Where is the Science?
By: Guest Authors
By: David McGinley
The â€œgay marriageâ€ debate is really about the leftâ€™s effort to promote and legitimize homosexual conduct. But one thing is glaringly absent from their arguments – science. What does science say about this? It is not surprising that the left has not played the science card because science does not help them here. If it did you can bet that the â€œscientific consensusâ€ cudgel would be taken off the shelf to â€œsettleâ€ the argument. But the left only uses science when it supports what they are trying to impose on others. When science is an imposition on their beliefs and behavior, well, then they are only left with the emotional and ad hominem (i.e, H8ter!).
The left almost uniformly believes that manâ€™s origin is explained through Darwinian evolution. And they openly ridicule anyone who even doubts the theory (see Bill Maher). So, what does the science of evolution tell us? At its core, evolution has one central purpose, the propagation of the species or, as atheist Richard Dawkins attests, the propagation of genetics. Thus, each member of a species is programmed to procreate in order to pass on its genetic code. It is a basic matter of survival and, without such instinct, extinction would be imminent. But that instinct in homosexuals has been corrupted. Their compulsion, whether by genetic mutation or not, is directly opposed to evolutionâ€™s central purpose. Homosexual sex is void of procreation; it cannot propagate genetics. Should a species (or society) promote this?
What about medical science? One thing is certain, nature certainly discriminates when it comes to medical outcomes between typical heterosexuals and homosexuals. Heterosexual men live significantly longer lives than their gay counterparts. In addition, gay men contract sexually transmitted diseases at a staggeringly higher rate than straight men. For instance, even though gay men represent less than 2% of the American male demographic, they account for 64% of reported Syphilis cases. But HIV/AIDS is where nature makes an indelible distinction. Again, the incidence of HIV/AIDS amongst gay men is staggeringly out of proportion for the size of their demographic. At last count, 53% of HIV carriers are gay men (intravenous drug users make up over 40%). A gay man is fifty times (i.e., 5,000%) more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than a straight person. In fact, the incidence of HIV/AIDS in the gay community has even led the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center to state, in 2006, that it is a â€œgay disease.â€ And remember, HIV/AIDS is transmitted almost exclusively through conduct and, in the case of gay men, voluntary sexual conduct.
These facts, known to the medical community as far back as the mid 1980s, led the Food and Drug Administration (â€œFDAâ€) to ban any person who has had male-on-male homosexual sex at least once since 1977 or anyone who has had sexual contact with such a person from donating blood. Thus, this behavior is so dangerous that even the hyper politically correct FDA is compelled to openly discriminate in order to keep our blood supply safe. Should our species legitimize and promote this behavior?
Now that the American taxpayer will soon be picking up the medical tab for everyone it might be important to ask how much this will cost us. CBS News reported back in 2006 that it costs over $618,000.00 on average to treat someone infected with HIV/AIDS in order to extend their life an average of 24 years. Thatâ€™s approximately $25,750.00 per year. Unless it is someone like Magic Johnson you can bet that these costs will not be paid by those whose voluntary conduct caused them to become infected. Thus, everyone is forced to foot the bill. Furthermore, with the advent of Obamacare, the American taxpayer will now subsidize it. Whatâ€™s that saying again? â€œWhen you promote (and subsidize) something you get more of it.â€ Is it good for our species to have more of this?
The judge who just usurped the rights of over 7,000,000 Californians by overturning that stateâ€™s marriage amendment did make a heroic effort to invoke some science. In his decision informing the American public that its country had unconstitutionally defined marriage for over 220 years, Federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker relied upon â€œsocial science.â€ Of course social science is not a hard science and is inherently subject to bias, ideology, manipulation, and prejudice. And Walkerâ€™s selective use of certain â€œexpertâ€ testimony and studies to underpin his personal conclusions is proof positive.
â€œGay marriageâ€ proponents love to attempt to grab the mantel of civil rights by reminding everyone that inter-racial marriage was once banned in the U.S. Of course, science has already weighed in on this. Opposite sex inter-racial couples can procreate and their voluntary sexual conduct does not place them at increased risk of disease and death.
Currently, the left is trying to forcibly undermine Americaâ€™s standard of living by invoking the ever-eroding â€œscienceâ€ of the â€œcrisisâ€ formerly known as global warming. But when it comes to their imposition of â€œgay marriageâ€ there is absolutely no mention of science. Maybe sometimes the science really is settled.
David P. McGinley, an attorney from McLean, VA, is a visiting professor at Handong International Law School in South Korea.