I think you have accepted meanings of certain terms and just ignored the basis underneath the concepts these terms represent. It appears the term “marriage,” for example, exists in your mind as a simple ritual that has no special attachment to human biological identity. It is a false view.
The fundamental biological union that causes and sustains humans must be heterosexual and perpetual. This biological fact of human identity is most reflected in heterosexual monogamy. The two facts here do not merely look the same by happenstance. The latter fact is an objective and necessary higher expression that comes from the even higher expression of human intellect. As the human intellect comes into contact with the essential biology of humans, and as it views a multitude of expressions around it, logic available to and used by this intellect absolutely compels it toward expressions that are responsible for its own existence and that promote it. Should the intellect instead choose expressions foreign to it, expressions that do not match its identity, this intellect would not be following the available logic, but something far less civilized. Such a thing is akin to ignorantly choosing Maya Angelou as a member of the set known as “Great Canine Poets.” Reason forbids it. But stupidity permits it just fine. Civilization is but an expression, a necessary human expression rooted in biology. It develops as humans learn what they are, forming and then codifying higher expressions that promote what they are. Humans, as biological values, obviously first appear in the world when mom joins dad and not a nanosecond sooner. This heterosexual arrangement is perpetual. All else that is human occurs because of it.
We ought not refer to lower creatures to justify the beastly acts of men. Animals do not have the capacity to cognitively know their identities as humans can. They are animals. They eat their young, steal wives, commit murder, engage in polygamy, homosexuality, slavery and embrace a host of other expressions that we humans know to be exceptionally uncivilized (i.e. unmatched to human society). When we judge these abnormalities as “uncivilized” we in fact are claiming they are not us. The more we learn what we are, the more capable we become in determining which expressions are us and which are not. So let us not ever again mention the manifold barbarisms amongst uncivilized brutes as any sort of justification for how civilized man should live.
By encouraging honesty amongst us concerning what we are in nature, I am not trying to compel anyone to act in accord with human identity. I am not in the least interested in, as you claim, forcing my “strict interpretation of humanity down peoples' throats.” I am simply pointing out the obvious, what we all are, and declaring that I – at least I – have a right to promote only it, since it is what we all are. You may wish to engage in expressions that are not us; but because it is not us you have no right to force my acknowledgement, respect or acceptance of it by any means whatever. So then I am free NOT to rent to you because of your inhuman behavior. I am free NOT to associate with you because of it. I am free NOT to hire you, not to pay your “spouse” benefits while paying benefits to real spouses. I need not respect you as a spouse of my relative and, if no agreement exists between you and he, and the responsibility falls upon me to determine who may visit him in the hospital and who may not, I am free to completely ignore any alleged right you might claim accrues to you as a result of your homosexual relationship with him. In short, since homosexuality is objectively foreign to human identity, I am bound by no logic in the cosmos to recognize it in any way whatever.
a newly formed embryo has no consciousness, no memory, no desire, no fear, ... none of the essential higher expressions of humanity that you agree also define what we are.
Big deal. A newborn cannot build a space-shuttle. Yet it is every bit as human as the greatest engineer. The fact is, mere ability does not ultimately determine the existence of human identity. In its most essential position, your human identity physically exists at conception and not a nanosecond earlier. It philosophically exists in the combined presence of your parents. All of the higher expressions that you have mentioned are mere results of the “force,” if you will, the human nature, if you won’t, that first appears at conception. It is the most essential value of you. To see its importance, simply abort it. Obviously then, it is human, integral to your identity and cannot be logically ignored.
I believe that we might be genetically human without these higher expressions, but not truly and fully human.
This is nonsense. There is no such value as ‘partially human.’ Humanity is a continuum of compounding expression, all of which come forth from lower, more fundamental expressions, which come ultimately from a Most Fundamental Human Expression - conception. All of it is human and none of it can be ignored, since it is all inextricably bound together. Claiming the conceptus is not “fully human” is to claim the neonate is not “fully human.” It is rank nonsense.
I believe that essense of being human is not our genetic code (though that is a prerequisite), but the shared manner in which humans experience the world around them.
Our genetic code, actualizing in matter toward expression (this is important), is the germ that blossoms into everything else. It is to you as a newborn, what you as a newborn is to you as an adult. It is just nonsense to declare the newborn “partially human.” It is equally nonsense to declare your self-actualizing code prior to birth to be “partially human.” That code is marching inexorably to your grave my friend. All of it is human. |
