Well, respect for joint assets and mutual power of attorney is not exactly the “civil union” homosexuals have in mind, Neocon. Homosexuals already have these rights based upon individual citizenship and not on sexual behavior. I agree that we should tolerate homosexuals (I don’t think we should kill them), but we should not accept homosexuality as a societal element for reasons I’ve listed previously. We should instead be sure to acknowledge the fact that while homosexuals are people with certain rights that come about as a result of their individual humanity, homosexuality is not us, and is in fact a defect rather than a healthy alternative to heterosexuality.
Even if we as a society should determine not to reject the homosexual principle, individuals within society have logical reasons for rejecting it. When homosexuals try to force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual leaders as they’ve recently attempted, they themselves show a clear lack of tolerance for the rights of individuals to reject behavior they know to lack integrity with fundamental human biological identity.
Message 15536110
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.
Message 15532810
What I mean has little to do with actual physical sexual intercourse. All of us are most fundamentally comprised of biological contributions of exactly one man and exactly one woman, all human reality flows from that objective biological fact. That which comments on such things and yet fails to reflect this fundamental human nature is a distortion of that nature. There is not a shred of subjectivity to it at all.
Even if "being homosexual" is the basic component of someone's personality, the orientation must be seen as a defect, just as a predisposition to drug abuse is a defect. We should take compassion on those who are thus predisposed, but we ought not claim their condition part of our fundamental identity as a race of beings.
Message 15546992
There are already legal means by which two parties may construct these bonds. When we allow simple declarations to replace the law in the instances you mention, we simply are creating a brand of marriage, one based on whim. That is a fundamental perversion of marriage. Ten men should be able to "marry" in your version of "civil union" and there is absolutely no reason at all why they ought not have this right. Again, if two widows want so much to bind themselves legally, they have the right to do it and ought not seek a de facto redefinition of marriage to exercise that right. Marriage is directly linked to human biological identity. It is a reflection of who we are, every one of us.
Message 15540805
A few additional posts on the same theme
Message 15547210
Message 15547018 |
