When you claim to support only a “reasonable degree of tolerance,” you perhaps claim too much. I think you, for example, accept homosexual civil unions and perhaps even a general societal recognition of homosexual “couples.” That apparently reasonable degree of tolerance would be most unreasonable because it may force humans to support that which is no part of fundamental human nature. It would be analogous to forcing them to acknowledge unions between ten men, or between five women and one man, or even between humans and horses. The logic supporting homosexual unions supports all other unions because it has no basis in human biology—unlike the heterosexual union.
All humans are comprised of the biological contributions of exactly one man and one woman. That is why society supports the one man/one woman family model. It is us, and we are therefore logically bound to support it. We are not by any logic whatever bound to support any other sexual union because those unions are not us.
The civil support of homosexual unions would perhaps force business owners to pay fringe benefits for homosexual partners, force homeowners to rent to homosexual “couples” and allow access to publicly funded resources to homosexuals not as a result of their individual citizenship, but as a result of their sexual behavior. This is most unreasonable, considering the fact that homosexual behavior does not reflect the society that makes these resources possible.
As a society we simply have no biologically objective means to distinguish between homo and hetero sexuality. And even were we thusly enabled the fact would yet exist that there is no behavioral partition between homosexuals and heterosexuals. So we are compelled to limit this discussion to the sphere of behavior. Fundamentally, bisexuality is but heterosexuality interrupted by homosexual behavior, and such interruptions are not part of human biological reality. Only heterosexuality is.
Now when I speak of biological identity I do not speak merely of the fact that only heterosexuality makes humans. I speak of the fact that all humans are fundamentally defined by heterosexuality, our biological definitions originating from the chromosomal structure of exactly one man and one woman. This fact alone shows us there is no integrity to be held by embracing homosexuality, polygamy or bestiality. They are foreign to the fundamental scheme of human nature.
Homosexuality is not to be compared with retardation or dementia for several reasons (and it is for these reasons why retardation and dementia deserve our compassion and why homosexuality deserves a degree of scorn similar to that attached to drug abuse). Firstly, unlike with homosexuality we have biological standards against which we may clearly test for retardation and true dementia. Biological differences exist allowing us to descry the existence, and in some cases even treatment of the defects. Secondly, based upon those standards there exists a clear and uncontrollable partition between retardation, dementia and mental health. Contrariwise, with homosexuality no such partition exists. Heterosexuals may at will engage in homosexual behavior and vice versa. This point presents society with several difficulties, a few of which should be most obvious to us all. Thirdly, retardation and dementia are not to be classified with sexual behavior and orientation because they don’t have anything directly to do with the biological contributions that bring us into creation. Sexual behavior certainly does. This point is most important because unlike with dementia and retardation, a naturally objective reality exists defining the sexual behavior most having integrity with human reality. That behavior is heterosexual, between exactly one man and one woman and none other. Lastly, no one submits repeated arguments that retardation and dementia be treated as normal, healthy alternatives to sanity. Contrariwise, there is a strong homosexual lobby arguing that homosexuality be treated as a normal and healthy alternative to heterosexuality. Indeed, homosexuals have even demanded that private organizations accept them without regard for their defect, even taking such organizations to court.
I don’t advocate society treat homosexuals with contempt or hostility. Homosexuals who are afflicted with homosexuality should be treated with compassion, and that includes a ceaseless search for treatments of their defect. It does not include accepting homosexuality in any way, or upholding it before our families as a normal and acceptable alternative to human biological reality. As a society, we must always support the truth that homosexuality is sexual behavior having no part of human biological identity. And when others demand the societal acceptance of homosexuality, we should denounce the demand in strongest terms. We recoil from homosexuality by nature. We know intuitively that it is foreign to us-- a perversion of human nature. |
