It occurs to me that importing a term from evolution is unnecessary and inaccurate, so I am willing renounce the term "maladaptive". I do not think what I was getting at is wrong, though. A world with only women, at least prior to technology, would not flourish, and therefore, in human terms, would be bad, regardless of the dinosaurs or other dust you wish to throw. The right "mix" appears to be roughly equal, numerically. Similarly, the human race could, to all appearances, have gotten along without homosexuality, but not heterosexuality. Suppose that homosexuality serves a useful function for the species, nevertheless. Then it only does so when it is rare.
As far as moral substance goes, that is not the judgment sought. I am not alleging that homosexuality is immoral. I am alleging that it is inferior to heterosexuality. In fact, in the comparative form, it may not even be bad, just not as good as heterosexuality. From that standpoint, using my thought experiment to determine which should be the rule, which the exception, is perfectly legitimate, since we merely want to know which is preferable as a dominant trait.
Society is permitted, it seems to me, to reflect the view of the preferability of heterosexuality if it wants to, just as it pays special honor to motherhood. IF, then, the electorate prefers to reserve marriage to heterosexuals, even while trying to accommodate homosexuals with civil union, I think that is legitimate. |
