- 08 Nov 2018 14:33
#14961028
I. Introductory Thoughts/Ancedotes.
1. My brother is queer and I love him as my brother and would do anything for him and we are generally pretty close as far as brothers go who live in different states.
2. Stereotypes regarding homosexuals are often 50/50: my brother races cars, is pro-gun, pro-life, and is generally pretty easy going and tolerant of religious people who disagree with his lifestyle. That being said, he is still fairly sensitive and exhibits many "feminine" qualities as well that might be considered stereotypically homosexual and is definitely a bernie-sanders leftist (barring the exceptions mentioned above).
3. My brother has struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts, partially related to his lifestyle and the struggles inherent in it. This is a terrible thing. I hate to see him suffer in this way and so this is very personal to me as I want to find a way to help him have a better and fuller life.
4. In spite of the above, I still do believe homosexuality is a damnable sin without repentance and real-life change. Had my brother been baptized before becoming immersed in homosexuality, I would not be permitted to associate with him; however, since he is not, I try to have a good relationship with him and be a good example to him in our interactions that he might be won by the Gospel. I also believe as a Theonomist and as a logician that such conduct is criminal on par with murder and that in an Ancap society, Christian property owners are obligated to ban homosexuality on their own property and punish any under their authority that break those laws. This is in spite of the fact, that as an Ancap, I oppose any government interfering with the sexual conduct of any individuals whatsoever (including homosexuals) or defining marriage in any way; though, I doubt homosexuality could be widespread without a state protecting it; I nonetheless oppose state interference with such persons.
II. The Argument.
With this in mind, I have an unusual perspective regarding homosexuality and try to frame the issue in terms of plain language.
The fact is, logically speaking, Homosexuality is pardoxical and self-contradictory in the relationship of how it is framed in comparison to how it is approached politically, socially, and medically. I shall now list several truisms.
NOTE: I don't necessarily embrace the worldviews behind any one of these points, but rather assume them for the sake of argument.
1. If Homosexuality is genetic, its a mal-adaptive mutation and defect according to the maxims of Darwinism.
This is because:
Survival of the fittest requires sexual production. Evolutionary anthropology argues that certain random mutations are beneficial to the species if, and only if, they aid in the specific survival of the species and are passed on sexually through natural reproduction.
Thus, if for instance, a random mutation results in a penis that cannot inseminate and therefore impregnate a female, that mutation would be mal-adaptive and therefore a genetic defect. Medically, we would treat it as such.
By contrast, if random mutation resulted in a "super-penis" where pregnancy resulted 100% of the time that insemination occurred, you could guarantee that such a mutation would perpetuate and eventually become ubiquitous in the species via natural selection.
Where does homosexuality rate on this? In the category of the super-penis or the unworkable penis? Evolutionarily speaking?
The answer is obvious, and if such is a mal-adaptive defect, how should it be approached legally and medically?
It may be a protected immutable characteristic under U.S. Law, but would it also be something to be viewed as medically inferior and damaging, like a genetic disease? Absolutely.
Indeed, it seems that it would be a moral responsibility to eventually eliminate homosexuality from human genetics as a collective priority of the human species.
Then again, under such an argument, gay marriage might be the best way to get rid of homosexuality from the human genome anyway, as being in open gay relationships (rather than pretending to be straight) would result in the eventual elimination of that mutation from the gene pool.
*An an aside, and even more paradoxically, homosexuals tend to have higher than average IQs relative to heterosexuals. One has to wonder then whether higher IQs have an overriding value in the survival of the species according to Darwinian thought.*
2. If Homosexuality is a choice, it does not qualify one for civil rights on the basis "that we can't help it we were born this way."
This is because:
If homosexuality is choice, an alternative lifestyle decision, it would not quality (in the U.S. especially); for protections under the 14th amendment. U.S. civil rights has historically argued for minority rights against majoritarian tyranny on the grounds that the minorities were minorities on the basis of immutable characteristics, like their sex (women's rights) or their skin color (racial rights).
If orientation is a choice, it is not an immutable characteristic and therefore not a protected or protectable status under Law.
3. If Homosexuality occurs based on hormonal imbalances in utero, its a birth defect that should be treated rather than tolerated.
This is because:
If homosexuality occurs because of certain hormone imbalances, that would imply that such a lifestyle that leads to higher discrimination, higher suicide rates, higher rates of depression, and is mal-adaptive, would be absolutely treatable and preventable.
So shouldn't we pursue such if that were the case? Solely on the basis of preventing and eliminating suffering under a simple utilitarian ethical calculation?
III. Conclusion:
In the end though, does it matter?
As a Christian, it is quite irrelevant as the disposition can be explained by original sin and the actions are always condemned under the Law.
Likewise, for secularists, what point is there in this debate?
No matter what homosexuality actually is, it will be promoted because traditional values are regarded as a threat to the power of the state. Families are independent hierarchies that threaten absolutism. This has always been true and was always the basis of castle doctrines worldwide since the time of Rome.
Even Engels argued that the family and private property are interrelated, if you eliminate the family, private property will eventually fall as well. Either way, they exist together as a mutually reinforcing concept.
There is a reason why no statist vision of the future, like Brave New World or 1984, includes families on their own property.
The truth doesn't matter under this paradigm, what only matters is the dialectic of history.
So lets quit wasting our time on such a topic where society has made its decision.
The die has been cast.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."- Patrick Henry
- By Negotiator
- By FiveofSwords
- By wat0n