, so long as you understand that it is your personal opinion and do not try to force it on other people. Also; don't drag economics into it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 6:27 AM Martha writes:

The pandemic has shifted...

In the US the HIV pandemic is shifting to the heterosexual community. In sub-Saharan Africa the majority of infections are transmitted in married couples (Allen, et al., 2003). If a person does not know their HIV status when they marry they may unknowingly bring it in. Young women are far more affected then men because they are vulnerable. Infants, taking their first breath, are infected if their mother does not know she is positive. Their lives are fraught with danger since transmission can take place in utero, at birth and through breast feeding. The scenario is far more complex than you are portraying it. It is primarily, world wide, a disease of heterosexuals, innocent women, girls and babies. http://www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/HIVData/GlobalRep ort/2008/
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 08, 2009 3:33 PM John writes:

Please consider this

First of all, let me just say that I am a fellow Christian and am not looking to condemn you in any way. I think you have a misunderstanding of the "homosexual lifestyle" though. While some homosexuals may choose to be premiscuous with their actions and immoral, the decisions are no different than many heterosexuals make. Being gay isn't like being vegan, you don't just choose it as a "lifestyle". Most homosexuals are just like you and me, trying to be good people in the circumstances they find themselves in. They are just born liking their same sex instead of the opposite.

Not everyone interprets the Bible the way you seem to think. Please read this:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-ch ristian

It is long, and you may not agree with all of it, but I think it's very important for you to try to read it. I believe it's important to try to see the other side of any argument you might be in.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 11:25 AM Cathy writes:

Love your neighbor as yourself

When will people stop turning religious beliefs that were originally based on loving one another into discrimination and hate for others. Religions of the world must take responsibility for much of the war and tragedy of the past centuries and in the present. How can the original message of Jesus and Mohamed become so perverted that it is used as a reason to discriminate against women, gays, people with a different color of skin, or people of different religions.

As for economics, if we take heterosexual males out of the equation, think how much we would save the society in the cost of war, wars which are almost always started and led by heterosexual males.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 8:28 PM Ben writes:

A more reasoned debate

Here's something I ran across

A 2008 UCLA study concluded that allowing non-resident same-sex couples to marry would boost the Massachusetts economy by a total of $111 million over a three year period. In addition, state and local tax revenues will increase by $5.1 million over three years including $4 million in sales and occupancy tax revenues and $1.1 million in marriage license fees.[1]

A comprehensive UCLA study from March 2009 concludes that extending marriage to same-sex couples would boost Vermont's economy by over $30.6 million in business activity over three years, which would in turn generate increases in state and local government sales tax and fee revenues by $3.3 million and create approximately 700 new jobs.[2]


1 : M.V. Lee Badgett and Brad Sears, "The Impact of Extending Marriage to Non-Resident Same-Sex Couples on the Massachusetts Budget" (June 30, 2008). The Williams Institute. Paper badgett_24. http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclalaw/williams/badgett_24

2 : http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/VT%20econ%20 impact%20final.pdf
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 09, 2009 8:29 PM Ben writes:

(contd)


A UCLA study has analyzed the impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry on Iowa’s state budget. The study concluded that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in a net gain of approximately $5.3 million each year for the State. This net impact will be the result of savings in expenditures on state means-tested public benefit programs and an increase in state income and sales tax revenue.[3]

A UCLA study from March 2009 estimates the impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry on New Hampshire’s state budget. The study concludes that allowing same-sex couples to marry, as opposed to the current civil union scheme, would result in a net gain of approximately $500,000 each year for the State. This net impact will be the result of savings in expenditures on state means-tested public benefits programs and an increase in meals and room tax revenues from increased wedding-related tourism.[4]

3 : M.V. Lee Badgett, Amanda K. Baumle, Adam P. Romero, and Brad Sears, The Impact on Iowa's Budget of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry (April 1, 2008). The Williams Institute http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclalaw/williams/badgett_4

4 : http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclalaw/williams/badgett_7/
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 7:10 AM Michelle writes:

We don't want you

As a librarian, I say get out of the profession. We don't want you. Your logic is so staggeringly flawed that I don't see how you could possibly make an advocate for information ideals.

Straight people take up resources too, jerk!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 10:27 AM Mitch writes:

An Economic Case Against Homosexuality

The basis for the author’s arguments looks at a small sliver of fundamental right wing anecdotes to try to support unconstitutional bias. Putting aside the obvious ridiculousness of this whole article… perhaps the author should look at the data about how much the gay community earns and spends compared to non-gays. Also, figure out how much more taxes the gay community pays. I bet some of those taxes go to libraries … where funny enough you can get a book to look up all the data about gays and economics.
Come to think of it, the same argument the author uses can be used against families. Folks who have kids get more compensation for the same job if they get health insurance for the whole family. And who pays for that?? The single people who have to work more for the equal compensation. Let’s just blame Canada or Martians.
anecdotally
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 12:36 PM Lauren writes:

Opinion

Dr Chapman-
I too am a Christian but I am of the opinion that we are to treat everyone as we would want to be treated. (Love your neighbor as yourself- and the Bible doesn't say who we get to pick as our neighbors).
I, for one, would not like to be denied help after I have made a mistake, or after I have done something wrong. I certainly would not want to be denied entry into heaven because I sinned. But that's essentially what you are saying here- the rest of us (i.e. the ones of us who haven't "sinned" by being gay) should give deny help to those who might or might not have contracted HIV by performing homosexual acts. So in this scenario, we are playing God. I think that you have got the old testament view of the Bible down pat...what about taking a look at what the new testament has to say?
If homosexuality really is a sin (which I personally do not believe the Bible says it is), then why don't we let God take care of it?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 3:32 PM Chel writes:

Again....

"For just a second, let's at least agree that when people share their OPINIONS in this seriously flawed - but great - country of ours, we have the RIGHT to disagree openly, without fear of things like JAIL or TORTURE."
-Yes, but apparently now we have to fear losing our jobs. If this doesn't seem potentially life changing to you, why don't you try walking away from your job and trying to do without your source of income.

"Because it is insulting to your university to have people associated with it spouting such bigotry. Professors have been fired for less."
- Insulting is in the eye of reader. I do not view it as such yet you do. Such is life. The last time I checked we were still free to share our opinions.

"There is a BIG difference between holding a personal opinion and claiming that economics and sound reasoning in any way support that position. This blog entry offended me as an economist, if it were simply an opinion piece I could care less. However, he is dragging my science through the mud to support his personal agenda. That is simply wrong."
- The fact that this blog entry offended you has nothing to do with the potential of religious leaders being jailed for preaching their opinions. I was simply stating that it is a very real possibility as it has already happened elsewhere.

"I don't know why you expect tolerance when you are breaking the law."
- Somehow I very much doubt these laws would have the same effect should a homosexual contractor be sued over refusing to provide his services for building a church that planned on preaching against and actively discouraging homosexuality.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 10, 2009 9:43 PM ERIC writes:

ARE YOU GAY?

dear bert chapman,

are you hating yourself because you're gay? over and over again, clinical studies have demonstrated that those who exhibit the most violent homophobia are latent homosexuals. it's also common for such people to take 'refuge' in fundamentalist or evangelical religion, in hopes of appeasing an 'angry god.'

so i can't help but wonder: does your wife know all of your deepest sexual urges and desires? you might be hiding them from her, but you can't hide them from god.

the good thing is, god loves you just the way you are. after all, he's the one who made you gay! so if you are wrestling with gay desires, you would be much happier just accepting and loving yourself as you are.

but please do stop persecuting other gay people for what you most hate and fear in yourself. GET HELP! you can stop hating. let go of hate.

for once in your life, try and be honest with yourself.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 9:20 AM Selywn writes:

The Cost of Life

Mr Chapman's comments are symptomatic of a mind troubled with consternation and doubt. Opinions are free to give so his right is protected by the Constitution as are the lifestyles of those he condemns. The poor fellow Chapman is so bent on biblical affirmation that he must think God instructed him to write his post. It's hard to argue against God or a hardened mind. However, being blind does not abrogate his callous disregard of those who are different than he is. Perhaps, he needs to watch Ernie more often!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 1:24 PM Jonathan writes:

Economic Case Against Homosexuality

Moral values are more important than economics. Sodomy is wrong because it gave us the AIDS epidemic, which has killed a large number of people, many of them entirely innocent (recipients of tainted blood and blood products, babies who got it from their mothers and wives from their husbands, etc.). If you are religious, it is also wrong because the Bible says so, in strong terms (the word used to condemn it is also used to condemn moving boundary markers, which in a subsistence agricultural society amounts to taking food from your neighbor's children's mouths).

I congratulate Mr. Chapman on his forthright exposition of his views (even though I disagree with his emphasis on economics), and urge him to stand up to all the bullies.

Jonathan Katz
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 1:41 PM drpete writes:

The author is NOT a conservative, so

has misnamed himself. A true conservative protects and defends each person's unalienable right to liberty. And it is -- synthesized -- the sole job of the federal government.

If two adults wish to have sex with each other, it is their unalienable right to do so, regardless of whether they are of the same sex, and regardless of whether one is paying the other for the privilege. It's liberty, not license.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 1:52 PM Adriana writes:

If that is the case, we're all bigots...

Kevin-
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own. I'm sure "Conservative Librarian" has a lot of tolerance. People like him and myself have no hatred against gays, but does tolerence mean that we are no longer entitled to our opinions? If that is the case, we're all bigots.

The real bigots are the ones who do not allow those who have an opinion different from theirs.

What LGBT people do is none of my business. But I start to care and worry about the morality of mankind when a gay person comes on to someone even though they are straight, when they are harassed for being called a homophobe just because they are straight, and when they are accused for being called gay just because they "look" like it, AND they care when a person calls them bigoted just for "caring" about this important issue.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 4:05 PM Unicorn writes:

To Mr. Chapman and his dissenters

___
// 7
(_,_/\
\ \
\ \
_\ \__
( \ )
\___\___/
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 4:13 PM Unicorn writes:

Sry, my above art was screwed gay'd up

......___
.....// 7
....(_,_/\
.....\ \
......\ \
......_\ \__
.....( \ )
......\___\___/

Long live the flying gay unicorn! This message was funded and supported by your local gay union. Yes, we have unions now.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 11, 2009 5:38 PM Chris writes:

Specious?

The example of AIDS seems to me an argument for allowing gay marriage: if gay people are going to have sex with each other (and they will--they're *gay*), then having them do so in the context of monogamous relationships would curtail the spread of STDs just as monogamy among heterosexuals does.

Rape in prisons: Yes, rape is bad, regardless of who is involved. If man-on-man rape in prisons is an argument against homosexuality, then wouldn't man-on-woman rape be an even stronger argument against heterosexuality, since most rapes on this planet are men raping women?

Benefits for gay couples: If denying benefits to gay couples can be justified as a matter of economics, why not deny benefits to mixed-race couples as well? Better yet, why not deny benefits to straight couples? A straight couple is more expensive on average than a gay couple, since straight couples on average have more children. Furthermore, reinstating slavery could be a boon to the economy. Euthanizing severely disabled people and the senile also makes good economic sense. That's what you get if you feel that economics is more important than human rights. Personally, I'm willing to let the disabled live--I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of economic prosperity in return for having a society with a scrap of basic human decency. If you're not, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 7:57 AM Joe writes:

Stand Strong

Finally someone stands up for what they believe in. All you other brainwashed little followers spewing whatever the mainstream media is pushing today. And why is it that everyone tries to shut up the christian voice. Who is it that is really the one that is persecuted here?? I want to personally thank Bert Chapman for his posting. And no matter how many students and faculty try to persecute you do not stand down. Stand strong for you represent bonum verum pulchrum.

God bless
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 8:58 AM DailyKenn writes:

videoGay hate speech: SPIT ON CHRISTIANS

This hate video showed up on a local blog, Bilerico.com.

In the video the "comedian," frustrated over last week's GOP gubernatorial wins, says,

"Sometimes I wake up . . . and all I want to do is smoke cigarettes and spit at Christian fundamentalists . . . nut jobs that I want to
spit at . ."

Newsworthy in my humble opinion because the site featuring the video
is well-read nationally; they commonly feature Christophobic hate
speech.

Your thoughts?

-- Kenn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXv67PYbQwI&feature=player_e mbedded
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 8:59 AM Mr. H writes:

Don't let your enemies win

Having seen the article the Indianapolis Star chose to run today about your article and the grief the Purdue community is giving you, I felt I needed to give you a message of support. Keep writing and do not be afraid of those who come out against you. You'll only let them win the argument if you stop writing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 10:50 AM Lori writes:

Free Speech

To my limited understanding, ALL american's have the right of FREE speech. Sometimes that speech offends someone. Grow up(this is to those that are offended by this blog). ALL humans are flawed, that is why we need a savior (JESUS). If you can't stand to allow someone to express his or her opinion (that you disagree with) without threatening the person's job, then you need to stop and analyze why you are so upset. There is no possible way that everyone is going to agree on every issue. For my part I applaud this blogger for standing up for what he believes, most people don't.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 11:00 AM Michael writes:

Regarding the Christianity basis

First, I support your right to express your opinions and you should not be sanctioned for this. Your views on homosexuality are your business, but pleast don't use Christ as your excuse. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but spoke out explicitly against divorce and the accumulation of wealth. If rely on the famous "abomination" line in Leviticus you would need to follow all of the other prohibitions in that book, of which there are many. If you quote one or two lines from St. Paul's letters you'd need to follow everything else he said, including women not speaking in church nor cutting their hair. Please leave Jesus out of this.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 1:14 PM David writes:

Unbelievable

I'm not sure when I've read such a huge pile of lies and misinformation. To think that ANYONE in 2009 still thinks that being gay is a "lifestyle" choice is absolutely astonishing. You've obviously never even spoken with a gay person, yet somehow you know everything there is to know about them. To say that you're uninformed on the subject is a gross understatement.

To equate male-on-male rape in prisons with committed same-sex relationships is so ludicrous it's laughable. Even you must realize that rape is an act of violence and has nothing to do with love or intimacy.

You said, "... that it's more economical for employers to promote healthy employee marriages because married employees are generally more dependable and motivated workers." Unknowingly, you actually made a very good case for the support of same-sex marriage. Way to go!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 3:17 PM John writes:

Be a real conservative, and Christian

The author is a social conservative not a political one. I'm sorry that distinction has broken down, as the right to choose who to sleep with is not the domain of government. Ever since social conservatives took over the Republican Party, those who demand government stay out of the bedroom have had no choice but to go with the Democrats. As purely a political play, you can count on this 3-4% of the electorate going the other way as long as social conservatives control the agenda.
Now if we are to avoid hate speech and the odious intrusion it can represent to free speech, we need to provide maximum room for views with which we disagree. So in this regard Mr. Chapman's voicing of his opinion does provide a valuable exercise.
That said, I do disagree with his logic. I think it abhorrent that a Christian would advocate not taking care of people with AIDS. Anyone who's educated themselves on AIDS--including the socially conservative George W. Bush--AIDS is no longer a homosexual problem, nor is it even spread mostly by homosexuality.
Early in the disease, many people were blaming the sufferers of AIDS for their sins--a barbaric practice that traces its roots to Medieval Ages. Ryan White was the product of this hate and stigma.
Involuntary contraction of AIDS must throw Mr. Chapman's disdain for helping AIDS sufferers into a conundrum as anyone could be victimized in this fashion, thus bestowing the sinners' disease on non-sinners.
Stop Prisoner Rape (SPR.org) lobbied to get the "Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003, the first–ever federal civil law addressing sexual abuse in detention." To his credit, President Bush was the first President to be publicly sympathetic to the cause.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 4:42 PM Steve writes:

Great point!

With you there! Great point! Unfortunately, you are going to be "crucified" by the media not too many days hence. Freedom isn't free and opinions can cost a lot.

Your assumption and conclusions are reasonable. However, your assertions are not sesative the the polical and emotional atmosphere of our spoon-fed society. I think that is a good thing. Sometimes you need someone to step "outside the box" and say it is what it is. AIDS is a primarily gay desease. Unfortunately, the "open-minded" ignorant fools that refute this are too closed-minded to admit the truth.

So, keep up the good work Prof - and good luck with the consequences. I admire your courage and hope it will encourage other truth-tellers to take a stand and excercise their right to open their mouths. God knows the freaks and weirdos aren't going shut theirs!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 4:51 PM James writes:

Christ and Homosexuality

Oh but Christ does speak out against homosexuality. Please take the time to read and study the following verses. New Intl Version

I Corinthians 6:9,Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

Romans 1:26-27, 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 4:55 PM Samuel writes:

A Lot to Think About

Mr. Chapman,

Let me say first off that I do not agree with attempts on the part of some to have you removed from your job. Certainly, you have the right to say what you choose whether or not it's a popular position. People who bill you as intolerant should at least be tolerant themselves.

That said, the arguments that you put forth against homosexuality in your blog are misguided and even dangerous. In advancing an economic argument, you presuppose that economics is the supreme factor that should guide decision-making. The fact is however, that ethics also factor in. Permitting people to die of diseases like AIDS simply because it is inconvenient to bear the costs or because we disagree with their lifestyle choices is an immoral proposition. You claim to come from a Christian background, but your Christianity factors very little into your argument. Because all people are created in the image and likeness of God, all people possess an inherent dignity, which cannot be revoked by any person. Refusing to provide them with essential medical services is a denial of their dignity as persons. This is a gross violation against God's design for humanity. You would do well to reevaluate your own sense of ethics. Remember that the love of money is the root of all evil.

Finally, your entire argument rests on the assumption that all gay and lesbian people engage in irresponsible sexual behavior. That is simply not true. There are many gays and lesbians who live in monogamous relationships who also hold rather "traditional values." Blanket statements about a group of people only demonstrate ignorance and an inability to critically examine an issue.

Mr. Chapman, I see no reason you should lose your job, but I see many reasons you should rethink your argument. I hope you will do so.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 5:11 PM Eric writes:

Some CDC facts

Not really getting ito a tizzy either way on this, I will simply add my two cents. 1. At least the author is acknowledging the futility of citing religious sources for opposing homosexuality.
2. At least a few of the comments instantly began citing the old saw that AIDS is not a "gay disease" at least not anymore. This is a little misleading, at least in the US. The CDC categorizes HIV/AIDS cases by transmission category. Up THROUGH 2007 the cases related to either male to male contact, male to male contact and IV drug use, totalled 558937 out of the total 1009255 cases, or 55%. In addition to the 558937 there were 255859 cases where IV drug use was the primary means of transmission. Combining homosexual contact and IV drug use they account for 814796 cases or 80.7% of all HIV/AIDS cases. High risk heterosexual contact accounts for only 17.5% of the cases. True, they may be much higher in other nations, but as one commenter pointed out only about 10% of the population is homosexual. IF this is true, or even close, the coorelation is even more compelling as a small number of people int eh population account for such a disproportionate number of the HIV/AIDS cases.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 5:11 PM Eric writes:

CDC facts pt II

Those number were historic totals through 2007, what about 2007 numbers to illustrate a possible trend. Using the same transmission categories, homosexual males to male sex was the casuse of 16749 cases and the combination of homosexual contact and IV contributed another 1664. There were 35935 cases reported in 2007 Applying hte above 2007 numbers homosexual contact and homosexual contact combined with IV drug use was a factor in 51% of the cases. The difference in 4% may be significant. The cases where IV use without homosexual contact was the cause was 6010. When added to the other two causes, as above the 24423 cases account for 67% of the cases, almost 13% less than the historic totals. High risk hetero sexual contact accounted for 30.9% of the infections in 2007. THis would seem to indicate that heterosexual contact with an infected person has nearly doubled as a cause for infection. However the coorelation when copmared tot he population as a whole still holds true in that a small minority of the population still is a transmission factor for over half of all cases reported in 2007.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 5:11 PM Eric writes:

cdc facts III

So before we start throwing rocks about AIDS is or is not a "gay disease", consult the CDC. While AIDS is not confined to the gay community, the gay community is very disproportionately affected. Yes the trend indicated that more and more new cases involve heterosexual contact and in the context of a TREND, heterosexual contact is outpacing other transmission categories for increases in new cases, however it it is a long way from replacing homosexual activity as a means of transmission, and an even farther distance from the combined sources of homosexual contact and IV drug use.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/suveillance/basic.htm
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 7:56 PM Robert writes:

What next?

Bert's columns is a mess. But even if you accept his disordered thinking, where does Chapman want to take us now? If he’s saying our nation can’t afford to have open and out gays, what does he we want the government to do about it?

Bert Chapman doesn’t say, and that’s the scariest part of his whole essay.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 10:56 PM Brendan writes:

RE: Christ and Homosexuality

As to the comment regarding Christ's commentary against homosexuality as cited in the NIV Bible.

Christ NEVER said the things you quoted. The verses are commentary from Paul of Tarsus, who was the author of both I Corinthians and Romans.

If you are going to quote the Bible, try to at least know what you are talking about, particularly if you are going to say the Christ said something.

Remember, if you want to quote Christ stick to "the red words"!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 11:09 PM John writes:

RE: Christ and Homosexuality

First of all those are letters from Paul. Which are still important, but it implies that you haven't studied it much yourself.

Anyways, again, these things aren't as strait forward as a lot of people are taught. Please read this as well: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-c hristian

It addresses both I Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27 amongst many many other things. (you can just ctrl+f down to the right part, but most of it is a good read). You may not agree with every single point, but overall it's an awfully strong argument to just throw out.

I think we Christians need to get back on point. Jesus's message to us was about love, kindness, and helping people. If we all focused more on this the world would be a better place.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 12, 2009 11:22 PM Pharmer1 writes:

U.S. Will Catch Up with African Nations

Good on Yvonne Pitts for having the rare sense to recognize that if another group's views can be suppressed in the public square, (through threats and intimidation), then one's own group might be next.

I've never tried to get a liberal fired for expressing leftie ideology. (However, I already know what it's like to be fired for exercising pro-life = Hippocratic health care policy.)

Unfortunately our current crop of Washington politicians doesn't feel as we do about free speech, and we are already suffering fallout from this.

Addressing HIV economics: African nations are addressing the behavioral root causes of HIV directly, since they cannot afford to throw expensive treatments at the problem.

HIV epidemiologists have been getting a little religion lately, from their very own data. Read up at http://pharmphun.blogspot.com/2009/03/giant-intellect-of-p ope.html
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 2:18 AM Tom writes:

It's not a matter of "opinion"

or of "christianity". You don't even know what you're talking about. How ill-informed can a person be? Just how ignorant on a subject does one have to be?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 3:06 AM Scot writes:

Professionally disappointed

I'm not going to argue with Prof. Chapman because:

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." -William G. McAdoo, lawyer and politician (1863-1941)

or more famously,

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent." -Attribution unknown

I'm just going to express my deep disapproval as a librarian and LIS professor that a colleague would ever use his profession, as part of his avocational online identity, to lend any credence or spin to such blatantly incorrect, un-cited, agenda-laden essay.

To begin what is purported to be an objective economic analysis with "As a Christian, I agree with the biblical condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle" is simply unconscionable. Not because of what dogma one agrees with, but because it ... well, it tips your hand doesn't it? If you don't have facts, don't write the essay or at least explain that you are merely writing an emotional plea instead of ... well, an honest one.

And now, back to my gay lifestyle, which includes getting up at 7 a.m. for work and paying my taxes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 10:18 AM Adriana writes:

Facts are always changing

Scot-
Facts change constantly. Not one person will have all of the facts, it's not possible. I'm sure you don't have all of the facts either but everyone has the right to make sense of something out of what we're given in the best way we can. Besides facts aren't everything, experience and just plain common sense has a lot to do with why we agree with some issues over the other. And just one question, what makes you think Conservative Librarian is ignorant? Just because he ruffled a few of your feathers you think you have the right to attack him personally like that? Seems a little "unprofessional" on your part. And it just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Plus, since you mentioned it, where are your facts? The fact that you have to resort to personal attack tells me that you don't have all of the facts either. Take a good look at yourself before you criticize someone else for doing the same thing. Also I'm a little hazy on the unprofessionalism in Conservative Librarians act. Just clarify a little for me is all.

"I'm not going to argue with Prof. Chapman..."- you

Umm... I think it's safe to say you did.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 11:27 AM John writes:

Jesus Doesn't Discriminate, Why Do You?

For calling yourself a Christian, you judge entirely too much. Your statistics about HIV/AIDs being a "gay disease" are out-dated, and completely stereotyped.
As for myself? I'm no where near a perfect Christian. But I know, that if you don't educate children, they're going to experiment and explore their bodies and sexuality, without protection.
Oh, and by the way? I'm a Log Cabin Republican. I have the some political views, except I believe in equal rights for everyone.
Obviously your ascot is a bit tight, and your monocole is fogged.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 11:44 AM Jacob writes:

Participation permitted?

Just wondering if an actual gay (yes, me! -- one of the people whom this blog is deriding) is permitted to participate in this discussion? Should I stop existing to improve the economy?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 1:11 PM Paul writes:

I am gay

Richard:
What about the economic costs of the nonacceptance of homosexuality:
(1) Smart folks don't want to be around homophobes so they don't move to where they live but would rather be somewhere progressive.
(2) The economic cost of treating people for their so-called disorder, regulating their behavior with criminal sanctions and so forth (I spent 5 years in reparative (so-called ex-gay) therapy which is just a modern form of the inquisition and works just as well - are your fundamentalist brethren willing to pay for that?)
(3) Go ahead, suppress us, next will be the Jews. At least they have an army now, thank God.
(4) The enormous cost of the lost years of productivity wrought on so many lives by homophobia. How many Alan Turings will it take before the religious right is satiated?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 5:20 PM No writes:

Economic Clarifications for Mr. Chapman

To say that you are making an "Economic Case" suggests that you hold some formal education in the science. At the very least one should expect a knowledge of basic principles, outside of those which are plagarized from other only slightly more adept bloggers. As I suspected, the assumption of your knowledge is grossly untrue. Instead you hold degrees in History and liberal sciences, unimpressively.

One might look past your glaring lack of formal education however if your arguements presented a sound reasoning (via a simple cost-benefit analysis perhaps). In fact, had your arguments considered a full spectrum of associated costs you would discover that while your final conclusion is correct, homosexuality has a high economic cost to society, it is for an entirely different reason.

Consider this model, in a society where homosexuals are free to marry they contribute proportionately to the income of states by filing and obtaining all neccessary paperwork. As well, this extended right to marry presents commerical opportunities in the wedding industry as the pool of potential clients expands. One must agree with this most basic economic model, as demand increases upward pressure builds on price and supply increases to meet the new demand.

However, U.S. law prohibits the act of marriage between same-sex couples, thus, as a society, we suffer the forgone cost, the opportunity cost of not allowing gay marriage. It is in actuality this opportunity cost which presents the greatest cost of homosexuality.

In this argument opportunity cost is the only cost which can logically be associated exclusively with homosexuals, as all of your percieved costs are effectively invalidated by the mutual exclusivity you force upon them.

I applaude the many commentors who have presented logical rebuttles of their own, particularly with respect to the association between AIDS care and homosexuality.

I warn the blind follower: Be weary of a misinformed shepard.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 5:31 PM No writes:

Economic Clarifications for Mr. Chapman

For the sake of reference, I hold the following degrees: B.S. Economics, B.A. International Studies, M.A. Economics, J.D. Law
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 5:32 PM eddie too writes:

who in their right


minds want a large object forced into their rectum.

engaging in sodomy is a choice.

Jesus would throw rocks at the practice of sodomy if not at the sodomite. that may be too subtle a point for someone whose mind is poisoned by the lust for sodomite activities.

Jesus said God made them male and female and for that reason a man leaves his mother and father and clings to his wife. Jesus is pretty clear about fornication also saying fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

So, same-sex sodomite supporters, do not try and misrepresent the Lord. That is far worse than engaging in same-sex sodomite activities.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 6:10 PM Mark writes:

Inspiring Post

This post is amazing. It inspired me to make an economic case against automobile ownership, see http://conslibran.blogspot.com/
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 7:08 PM Jacob writes:

Sodomites

As soon as somebody uses the s-word ("sodomite"), I know we've arrived in the Bible Belt. The hours of reasonable discussion are over; it's now time to quote Christian mythology as the basis for public policy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 8:03 PM Robert writes:

You can always count on eddie

Fascinating how the men most disgusted by gay sex are the most likely to post about it in detailed, graphic terms.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 9:06 PM John writes:

A tortured argument

Sir,
With all respect, I see a logical problem here. You have started with the a priori position, based on religious dogma, that homosexuality is immoral. Fine.
But then you begin an ad hoc argument attempting to bolster your conclusion through fairly tortured logic. AIDS entered the human population in Africe, through the consumption of primate meat. It remains a much more serious epidemic in Africa than anywhere else, where it is a heterosexual disease.
In other words, the global cost of fighting AIDS is largely the result of straight behavior.
It is interesting that you are asking for more examples of how homosexuality hurts the economy. You are clearly not interested in evidence that doesn't bolster the conclusion you had already reached.
I would respect you far more if you had simply based your distaste for gays on the Bible and left it at that.
Of course, even that opens a can of worms. For consistency's sake, you would then be obliged to adhere to a number of positions prescribed by the Bible.
Deuterotomy, for example, requires that a disobedient son be murdered. Certain unclean animals, such as swine and shellfish, may not be eaten. You must be executed for working on the Sabbath. I suspect you are not being consistent here.
Have you actually read the Bible - I mean other than simply cherry-picking the parts condemning homosexuality? The rules set out about many things other than homosexuality, such as how to treat your slaves, are numerous and astounding.
Finally, the group almost entirely immune to AIDS is lesbians. Are lesbians God's chosen people?
You are welcome to your opinion sir, but not to your own system of logic. If the Bible is your source of all moral teaching, then obey all the rules, not just the ones that appeal to your prejudice.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, November, 13, 2009 9:17 PM Scot writes:

No rebuttals?

I don't seem to be able to rebut Ariana with another comment? My follow up comment has not been posted, though later ones by others have. Seems a little strange to me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 2:30 AM greg writes:

TRUTH @hivquestions

The hiv test is cross-reactive with drug use, flu shots and pregnancy. just 2, 3 or 4 proteins for a positive result depending on which country one is testing in. New documentary up for 2010 Oscars houseofnumbers.com - also please visit my channel at youtube.com/hivquestions (and healing alternatives) videos in spanish, german, italian, french, greek and english. now at twitter/hivquestions

basically the politicians have deceived us all with a fraudulent test based on fraudulent research.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 4:15 AM Michael writes:

Opinions & Facts (For Adriana & Others)

Many people have stated that this blog post is an opinion, and as such doesn't need to be backed up with facts and citations. But its headline clearly lays it out as an argument designed to persuade, and persuasive arguments MUST be built on testable truths and logic. Otherwise we have nothing but bare, baseless assertions backed by nothing. It's the intellectual equivalent of writing bad checks.

As for whether this blog has anything to do with Mr. Chapman's position at Perdue, it seems to me that he's using his professional title in order to enhance his credibility. Which is fine! Really! But if he's going to do that, he should expect to be held to the professional standards that go with being a librarian. That includes backing up your assertions with facts, and citing sources to back up your facts. Period. You can't have it both ways.

I personally wouldn't call for ANYONE to be fired for publishing his opinion, including Mr. Chapman. But I might consider whether someone who considers this post to be intellectually rigorous is qualified to be a librarian, so maybe I'd fire him for being unfit for the job.

If Mr. Chapman chooses to have his posts evaluated using a different standard, that's fine. But in that case he should remove the word "Librarian" from the title of his blog.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 12:37 PM Karl writes:

Why not argue the substance?

I'm dismayed, but not terribly surprised, at the number of comments that "argue" by hurling abuse rather than addressing the substance of Chapman's piece.

Firstly, although many have blurred the line, there is a distinction between acceptance, tolerance, and rejection. Gay activists demand nothing less than full acceptance of homosexuality in all its flavors. Most people are willing to extend tolerance -- no, it's not what they'd prefer to see, and yes, there are costs to be borne, but we can tolerate them. And this is different in its turn from rejection -- declaring homosexuality unacceptable and an offense to be punished somehow.

Chapman has offered a case that homosexuality carries with it certain economic costs. He is also ignoring economic benefits. This is his choice, and if he wishes to engage in special pleading, he is free to do so. The way to counter this is to make the case for the benefits and/or to show the costs are not as bad as he thinks they are, not to call him names.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 12:46 PM Karl writes:

Looking at substance I -- AIDS

AIDS is expensive to treat, and in the US it is largely confined to the populations of male homosexuals and IV drug users. People were predicting a break-out into the non-IV-drug-using heterosexual population as early as the late 1980s, and it keeps not happening.

If this were Africa, it would be reasonable to worry about heterosexual transmission of AIDS, especially in areas where folk belief holds that it's possible to cure oneself of AIDS by having sex with a virgin. But the US is not Africa. We have different cultural parameters to deal with, and one of them is a population that engages in high-risk behavior and spreads infection quickly among its members -- not just AIDS, but hepatitis and a number of other infections. I recall hearing once, on the Dean Edell show, that certain STDs were so easily and quickly spread among homosexual men that it was possible to determine if one was a practicing homosexual by running a blood test and seeing if more than a certain number of those diseases turned up.

This being the case, and given that STDs cost a nonzero amount to treat, no matter who has them, it stands to reason we can most effectively prevent their spread by concentrating our resources on the population most likely to do the spreading. In the case of AIDS, it's obviously the populations of homosexual males and IV drug users.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 1:19 PM Karl writes:

Substance II -- Is AIDS tolerable?

When I donate platelets, I fill out a questionnaire asking me a number of questions. Some have to do with what medications I've been taking, or have ever taken. For example, have I taken aspirin within the last 48 hours. Others deal with the likelihood that I may have been infected with any of a number of diseases.

So I'm asked if I've ever had sex with another male since 1977. And I'm asked if I've ever used illegal drugs by needle. And I'm asked if I've ever been in jail, prison, juvenile lock-up, etc for more than 72 hours. I'm asked if I've shared needles, or lived with anyone with hepatitis. I'm also asked if I've ever had a transplant, a transfusion, a tattoo, or piercing within the last year.

I'm asked if I've been outside of the US in the last three years, or if I've spent a total of more than six weeks in Great Britain, among other areas. I'm asked if I've ever received a blood transfusion in Great Britain, or if I've ever been to Africa. I'm asked if I've been in the armed forces, or lived in a military family.

I'm asked enough things that I'm amazed the Red Cross finds as many donors as it does.

AIDS is common enough in certain populations that the Red Cross screens them out entirely. Mad Cow (BSE -- Bovine Spongiform Encelopathy) is common enough in Great Britain that the Red Cross screens out Brits entirely. (Well, I suppose the British Red Cross doesn't.) Hepatitis is common enough in prisons that people who have done any significant amount of time are screened out entirely.

AIDS is expensive to treat. So is hepatitis. What hepatitis lacks in expense per patient, it probably makes for in number of patients. Ideally, we'd prevent all cases of both AIDS and hepatitis.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 1:27 PM Karl writes:

Substance III -- Is AIDS tolerable

(continuing) If we outlawed tattoos and piercings, we might make a dent in hepatitis cases. (Or we might not. IV drug use is already illegal.) We don't seriously consider disbanding all prisons, jails, and juvenile lock-ups. We could manage them a lot better, but that's grist for another post.

Once a person has a disease, whether it be hepatitis or AIDS, there are two ways to control the cost of treatment. One is don't treat. The other is continue doing research to make treatment cheaper and more effective. With the drugs we have now, AIDS is becoming more and more a chronic manageable disease, like diabetes. But the cost of these drugs is very high. It would be nice if we could figure out how to make them cheaper. More research is needed.

Now there's the question of whether the money spent in research could be better spent elsewhere. Maybe it could. Certainly, AIDS research is funded at a disproportionally high level, compared with other diseases. But is that a waste of money? It's hard to tell. The next experiment may not result in a cure for AIDS, but it may result in a cure for -=something=-. One of the features of research is you never know quite what you're going to find. As we study the immune system, we may stumble across stuff that will help with lupus, cancer, arthritis, diabetes, organ transplants, and any number of things that involve the immune system.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 1:36 PM Karl writes:

Subatance -- domestic partner benefits

First off, I suspect domestic partner benefits are here to stay. In a free market, insurers will be allowed to adjust the premium for insurance based on the economic differences between marriages and same-sex domestic partnerships. (Yes, the bias in that statement was deliberate. That's a whole 'nother topic.)

If such discrimination is not allowed, then "insurance" quits being insurance and becomes a method of wealth transfer from a low-risk population to a high-risk one. And unless you believe there is absolutely no difference in risk between married couples and domestic partnerships, one population will carry higher risks than the other. If the law requires premiums to be the same, that means the lower risk population subsidizes the costs of the higher risk. Even if it means the domestic partnerships are subsidizing the married couples.

I haven't examined the Corporate Resource Center's study. Based on the nature of the comments, I rather doubt anyone else commenting here has, either. At least, if they have, they're not bothering to address any of the substance in that report.

Maybe their methods and data are sound. Maybe not. But their soundness can not be established or refuted by calling Chapman's piece Hitlerian.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 2:11 PM Karl writes:

Blog post

Posting in my blog is way overdue.

So I posted on this topic.

[[http://pentagrams.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/14/homosexuality_and_economics.thtml]]
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 2:55 PM Robert writes:

Karl

It's quite easy to make an argument against the content.

http://wakingupnow.com/blog/bert-chapman-is-scary
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 4:07 PM Adriana writes:

It's a "blog"

Michael-
I don't believe I said Chapman's blog was strictly just opinion based. I said he doesn't have "all of the facts" but no one person can have all of the facts, it's not possible. I am not in "complete" agreement or disagreement with this man's blog. But I do have a better understanding of where he's coming from than the rest of the so-called Christians that disagree with his statements. How can someone call themselves a Christian when they think homosexuality is ok? Seems a little sacrilegious to me. Besides, it's a "blog," of course it's going to be opinion based. Just a suggestion, I wouldn't expect very many facts presented from anyone on this site. Even the motto under this site states "where your 'opinion' counts," it's not "where your 'facts' count." If you want to find a blog with nothing but facts, good luck because you're probably not going to get very far. I'm sorry to break that to you.

What Chapman is saying is that the extra costs of meds and more frequent doctor visits of a homosexual (because of the heightened risk of AIDS, yes it is a fact) is what we should be worried about when economic changes like the healthcare reform starts to come about. Because what will happen is that since more people will have free healthcare, taxpayers (including LGBT's) unfortunately will have to cover those extra costs. Just look at Canada, their healthcare is free but the tax is ridiculous up there. Before this reform, extra taxes would not have been a problem because the LGBT's would have taken care of their own costs through their insurance company just like everyone else. It's just like smokers, the rate of smokers needing surgery and meds is much higher than that of a nonsmoker. Since we're going to have to cover those extra costs now, it "does" matter what people do with their lives because it affects the rest of when it comes to picking up what they can't afford.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 9:22 PM Michael writes:

Sorry, Adriana, you're doing it again.

I don't expect anyone to have "all the facts." And I don't want a blog with nothing but facts. But I expect anyone who asserts something AS a fact to have evidence to back it up. Otherwise it's not a fact, or even an opinion. It's a lie.

If something's an opinion, label it as an opinion. But, as I said before, persuasive arguments require facts. Even opinions should have some kind of factual reasoning behind them.

Therefore, I would like you to share your source that shows the average health care costs per capita among the homosexual and heterosexual populations. Do you have one? Does the average homosexual REALLY go to the doctor more often and take more meds than the average heterosexual, as you say? Or are you making an assumption based on your own beliefs?

OK, OK, for the moment, forget gays and smokers and gays who smoke. You seem to be saying that you don't want to share the aggregated risk that is insurance with anyone who makes what you consider to be risky choices. A gay couple in a long-term, committed relationship is far safer in that regard than a hetero with multiple partners. And I hope you'll be weeding professional crab fishermen, skateboarders, police/fire/rescue workers, etc. out of your risk pool as well. Otherwise you're just being two-faced.

You're not arguing against homosexuality -- you're arguing against universal health coverage. And LGBTs aren't even CLOSE to the top of that risk pile.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 9:26 PM Michael writes:

To put it another way...

You can't say, "In my opinion, homosexuals have higher health care costs than heterosexuals." It makes no sense to have an opinion about that. There's data. It either supports that statement or it doesn't. It's like having an opinion about how many inches are in a foot, or whether water boils at 212° Fahrenheit. So when you use that statement as the basis for an argument, you'd better be able to certify it, or your argument falls apart.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, November, 14, 2009 10:23 PM Adriana writes:

AIDS is just a small part of it

Ok AIDS is just a small part of the fraction here That's just one example. Diseases such as syphilis, genital warts, scabies, and other STD's are acquired directly through sexual behavior among homosexuals and activists are asking Americans to legally endorse and protect them. Ok you don't find that the least bit alarming to you? Sure promiscuous hetero's are also just as likely to get these diseases and I don't condone them whatsoever just because they are hetero and think that makes it all ok. What I'm saying is the sexual mutilation on anyone's sexual reproductive system is going to drastically increase the risk of them contracting a disease. When a homosexual man inserts his fist in another man's rectum, I'm pretty sure that is going to do a number of harm on his body. That is what's going to increase his risk, it's not being in love with the man. The act of shoving his thing (apparently I can't use the P word) into his partner's rectum is what increases those risks, not his affection for him. Your rectum is so small, nothing is meant to go in it, now that's just common sense. It is basically the same reason African women have an increased risk of AIDS. The sexual mutilation done to their bodies is the reason why African women are infected with such diseases.

It's not a homosexuals love that affects our economy, it's their actions towards each other.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 1:59 PM Scot writes:

Now you're just being silly, Adriana.

There are no sexual acts that are exclusive to gay or lesbian people. Heterosexuals can, and do, perform the same acts. So, if you're obsessed with anal sex, don't blame it on gay men.

I'm still fuzzy what *any* of these opinions or arguments (with or without facts) are meant to achieve, anyway. Adriana and Prof. Chapman: what is your solution to what you perceive as the problem? Putting gays to death? Concentration camps? Deporting people who engage in anal sex? (And I challenge you to identify those people.)

Or are you simply saying that you don't want to think about the fact that there are people who engage in sexual acts with members of their own gender? And that there always have been? And that there always will be? And that they are your neighbors, your family, members of your congregation, and your co-workers? And that they pay taxes, engage in our participatory goverment, and are citizens entitled to the exact same rights as you?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 5:08 PM Adriana writes:

Ok I think you missed the point here

You're right in that homosexuals do have the same rights as everyone else and they do pay taxes just like everyone else but don't allow their medical costs to be put on us to have to pay for them. Their medical costs should be payed for by themselves and their partner, not us. The same goes with promiscuous straight people too. Don't put the burden of making us pay for the consequences of their irresponsible behavior.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 6:06 PM Ben writes:

RE Adriana

"You're right in that homosexuals do have the same rights as everyone else"

Except the civil right of marriage :cough:

"Their medical costs should be payed(sic) for by themselves and their partner, not us. The same goes with promiscuous straight people too. Don't put the burden of making us pay for the consequences of their irresponsible behavior."

Yes, clearly what we need is to further compartmentalize the paybase for medical insurance. Why stop there? Women are considerably more likely for breast cancer so should men have to pay for breast cancer research? Or are you talking about higher insurance premiums due to individual illness.

Either way I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but healthcare works better the more people you put in the system (even the diabetics, the overweight, and yes, even the gays).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 8:32 PM Adriana writes:

Having breast cancer is irresponsible?

How is having breast cancer a direct result from irresponsible behavior? I'm talking about consequences of irresponsible behavior here and you want to compare it to having breast cancer? I'm pretty sure that's what you are saying. What kind of sick minded person are you to think that the actions of homosexuals and their consequences are even remotely close to a woman or a man having breast cancer? I'm not understanding your logic because it is only "very" flawed!

"... are you talking about higher insurance premiums due to individual illness?"

Actually yes I am but add "individual risk" to that list and only on the conditions that those people "choose" to live their lives more dangerously regardless of "what the doctor says." I.E. rock climbers, parachute divers, Nascar drivers, smokers, alcoholics, ect. you get the idea. I'm "not" asking those people whose lives fall on hard times due to unpredictable illnesses to be given higher premiums.

You are blinded by this propaganda that leads you to believe any and every action is acceptable and economically responsible. What's next, a man doing it with a boy? Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, we've accepted that too. But I guess it's not as risky as far as the risk of diseases go because little boys don't diseases yet, so I suppose if you wanted to argue that, you'd win that economic debate. You should feel happy about yourself if you take on that one because you'd at least win that argument.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 8:33 PM Michael writes:

C'mon now...

I'm still waiting to see the proof that gays have higher health care costs. Or even a higher incidence of herpes, genital warts, and other STDs.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 9:24 PM Ben writes:

RE Adriana

"How is having breast cancer a direct result from irresponsible behavior? I'm talking about consequences of irresponsible behavior here and you want to compare it to having breast cancer?"

No, you're trying to frame an entire minority of the population's sex life as "irresponsible behavior" while simultaneously being blind to hyperbole. Also as several other posters have requested where is the data that states there is a higher rate of STDs in the homosexual community compared to the heterosexual one? Unless you can prove that assertion your argument makes no more sense than charging women for breast cancer.

"You are blinded by this propaganda that leads you to believe any and every action is acceptable and economically responsible."

If equality and civil rights are part of some greater system's propaganda I only wish it would get its act together so we could have some real progress in this country.

"What's next, a man doing it with a boy? Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, we've accepted that too."

Perhaps this argument ought to go ask the Wizard for a brain.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 10:52 PM Jane writes:

All Homophobes Are Morons

"You're right in that homosexuals do have the same rights as everyone else and they do pay taxes just like everyone else but don't allow their medical costs to be put on us to have to pay for them. Their medical costs should be payed for by themselves and their partner, not us. The same goes with promiscuous straight people too. Don't put the burden of making us pay for the consequences of their irresponsible behavior."



Why is it that you morons don't want to pay for gay people's health care, but gay people have to pay to provide welfare to single straight women who have kids out of wedlock? Maybe straight people should learn to use birth control!!!! We are sick of paying to support you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 10:56 PM Jane writes:

And just one more thing

"So, keep up the good work Prof - and good luck with the consequences. I admire your courage and hope it will encourage other truth-tellers to take a stand and excercise their right to open their mouths. God knows the freaks and weirdos aren't going shut theirs!"


The only "freak" is you. I'll assume you are also very, very dumb because I've never met a smart person who has anti-gay attitudes. Homophobia and stupidity tend to go together. And guess what? Freedom of speech means people have the right to criticize you and the braindead homophobe who wrote this article. Go back to reading your Ann Coulter books, you ignorant piece of garbage.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 15, 2009 11:28 PM Jane writes:

The Bible says divorce is wrong

So why don't conservatives try to start a petition to ban divorce in the states where they live? Or how about a petition to ban masturbation and premarital sex (because the Bible says those things are wrong too)? Oh, wait, I forgot, conservatives are hypocrites who use the Bible to justify anti-gay policies, but have no interest in using the Bible to ban the things they enjoy (like jerking off and having sex outside of marriage). 98% of Christians and conservatives have has sex outside of marriage so why don't you all just admit you are hypocrites?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 12:28 AM Eric writes:

Misnamed

I believe you've misnamed your post.

It should be "An economic case against promiscuity." You make the generalization that all homosexuals are promiscuous, which isn't true. Certainly many are, but not all are. Then you go on with HIV/AIDS as your first reason why homosexuality doesn't make economic sense, which is where my belief that you've misnamed your post comes from. It's promiscuity, and really a specific kind of promiscuity that led to the explosion of HIV/AIDS. You even admit this yourself in the post, when you mention Africa.

I'd remind you that Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality, and while in English translations the few places it's mentioned by others writers it seems obvious, taken as a whole there is plenty of debate about what the Bible actually says about homosexuality if practiced in a non-promiscuous manner.

Do a little more thinking and reading (and praying) and see if this effort to criticize homosexuality isn't a little off-base.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 4:36 AM Michael writes:

OK, everyone

Attack the argument, not the person. I have the same problem with this on my own side of the argument as I do on the opposing side. Resorting to angry speech and namecalling just weakens your argument, even if your argument is right.

I may disagree with Adriana's assertions, but I'd rather make her respond to reason than give her an easy out by claiming she's being jumped on.

Hang in there, Adriana. Ignore the haters. Just cite your reasons for believing there are such wide disparities in health care use and costs between homosexuals and heterosexuals so we can move the debate back where it belongs. If you don't have solid reasons beyond your own beliefs and hearsay, just say so. It's really not that hard.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 9:36 AM pyntic writes:

Religion makes you stupid

Since conservative Christians are shackled to the Bible, they make ridiculous claims to remain consistent with a book that is filled with silly errors, anachronisms, and inconsistencies.

Saying you adopt a biblical worldview is admitting that you have chosen an purposefully ignorant and irrational way to view reality.

Fundamentalism is something we have to tolerate. But we need to be refute it every chance we get

Christian fundamentalism is a pathetic and ultimately destructive viewpoint. Saying that is perfectly acceptable and does not infringe on anybody's rights to believe whatever nonsense they choose to.

Stand up to Christian bullies.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 11:08 AM Karl writes:

Jane -- Chapter and verse?

The Torah declares homosexual acts to be "an abomination" (Lev. 18:22, Lev 20:13)

Where does it declare divorce or masturbation abominations?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 12:33 PM Michael writes:

Yes, Karl...

...and Lev. 11:9-12 says that fish must have fins and scales to be kosher. So you'd better be prepared to swear off shellfish forever if you're going to use Leviticus as your argument.

Don't worry, though, because Lev. 11:22 says it's OK to eat "any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper." Maybe some bugs will make up for the loss of that crab feast.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 12:37 PM Michael writes:

Oh, and...

...in case you already *do* keep Kosher, we can always go with some of the other Old Testament laws worth arguing over. I'd write it myself, but Aaron Sorkin did it better: "I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?"
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 5:35 PM Jane writes:

Why are you all so stupid?

"It's promiscuity, and really a specific kind of promiscuity that led to the explosion of HIV/AIDS. You even admit this yourself in the post, when you mention Africa."



What does promiscuity have to do with AIDS? You can have sex once and get AIDS. You can have sex with thousands of different partners and be HIV negative.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 5:38 PM Jane writes:

Most Christians aren't Christ-like

"What's next, a man doing it with a boy? Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, we've accepted that too."



Hey, Einstein, it's ILLEGAL for adults to sleep with children. Do you really think adults sleeping with children is the same as two consenting adults sleeping together? Grow up, hatemonger.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 6:48 PM Laura writes:

Thank you

Thank you.

I grew up in San Francisco. I was taught from the time I was very young to accept all people. I try and love everyone regardless of how one sided they are. It's getting to the point where I have to really try and remember this about the far left who cry foul at every turn.

I am a Christian. I love my scriptures. They are very clear about the sin of homosexuality. There are an abundance of sins to choose from when judging others. Just because I'm prideful doesn't mean I can now believe the scriptures mentions nothing of pride. Or, if I chose to practice witchcraft I can't just pretend that the scriptures say nothing of sorcery.

The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a sin. Doesn't mean the person didn't come with a few misbehaving genes. I come from a long line of alcoholics. Do I give in to that? No. So it is the same with being gay. It's a challenge to overcome.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 7:08 PM John writes:

Rebuttal

Wow...

If you are going to quote the Bible to defend your idea, at least understand the full story surrounding it.

With regards to Jesus and the woman caught committing adultery. He still called it what it was. If you continue reading, "Go and SIN NO MORE". He didn't lean down to the woman, pick her up and say..."I don't care what kind of lifestyle you live. Do as you please. I'm tolerant of all lifestyles." Then he went on to the cross to die for her sins.

How is it that a Christian is called intolerant when they have an opinion. Homosexuals and their advocates "shove their beliefs" on Christians and get irate when they don't bow down and agree with them.

Oh and about pedophilia?? Homosexuality was "against the law" not long ago too. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it won't change. Those that support homos should watch closely the arguments they use to endorse it. NAMBLA is right behind them using the same arguments and beginning to make progress. Thanks ACLU, Homos, and the left.

Love how "Christians are bigots, hypocrites, blah blah blah" Never judge a religion by its abuses. Christians also don't claim to be perfect or sinless. That is what is great about Christ. He understood man's dilemma in their battle with sin which is the reason for his sacrifice on the Cross. When someone becomes a true Christian, they aren't made perfect...just forgiven.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 7:15 PM John writes:

Rebuttal

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/11/17/the_exp el_kevin_casimer_petition
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 9:51 PM Scot writes:

This isn't a Christian nation.

Anytime anyone suggests that *any* religion guide our government -- executive, legislative, or judicial branches -- well, that's just un-American.

So, who wants to actually comment on the content of Prof. Chapman's blog post?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 10:23 PM Jim writes:

God Scot, You're Right

How in God's name could anyone think this is a Christian nation. I agree, anyone that would argue this point, we should have them swear to it, put their hand on a Bible and swear to God to tell the truth. In deus nos fides.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 10:40 PM Ben writes:

Re John

"Oh and about pedophilia?? Homosexuality was "against the law" not long ago too. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it won't change. "

So was miscegenation. Just because its law now does not necessarily mean it is right or just.

"Those that support homos should watch closely the arguments they use to endorse it. NAMBLA is right behind them using the same arguments and beginning to make progress. Thanks ACLU, Homos, and the left."

Conversely the similar arguments (think of the children, destroying traditional family values, socialism etc etc) were reasons to keep the anti-miscegenation laws. Are you in favor of reinstating them? Do you think its important to preserve traditional marriage between one man and one woman of the same race?

Look I understand change is scary, but it is in almost every recorded case inevitable. Invariably civil rights eventually triumph, the only question is how long you all intend to whine and bellow until they do.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, November, 16, 2009 11:00 PM Jane writes:

Why are Christians such hypocrites?

"How is it that a Christian is called intolerant when they have an opinion. Homosexuals and their advocates "shove their beliefs" on Christians and get irate when they don't bow down and agree with them."



You're the ones shoving your beliefs down people's throats. You and your redneck, Bible banger pals use your beliefs to justify discrimination against gays. That is shoving your beliefs down people's throats. When are you hypocrites going to get congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning adultery? Probably never, since 90% of Christians have probably committed adultery at one point (like most people in general, regardless of religion) but you have no problem acting morally superior to gays.


"Christians also don't claim to be perfect or sinless."


Then why are you judging people for being "sinful"? The bible says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." None of you hypocrites are without sin yet you go around casting stones.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 12:07 AM Pat writes:

a fence sitter

First, I'd like to reply to the idea that abstinence only suggests sex is dirty. That is a silly statement, prejucial at least. Abstinence only suggests that sex is a good to be used under circumstances that promote the welfare and protect the children from early, uncontrolled and thoughtless acts which they are not ready to deal with.

That said. I have known a few homosexuals, and I find many admirable qualities that enlist my care for them. I do not believe it is a chosen life style at the root of it, although I also believe it can be a taught lifestyle - consider the many Brit public school "adventures".

I don't like the idea that "marriage" is between other than a man and woman in that some traditions are sacred to humankind. If they want to call it something else, fine = they are going to live together so the practical thing is to admit it. Just leave the word "marriage" alone.

And then, I do not like to see people suffer if there is a pain killer. I don't want to see their life made more difficult.

yet, I detest the SanFrancisco abominations. That has more to do with their anger and often sexual deviants than serious perusal of answers.

It isn't a simple problem with simple answers. Christ helped the outcast Lepers. He demands we
love, which means we do what we can to ease suffering.

I don't know the answers, all I know is that God demands like doctors, we do no harm.

He loves.


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 12:14 AM Adriana writes:

Well you do have a point there...

Jane-
"Why is it that you morons don't want to pay for gay people's health care, but gay people have to pay to provide welfare to single straight women who have kids out of wedlock? Maybe straight people should learn to use birth control!!!! We are sick of paying to support you."- you


Morons? Ok I'm sorry but are we in the third grade again here. Let's talk like we're adults please.

You do have a point about straight women popping out more kids out of wedlock than ever these days and it "is" ridiculous; no one should have to pay for their negligent behavior so perhaps you may have found the balance point of economic problems between gays and straights. Because you've really hit the nail on this one I really don't have anything to add to rebuttal against your argument. Good analogy. However, I will say with respect that as much as homosexuals don't like promiscuous heterosexuals, women and men with breast cancer, and pregnant women with an excessive amount of kids on welfare, those same repudiating feelings fall upon us when we think about our homosexual confidants with their reckless lifestyles; so I guess we have no choice but to just agree to disagree with each other and leave Mr. Chapman's blog to be dissected down to it's bare bones by LGBT's, NAMBLA's, people who do it with animals/objects (who knows what people do to explore their definition of "love" these days) and straight people alike.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 12:46 AM Ben writes:

RE Adriana

"Morons? Ok I'm sorry but are we in the third grade again here. Let's talk like we're adults please."

"so I guess we have no choice but to just agree to disagree with each other and leave Mr. Chapman's blog to be dissected down to it's bare bones by LGBT's, NAMBLA's, people who do it with animals/objects (who knows what people do to explore their definition of "love" these days) and straight people alike."

You first.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 11:41 AM John writes:

JANE

So you quote the Bible to justify your lifestyle then call others who go by the Bible "Redneck Bible Bangers". Every post you resort to name calling. You really sound like you are in third grade. Seriously. And yet you claim such intellectual superiority? Lol.

"Why are Christians such Hypocrites?"
"Then why are you judging people for being "sinful"? The bible says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." None of you hypocrites are without sin yet you go around casting stones."

You love to quote that yet you don't read further hence my first statement about the woman caught in the act of adultry. If you are going to use scriptures to justify your argument, know the full story behind the scripture. After Jesus said that to the crowd who was about to kill her for her sin, he turn to the woman and said, "Go and SIN NO MORE". The Bible doesn't teach that all lifestyles are acceptable. It calls for Christians to hold each other accountable. There are many in this Country who claim to be "Christian" but have no knowledge of what it really means to be a Christian. Jesus also said, "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Just because Christians call a sin a sin, doesn't mean they are sinless or are judging people. There is a difference between saying something is right or wrong and then delivering punishment for that sin. Vengence is mine thus said the Lord. The punishment is set aside for judgement day.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 11:42 AM John writes:

JANE Cont....

If someone steals from a Christian are they allowed to call the person a thief???? Or are they to say oh well I don't want to judge him. Does it mean that the Christian can carry out his own punishment on the thief? No, but he can still say it is wrong based on his beliefs. Christians base their moral beleifs on the Bible. You can disagree with it, hate them, call them names but the fact remains they have just as much right to be against something as you do for it. The difference is that Christains do not base their moral code on feelings but a absolute right/wrong moral code.

As for gay rights...It is called democracy. When there is enough support for "gay rights" then it will be voted in. Until then, Christians have just as much right to vote against it as you do for it. If you don't like our government system you are free to move elsewhere or get enough support behind your cause and change things.

There is no argument that can be used to justify gay marriage that cannot also be used to justify polygamy. Try it. Is polygamy wrong? What do you base it on....your feelings?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 11:46 AM John writes:

Ben.....

Let me ask you...are you for Polygamy? If not, then give me a reason to argue against it that cannot be used to justify homos getting married.

Are you going to allow for that change or will you whine and bellow?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 12:00 PM Ben writes:

RE John

That's a relatively easy one. The nature of the social contract works much better in a 1:1 relationship than in a 3-way relationship. Alimony, control of life support, there are many situations where it only works because there is one partner involved. In a polygamy situation you could easily have one partner saying "cut it off" and the other saying "keep him alive" and you would end up in an ugly legal battle...keeping the social contract between two consenting adults basically is the simplest way of resolving conflicts in it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 12:05 PM Ben writes:

RE John again

Although you do raise an interesting point that I'd like to question a tad. I hear a lot about defending "traditional marriage"...which traditions are you going by? Biblical traditions where you may have any number of wives? Pre-1967 traditional marriage where it was one man, one woman of the same race? Or post-1967 traditional marriage where it was one man and one woman? Which definition are you trying to defend?

I'm just saying we've altered the definition of "traditional marriage" before and I don't see too many people crying for the return of anti-miscegenation laws. :p
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 12:15 PM John writes:

But BEN!!

You are denying three consenting adults their rights to marriage. Who are you to say 1:1 works better than 3-way. What about raising a kid??? Wouldn't you say that having three parents is better than 2? That way you don't have to put them in daycare!

Come on now Ben, you are discriminating against Polygamist with your own biased opinion about which lifestyle is better. Tell the truth....are you a polygaphobe???? Why are you such a hypocrite? You Ignorant Moran!!!.....sorry, I've been reading too many of Jane's post. ;)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 12:28 PM John writes:

Ben....

Want to try a different reason for denying polygamist their RIGHTS? Simple fact is there is no argument that can be used to justify gays that cannot be used to justify other beliefs.

No, nothing wrong with allowing racial integration. Man and woman didn't change though.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 12:35 PM Kathy writes:

Truth should hold up to any scrutiny

I don't understand why so many who feel that homosexuality is a civil right (when, in fact, it is a sexual preference) are so offended when someone who has honest concerns about the profound changes homosexual marriage and "gay civil rights" will bring to our nation and to our families in particular, speak those concerns. The hypocrisy of those who declaim an honest and intelligent fellow citizen for speaking his honest concerns, just because he doesn't agree with you is stunning. The thought police are the most frightening of people in our world today. I am a mother of five children and I have researched extensively in many different places just what the impact to children will be if gay marriage laws are passed. It is an indisputable fact that such laws, if passed, would have a devastating impact on children and families. (Not to mention, as Professor Chapman has, the economic impact.) Stanley Kurtz has written a very thoughtful article entitled "Beyond Marriage" that should give everyone who has any concern for our children some pause before jumping on the PC bandwagon of gay rights equalling civil rights. This issue should be able to withstand any scrutiny anyone brings to it without personal attacks and refusal to engage in a dialogue truly addressing concerns.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 1:29 PM Ben writes:

RE John

I congratulate you on your mastery of hyperbole, it pushes you at least one step above the rest of the crowd. :p That being said as I'd mentioned before the social contract stops working elegantly when you introduce a third party into it. How would proceedings for end-of-life decisions work if two parties opposed each other?

Basically its a practicality issue from a legal standpoint. If those issues were resolved from a societal perspective (an almost impossible outcome mind you) then I'd imagine polygamy being legal would be nothing but a matter of time.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 1:53 PM John writes:

Ben

Who's social contract? Your's? Mine? Jane's? You keep speaking of a social contract as though it is an absolute.

You are going to deny polygamist right to marry based upon a "social contract" not "working as elegantly" as in hetero and homo marriages?

What you don't understand is that there are polygamist and pedophiles using the same arguments as gays. Of course the pedophiles are easy to defeat for now bc there is a overwhelming consensus that adult/child relationships are wrong/sick/immoral. But dare I say that homosexuality was looked upon the same way 50years ago. Overtime, homosexuality has become more and more accepted as it has been introduced into mainstream media. It started with subtle things and grew into what we have now. Within the secular world, almost full acceptance. Pedophilia is working its way into our society now (like it or not). The sexualizing of younger and younger girls on television is paving the way. 20-30yrs ago Miley Cirus would have been scorned for pole dancing in her song at what 16? But now it is perfectly acceptable for these teenie boppers on television to dress and dance as if they were 25. Just the other day a teenage threesome on cable tv! Our standards drop more every year. Every week now it seems we hear of a teacher having sexual relations with a student. Mark my word...acceptance is coming. It may not be full acceptance but we are lowering our standards every year. At what point do we stop? Gays? Polygamist? Pedophilia?

There has to be some moral compass to guide us besides some made up social contract and feelings!

And before the flamers start screaming...I do see a difference in homos and pedophiles. I am not saying they r exactly the same. Only that acceptance of the lifestyle is coming into our society with the same arguments and subtlety
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 4:06 PM Ben writes:

RE John again

"Who's social contract? Your's? Mine? Jane's? You keep speaking of a social contract as though it is an absolute. "

You are correct, it isn't an absolute. If it was than going by the old testament's definition of marriage we wouldn't have any issues at all with polygamy would we? ;)

That being said that was then and this is now. I use social contract to refer to the common perception of marriage (that is to say, two consenting adults joining to form some sort of family unit). This is where you will say the social contract only supports a man and a woman coupling but I will go ahead and point out I was addressing your polygamy strawman in respect to the nature of the social contract as it is currently defined, not the specifics.

"Of course the pedophiles are easy to defeat for now bc there is a overwhelming consensus that adult/child relationships are wrong/sick/immoral. But dare I say that homosexuality was looked upon the same way 50years ago."

Actually in many parts of the US 50 years ago inter-racial marriage was looked down upon as being one step above bestiality. Consider the 1958 Gallup poll that states that 94% of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage[1]. Do you see the ruling of Loving v. Virginia as part of our moral slippery slope? I realize it may seem like I'm harping on this point a lot but the same arguments that you're making now were made then.

1 : http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-in terracial-marriages.aspx
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 4:58 PM Kami writes:

Thank you for the (rare) honesty

http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/dont-cry-for-homosexual -couples-new-york-times

Brief, but shows another realistic take on homosexuality and economics.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 4:59 PM Kami writes:

to close-minded "Incredible" & others:

You are hardly "open-minded." "Open-minded" means 'able to consider another's arguments in a rational manner, considering their merit, and defending another's right to speak even if you don't agree.'

FYI, it is physiological fact that it is MUCH more difficult to get infected with HIV through vaginal sex than through anal sex or needles, because the reproductive system of a healthy adult has some protections built in that your anus doesn’t have. Granted, this is true of heterosexual as well as homosexual anal sex and it still can occasionally happen through vaginal sex (usually only when a young girl's cervix is still immature and/or when there is another STD present that weakens defense). However, that STILL does not mean that "AIDS … affects all of us" because those of us who have only had one sex partner who is also faithful CANNOT get HIV. That applies to many more Americans than you have been led to believe through academia.

Another point: when AIDS first started appearing, it was overwhelmingly in gay men. And most others who have it are bisexual or have had partners who are. Also, when you go to donate blood next, realize they ask whether or not you have had gay sex or had sex with a man who has had gay sex. Why would they include that?

One point of yours I actually agree with: AIDS is serious; millions have died. Which is a reason people should be allowed to debate different, inconvenient solutions - like controlling sexual desires. Even if you don't agree with that solution, we have the right & responsibility to voice it.

In short, thank you for your hateful opinion, but I will continue to speak about my beliefs and medical facts inconvenient to your position. In the meantime, you might want to educate yourself:

You're Teaching My Child What? by Dr. Miriam Grossman

Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village by Dr. Jennifer Roeback Morse
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 5:07 PM Kami writes:

To "Nice try to mask bigotry"

Kevin, it would do you well to read my first post, which explains that, yes, AIDS is mostly a gay disease. Not completely, but you see, there are many people who are bisexual, and when a man and woman have sex they are each at risk for diseases from their partner's previous partners.

Also, you state erroneously that "Since the [homosexual] couple lives together, they have roughly the same risk factors as that of married straight couples." Unfortunately, you must be unaware of the facts that 1) they are at increased risk for STDs (as is any other minority group that tends to be more promiscuous than average), 2) they are at increased risk of divorce/breakup when compared to married straight couples, and 3) they are at increased risk of depression, suicidal tendencies, and other mental issues, particularly if they are lesbians.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 5:14 PM Kami writes:

One more who is "appalled" ...

One final comment to all of you in general: I am also appalled. I am appalled to see so many of you shaming one you claim as a "brother in Christ" for *gasp* daring to speak ill of a lifestyle expressly forbidden in Christian scripture. Those of you who shout "self-righteous!" and "hypocrite!" and "Hitler!" at the author, turn around and take a look at the beam in your own eye. Your pathetic, and yes, self-rightous, holier-than-thou attitudes are indeed appalling. You spout how much better you all are than he for loving all (except those you disagree with), and for being non-judgmental (while judging the author). Irony and vanity. Try doing a little of the research and listening to the reasons given by both sides, for once. Homosexuality and other promiscuous, licentious behavior under the guise of "freedom" are ripping society apart. Once more, I encourage the reading of the wonderful two books below:

You're Teaching My Child What? by Dr. Miriam Grossman

Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village by Dr. Jennifer Roeback Morse
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 6:04 PM Ben writes:

Re Kami

Apologies if this double-posts, it stalled out on the first load.

"That applies to many more Americans than you have been led to believe through academia. "

"20% of American men and 31% of American women have had one sex partner in their lifetime.
56% of American men and 30% of American women have had 5 or more sex partners in their lifetime"[1]


"Those of you who shout "self-righteous!" and "hypocrite!" and "Hitler!" at the author, turn around and take a look at the beam in your own eye. Your pathetic, and yes, self-rightous, holier-than-thou attitudes are indeed appalling. You spout how much better you all are than he for loving all (except those you disagree with), and for being non-judgmental (while judging the author). Irony and vanity. Try doing a little of the research and listening to the reasons given by both sides, for once."

I agree there is plenty of irony here but I don't think its where you think it is. Anyways you might check for the log in your own eye while pointing out the speck in theirs.

[1] Laumann, E., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., and Michaels, S. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. 1994. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Also reported in the companion volume, Michael et al, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, 1994).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 7:27 PM Scot writes:

Well the funny thing is...

One person raised the name of Hitler. I would not do that unless, indeed, Prof. Chapman had advocated for the death or confinement of people who have sex with members of their own sex.

So y'all. Just calm down, why don'tcha? Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) has nothing to do with Prof. Chapman's published article.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 7:30 PM Scot writes:

And by the way...

I am surprised to find that some anonymous person who goes by the unusual alias of "alien" posted a link to the one external document that the learned professor cites. Please be so educated as to follow up on this thread at http://justgiblets.com/2009/11/13/a-disgrace-to-his-profes sion/comment-page-1/#comment-9853. Thanks!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 7:34 PM Scot writes:

bad linking on this site

So the two links above should go to these URIs. For your convenience, I'm reposting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
http://justgiblets.com/2009/11/13/a-disgrace-to-his-profess ion/comment-page-1/#comment-9853

And remember, don't hate the fundamentalist. Hate the fundamentals.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 7:44 PM Michael writes:

Sigh...

This discussion has gone completely off the rails, as it seems all discussions on this volatile topic must. Very few facts, very little persuasive evidence, and lots and lots of invective and namecalling.

I've been doing a mental inventory of all the formal and informal logical fallacies I can think of, and just off the top of my head I can spot the following in this thread alone:

ad hominem (aka personal) attacks
bare assertions
base rate fallacies
false dichotomies
red herrings
circular reasoning
arguments from repetition (aka "say it often enough and it becomes true")
appeals to false authority
false attributions
moving the goalposts
coincidental correlation
judgmental language
straw man arguments
slippery slope arguments

It's happening on both sides, to the point where it's hard to believe there's any room for reasonable discussion. It sucks that after thousands of years of human language, we're still at the point where people believe that whoever shouts loud enough wins.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 8:06 PM Judy writes:

Nice post

Bert,

I enjoyed the read and agree with all of your points. Just wanted to show my support.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, November, 17, 2009 10:42 PM Michael writes:

Um, Kathy...

"It is an indisputable fact that such laws, if passed, would have a devastating impact on children and families."

Stating that something is "indisputable fact" doesn't make it so.

Kurtz's article is another example of bare assertions and slippery slope fallacies. In fact, he himself uses the phrase "slippery slope" in his article. He shows no studies, provides no evidence.

I've heard this argument before, and it just doesn't stand up to the scrutiny that we agree truth should be able to endure.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 18, 2009 11:41 AM Eric writes:

Africa v. US

"In the US the HIV pandemic is shifting to the heterosexual community. In sub-Saharan Africa the majority of infections are transmitted in married couples (Allen, et al., 2003). If a person does not know their HIV status when they marry they may unknowingly bring it in."

The rates of infection are changing in the US, but are still greatly out of proportion to the population they represent.

Africa has its own problems leading to HIV infections and really is not a good barometer for this discussion. That is like comparing e.coli infections between city water drinkers and those drinking straight out of the Ganges.

Your last statement almost seems to support mandatory universal testing. We used to have blood tests before marraige . . . It may be a bit Orwellian, but how many lives couldbe saved with that knowledge.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 18, 2009 12:00 PM Michael writes:

Finally! Good analysis!

Amy West, Data Services Librarian at the University of Minnesota has fact-checked Mr. Chapman's article and published her findings at http://freegovinfo.info/node/2820

Given the level of "debate" I've seen here, I don't expect it to change anyone's mind, but it's an excellent example of how to back up (or refute) factual assertions with data. Go read it and learn something.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, November, 18, 2009 9:55 PM Scot writes:

Y'all know he closed the comments right?

There must be a few of us who've bookmarked the comments page... but Chapman (or someone at Townhall.com) has removed the link from the post itself. Guess he doesn't want to encourage discussion about his work.

Apparently, he doesn't know how to make the comments page inaccessible though.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 19, 2009 12:16 PM Karl writes:

Michael -- Keeping kosher

Of course, the laws of kashrut were aimed at the Jews. That's why, of eating sea creatures that don't have both fins and scales, the Bible says "to *you* it is an abomination". (emphasis added)

And that hasn't addressed masturbation, unless your practices are decidedly kinky.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, November, 19, 2009 8:15 PM Scot writes:

So then...

why don't you think that "man lying with man" is only aimed at Jews? You don't get to pick and choose, Karl.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 22, 2009 12:31 PM Jake writes:

Ummm

Does this "prof" actually think any of his recommendations will result in fewer homosexuals and less disease?? It's at best going to put a few back in the closet, but those people are at magnitudes greater risk for the disease ... and not to mention FAR more likely to pass it on to women (as cover or attempted therapy).

Name a single guy that would abandone his family and start sleeping with women if you were to strip away their domestic partnership benefits. Not going to happen.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, November, 22, 2009 12:48 PM Jake writes:

Jake

Conservatives fight tooth-and-nail EVERYTHING that promotes monogamy (well, if we are talking about homosexuals) and then point their fingers at those who fail at it, using it as justification against those that want to just settle down and have a quiet, working family life (a heck of a lot of them, BTW).

Pretending they don't exist isn't going to make them go away. It is only going to cause more problems for everyone.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive