Here is a bit of my thinking on the homosexuality issue.
Individuals comprise society. Those individuals by nature are heterosexual (i.e. they ALL originate of two haploid sets of chromosomes, one set coming ALWAYS from a paternal source, the other coming ALWAYS from a maternal source. The fact of heterosexuality is literally imprinted on each cell of their bodies). There is only one way this occurs—by the biological joining of exactly one man and one woman (this is ultimately true even with cloning). All other combinations are foreign to human biological identity and thus to human society. Society then is preserved and promoted by heterosexuality. Society’s obligation to itself is in preserving and promoting the heterosexual biological identity. Society has no obligation whatever to support any other sexual orientation because all other orientations are foreign to the human biological nature that defines human society and upon which that society depends. No logic exists to force society to accept what is fundamentally foreign to it.
I have no problem with homosexuals having sex in the privacy of their homes. That is their right and it comes to them by virtue of their human right to privacy. But they have no right to access society’s essentially heterosexual social and material infrastructure as a direct result of their behavior and/or “orientation.” Society has no part with homosexuality. Its obligation is to its own nature...
Message 15517151
After I stated my opinion and kicked the can with Neocon about it, you entered with a characteristically hysterical liberal huff to denounce the discussion as "homophobic," and "mediaeval," completely missing the thrust of the point and making claims quite like a liberal, without offering any argument of support.
Message 15540886
You then sank into hurling typically liberal insults toward Christians and the like, abusing Scripture, employing no real train of reason, relying almost exclusively upon the insult to respond to my point-of-view.
Message 15543513
I, therefore, relying upon the Great Law that if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is in fact a liberal, decided you were a liberal and summarily dismissed you as unworthy of my time. That is why I did not respond to your many hysterical posts about the matter, and have never responded seriously to you until now, you having disavowed being a liberal, a claim I yet doubt, but tenuously accept.
Here is the truth, friend. I am really not interested in arguing with you on this issue because I think you too economical with reason concerning it. I don't say this with derision. In fact I like you exactly because of this dubious ability. I will give you a bit more of my mind on homosexuality only to try and refresh your memory. |
