defense of my article

I am going to respond, briefly, to the two articles that were published on Tuesday regarding the article I wrote in response to the “Laramie Project” editorial. Not because I wish to continue this bickering and have my beliefs posted by the Houstonian as a laughing stock, but to defend myself and end my participation with this periodical. First of all, to Carrie McDowell: I still maintain that homosexuality is unnatural but that does not mean that I have a personal hatred of homosexuals themselves. You claim that, because homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, it is natural for humans. Yes, I went to and read the article you referred to and I don’t doubt that some animals have homosexual tendencies, but that doesn’t make it any more “natural” than when humans do it. The physical and biological makeup of sexually reproductive species is such that, males and females are designed to be sexual partners; anything else is unnatural. But lets say (hypothetically) that it is natural. Is it not also natural for males in the animal world to physically abuse females during sex? Mothers often have to protect their young from their father because he might kill them; that’s natural. In the animal world, the weak and/or crippled are preyed upon and eaten; that’s natural. Should all these things also be considered natural for humans to do? Absolutely not. You cannot make such a comparison between the animal world and ours. The irony here of course is, in your article did you referred to the dehumanization of homosexuals and it leading to hate, yet you justify their lifestyle based on animal behavior. Is that not dehumanizing? Yes I was aware that homosexuality was openly practiced in Greek and Roman societies; so was pedophilia. You act as if we should go back to the “good ‘ole days” of the Greeks and Romans when boys as young as twelve were sent to live with an older man as apprentices and intercourse was expected of them. These two cultures also regarded women as property and singled people out, persecuting them for their beliefs — which, oddly enough, you seem to disagree with, yet you criticize and single me out for my belief in the Bible (to which I did not refer in regards to homosexuality by the way). Should we really look to these societies as role models for our culture? I realize that homosexuals can’t help who they are, but that doesn’t make it natural. Pedophiles can’t help their attraction to children. Should we also accept that into our society as something “natural?” And I’m not associating homosexuality with pedophilia, nor am I saying that legal action should be taken against homosexuals (as it is as it is against pedophiles). I am just trying to make a point. As for “homosexuality being largely attributed to the spread of AIDS,” perhaps I was somewhat over the line when I said that the first time; but now I have evidence for you. So tell me, if there is no correlation between homosexuality and AIDS, then why are over 50% of the cases of AIDS and HIV contracted through homosexual contact? According to the CDC, and I looked this up so don’t test me, of the 807,075 cases last reported in the United States, 666,026 were male and 420,264 of these were contracted through homosexual contact and/or, sharing needles with homosexuals. This is more than all of the other sources combined (hemophilia, blood contact, heterosexual contact etc.). This will be my last dealing with this biased newspaper. There is much more that I would like to say but I refuse to allow the Houstonian print an article with my name on it for the purpose of sparking controversy at my expense. I have said what I said, and I stand by it. I refuse to continue this back and forth nonsense, as I am no more changing anyone’s mind than they are mine. And with that, I am through. –Caleb Drake

Leave a Reply