An Economic Case Against HomosexualityFirst, I want all you gay-rights supporting Christians out there to hang your head in shame for being associated with this man. Done? Okay, good. Hurray for a world that is increasingly rejecting biblical norms - that's a good thing when people wake up and see these ancient, bigoted ideas as immoral and unfounded. At least Professor Chapman recognizes that Bible verses aren't going to fly when it comes to public policy - especially public policy that is trying to remove rights from minorities groups. This may just be me...but using money as a guide to what rights to give what people seems pretty fucking morally bankrupt. Oh, that's right, I'm a hippie liberal. Sorry, forgot.
As a Christian, I agree with the biblical condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle. However, we are living in a nation and world that increasingly rejects biblical norms. To defend traditional sexual morality against the encroaching threat of homosexuality and other aberrant forms of sexual expression, we need to be able to do more than cite Bible verses. Fortunately, there are plenty of economic reasons for being against sodomite degeneracy and I think as conservatives we need to be able to articulate why our nation cannot afford the extremely high financial costs of this lifestyle at a time when we are confronting dangerously high budget deficits, national debt, and personal debt.
Let's start with AIDS. U.S. Government expenditures on this disease have risen from $200,000 in Fiscal Year 1980-1981 to $23.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2008. These figures have increased steadily over nearly three decades and probably exceed $100 billion. When you factor in what countries all over the world have spent on seeking to diminish this disease, without recognizing the morally aberrant sexual behavior causing its spread, we are probably looking at expenditures of over $1 trillion dollars. Think of how much constructively such money could have been spent on public health issues such as improved sanitation, immunizations, and other more worthwhile programs instead of promoting immoral and self-destructive behavior through needle exchanges and widespread condom distribution. The money wasted on AIDS research could be returned to taxpayers or transferred to more worthwhile areas of public health research such as cancer, heart disease, and combating pandemic conditions like H1N1 flu. Our ongoing U.S. political debate over health care reform also needs to factor in the economic costs of homosexual and other sexually deviant behaviors on our health care system in terms of pharmaceutical drugs, tainted blood supplies, and requiring doctors and nurses to treat sexually transmitted diseases which would not occur if people practiced chastity outside of heterosexual marriage and monogamy within such marriage....I'm just take this one step at a time.
1. "Probably" exceeds a $100 billion? "Probably" over $1 trillion? I understand this was probably just some spontaneous blog post, but it doesn't really help your argument when you're just making up numbers.
2. AIDS IS NOT A GAY DISEASE. Sorry for the caps lock, but this is so ignorant that it makes me scream. AIDS infects all people regardless of sexual preference - heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. Of course, he thinks anything outside of monogamy within a heterosexual marriage is deviant, so I'm not sure he would care. Just don't go blaming the gays for AIDs and make that your major point.
3. Condom distribution decreases the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. Study after study has shown that abstinence only education simply does not work.
4. It pretty much terrifies me that this man is fairly obviously suggesting that anyone with AIDS or any other type of STD should just suffer or die. We shouldn't research these diseases, we shouldn't pay doctors to treat these diseases, we shouldn't develop drugs for these diseases. Unfortunately, this horrifying world view isn't new, especially among the religious right (Remember when Jerry Fallwel said, "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals"?). I guess it doesn't matter if a quarter or more of our population (people with STDs) suffer or die, since they're all the heathen liberals that deserve it.
Anyone who studies prison conditions knows that AIDS is a reality in many correctional facilities due to the occurrence of rape. I'm not sure if the Justice Dept's Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps track of prison rape statistics or other instances of same sex sexual assault, but that also has economic implications not to mention the psychological trauma experienced by all rape victims.I'm honestly not quite sure what this has to do with gays. Shouldn't we be worried about, oh I don't know, stopping rape?
The sad practice of so many companies and universities adopting domestic partner benefits in a misguided effort to attract employees drives up insurance costs for these companies and prevents them from providing additional coverage to those of us adhering to traditional sexual moral standards. It also requires these companies to pass on the costs of their goods and services beyond normal inflationary trends. Additionally, it also probably makes it more difficult for them to expand their businesses and create additional jobs in an economy coping with near double digit unemployment rates.Yes, how dare companies give all of their employees equal rights instead of giving special privileges to the group you happen to be in. I have an idea: Why don't we just make it so only Christian employees can receive partner benefits? According to your traditional morals, only those marriages are seen as valid in the eyes of God, so we can ignore everyone else. Yes, that seems like a lovely place to derive our reasoning. Definitely shouldn't give benefits that promote monogamy and stable relationships.
The homosexual lifestyle also affects areas such as life insurance, estate planning, real estate, and investments as firms providing these services have to factor in how to treat same sex domestic partner issues into their cost calculations. Guess who has to pay for these increased costs and potentially lower investment returns? We do, regardless of whether or not we approve of the homosexual lifestyle. The next time some one tells you how wonderful is the "progress" gays have made in recent decades ask them if they have ever thought about the multiple economic consequences of this "progress" as described in this posting. I welcome suggestions from readers as to other possible economic costs of the homosexual lifestyle which I have forgotten.Again, heaven forbid that everyone has equal rights. I'm not up on my fiscal policy so I don't know if what he's saying about rising costs is true or not, but who cares? Do we really take away the rights of a minority because it's cheaper for the majority? Well then, better go back and institute slavery. It'll be so much cheaper if we don't have to pay black people wages!
I'm seriously disappointed that such a ignorant and homophobic piece could be written by a professor here at Purdue. It makes me ashamed to also call myself a Boilermaker. Much of the controversy is where his rights lie as a Purdue employee to publish such a thing. I support everyone's freedom of speech, regardless if I agree with what they're saying or not. However, I also believe one must be accountable for what they have said - he deserves criticism and messages of outrage. Purdue stresses tolerance and diversity, but to have a Purdue professor (a fact made available in his Bio) saying such hateful things... how would a gay student feel in one of his classes? Would gay students want to come to Purdue with such bigotry being represented?
What do you think? Should Professor Chapman just face the negative opinions of the public, or should Purdue reprimand him? Should what a professor say on his private blog have any connection to what he does at work?
Other Purdue students have also voiced their opinions on the matter:
The Dark Matter Effect
NEW: Politics and Pucks