I understand that you are being honored by PFLAG for your open support of
'Gay Marriage'.
The Associated Press reported today that you feel homosexuality is a genetic
property, and that 'gays' should either be afforded all the rights that
'straights' have or at least be given a huge tax break.
First let me say that I understand your position, however, I am unable to
agree with it. Now let me tell you why.
In order to enter into a discussion about these matters I find that it is
impossible to communicate clearly given the state of the current popular
lexicon. Words like 'gay' and 'straight' only seem to have clear meanings,
when in fact, they don't.
For example, when we say 'gay and lesbian', are the terms gender specific?
If so, then where is the push for homosexual women's rights? Why are we
only supporting the rights of homosexual men? Clearly that isn't the case,
and hence the confusion as to the exact meaning of the term 'gay'.
Personally I prefer such good and wholesome words as gay, used in many a
Christmas
carol, not be dragged through the mud. Leave it alone. The term
'homosexual' is clear, concise, and non-gender specific.
Greater confusion exists where the term 'straight' is concerned.
Does this term include those who practice adultery as a way of life? Serial
relationships are not healthy whether they are of mixed genders or not.
When
I think of straights, I think of those people who are as straight as an
arrow, who marry once and make it for life, who never cheat on that marriage
and who did not play around even before the marriage. But the ambiguity in
the term is helpful to those who do not wish to deal with everything
clearly.
So what words do we use? All the terms that come readily to mind are
already tainted by their other uses. The only option then is to add
clarifying modifiers to the terms we all know.
Pure Homosexual:
Abbreviated PHy; means a man or woman who is only attracted to the same
gender, and one who never engages in sexual relations with persons of the
opposite gender.
Pure Straight:
Abbreviated PSy; means a man or woman who is only attracted to the opposite
gender, and one who preserves themselves for marriage as a singular event.
They do not commit either adultery nor fornication as a rule.
Now that we have a clear vocabulary we can proceed. Your first objection is
probably along the lines that no-one lives like that. These 'pure'
definitions are unrealistic. Even so, bear with me awhile and I'll deal
with that issue at the proper time.
My first dilemma is this: There are two world views as to how life itself
came to be. Either we all evolved or we were all created by God. Now if we
take the first case, and up-hold the best of their traditions, (survival of
the fittest and all that,) then when we add homosexuality into the mix of
genetic mutation we have a problem. If PHy couples were evolved by the
process of genetic mutations, then how did the mutation spread? After all,
by violating the biology and not mating with the opposite sex, there could
be no offspring, and hence no means of introducing the genetic mutation into
the human gene pool.
If we take the second case, where God created us, and claim that God himself
made some people PHy, then we have a dilemma because the same book (or
collection of books) that tells us how God created everything, also tells us
that God condemns certain behaviors, homosexuality being one of them. Is
God unjust? That same book would declare such a notion, 'non-sense'.
So lets consider that my definition of a PHy person is too strict, that
no-one acts that way. If this is true then we still have a problem. It
hales back to the question of Nature or Nurture. Is a person like 'X'
because it is their nature, or was there something in their nurturing that
bent them toward it? If homosexuality is mostly nurture, then it is a
choice, and not genetic. If it is a choice then shame on everyone who is
promoting it. If given the choice between war and peace, no one in their
right mind chooses war. But given a choice between having social acceptance
or living in the midst of social upheaval, why would anyone want to be the
canon fodder on the front of social upheaval? Shame on you Abby and to all
those who push others toward that war!
Yet we see the measure of choice that is involved. If few people in reality
are PHy, in the strictest sense, then they are exercising a great deal of
choice in their lives, as proven by their actions. These patterns of
behavior clearly mean that God is not unjust, nor is genetics absolute. The
person has and can make decisions and choices and that is what they are
responsible for.
Marriage is a practice that is found in every culture, every religion,
ancient
to modern. In every case it is the simple equation of one man plus one
woman = offspring and a healthy developmental situation for their nurturing.
The Bible says that the two shall become one flesh. We see this concept
fulfilled in biology where an egg from the female and a sperm from the male
combines and instantaneously turns into a unique mixture of their genetic
codes.
In simplistic terms, such as those used in, 'It takes a village', if every
couple in a village is PHy, then the village is doomed to die off. There is
no
possibility for offspring to be born, raised and to propagate the village
through time. Even if the chief gave everyone his blessing and a special
'marriage talisman', the fact remains that the biology does not work that
way. There is no combining off flesh into one, there are no children.
Hence, in my mind, no real marriage, just an empty talisman!
In a village where everyone is PSy, marriages mean that children will be
born and the village will grow and thrive.
Who in their right mind would encourage anyone to join a village that is
barren and dieing? And so I say shame on all those who promote
homosexuality!
At this point, need I comment on the Huge Tax-break thing? Well, okay, let
me just ask it like this; Why not give tax breaks to alcoholics? Or
rapist? Or prostitutes? Same reason!
This is my original thoughts and writing. Please address all comments to
the blog on which this was originally posted "Deep Thought" found at
http://torchseven.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment