Inconvenient Science Forced Underground

Dear Editor,

I served in the military during “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Homosexual troops didn’t just volunteer their lives to support democracy; they postponed their lives. I supported ending don’t ask, don’t tell before it was socially acceptable. Later, I was fired from a civilian job for defending a female against anti-homosexual harassment. Harassment is wrong no matter the victim or perpetrator. All of us should treat each other with respect and dignity even during disagreement.

Sometimes you have to love someone enough to disagree. The LGBT movement didn’t gain support by successfully convincing voters. It bullied with censorship, false information, and illogical comparisons. I worked for the federal government after President Obama increased LGBT EEOC protections. Employees were forced to sit through LGBT ideology seminars consisting of multiple illogical, inconsistent arguments. As one of many examples of huge logic holes, how can someone be born gay, having no sexual thoughts of same gender, then “identify” as gay late in life? One illogical explanation involves constantly redefining concepts. “Flexible sexuality” was invented. Individuals are born more likely to have “flexible sexuality.” Of course this could also prove it is an individual decision based on environmental factors. Another tactic is to attack society. Society prevented these individuals from knowing themselves. Forcing society to agree reduces “discrimination.” This could also mean genetics, being born that way, is much less important than environmental factors, which voters in democracy determine. Reasonable scientific debate was forced underground. Questioning teaching risked termination. EEOC presentation is punishable reeducation.

Several news organizations hosted blogs leading to the Supreme Court marriage case. Many users promoted false unscientific “evidence.” As a biologist, I have a degree. I used scientific terminology to discuss scientific facts to correct misinformation. My comments were deleted for violating “community standards.” Inconvenient scientific facts violate community standards. At the end of the comment period, all opposition was deleted. Only supporter’s misinformation remained. So, I posted on other sites. I was threatened using derogatory language in several. Not only were my posts deleted, I was banned from many sites. Individuals who threatened me continued to post. Inconvenient science is not discrimination. New inconvenient science is bared from publishing. Since it angers LGTB supporters, individuals who discuss actual scientific evidence are punished.

This has consequences at every level. The ends do not justify these means. You cannot invent your own protected group to shield supporters and punish opposition.

Alan Burke