Saturday, October 31, 2009


Homosexuality is not a crime, and I don’t think it should be punished by law. I don’t hate or even dislike homosexuals. There’s no question that I have many more homosexual friends than I am aware of. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about a person’s sexual proclivities. I very much give a damn about their character and their willingness to say they don’t give a damn about my sexual proclivities, and I’m not seeing much of that nowadays!

My personal belief is that homosexuality is not a genetic predisposition. It is counter evolutionary and counter survival for the species. I’m too much of a Darwinist to believe otherwise. As for the scientific evidence to the contrary… well, we’ve seen science be wrong, and we’ve seen it twisted and used for political purposes, haven’t we? Homosexuality fails the determinism test both spiritually and evolutionarily. Evolution would not tolerate a trait that is anti-reproduc- tion. A just and loving God would not create a whole class of people just so He could kick them around – although He will allow them to make all the bad decisions they wish. (Yes, genetically linked things like diabetes or heart disease are a fact, but it is only our technology that has allowed folks with these traits to live long enough to reproduce them. There is no technological sustenance for homosexuality.)

I do not think same-sex marriage as an extension of the state is a good idea. Yes, it is a religion-based principle, and I do not apologize for that or back down from it. I think homosexuality is a sin, and sins are between the individual and God, and none of my business. But there is a point when that sin does become my business, and that is the point at which a government that I am forced to pay for is coerced – or leaps whole-heartedly - into legitimizing it.

Here’s a huge hypocrisy in the same-sex marriage argument. If I say, “God doesn’t want us to institutionalize same-sex marriage,” that’s an intrusion of religion into the law. But it’s not an intrusion when some jackass says, “Well, bleep you and your god and your standards and your law! We’re gonna do this to your government, with your money, and right in front of your bleeping children. And if you object, we’re gonna crucify you for trying to push your standards on us!”

The fact is that law is supposed to be based on moral principles, and short of totally banning and forbidding all religious thinking, there is no way to categorically prevent religious principles from impacting the law. Any such premise would be a form of thought control, anyway. It would be like the hate crimes laws – laws that punish not behavior, but motive – laws against what a person thinks, rather than against what they do. Is there anything more absurd or obscene that to say it’s worse to assault someone because you hate them than to do it just for the heck of it? Or how about the people who practically rioted against the Mormon Church after Prop 8 was defeated in California saying, in effect, “Everyone has the right to speak freely, even if they disagree with us, as long as their opinions have nothing to do with religion?

It would be disingenuous for me to say I get all my moral principles from my religion because I had most of them before I got religion. But my religion backs them up and helps me stand by them with a sense of rectitude I never had before. So, because my moral standards are now religious, does that bar me from participating in the government? Am I only allowed to vote for principles that don’t agree with my religion? What kind of hellish, contradictory existence would that be?

Should I be able to prove my principles outside the context of my religion? Hell, yes! I think that’s a prerequisite for anybody who wishes to be fully self-aware. But when have we ever required anyone to prove their principles before they vote on ‘em? Are you prepared to live in a country where no one is allowed to participate in the government unless they can prove there is no religious content to their thinking?

Here’s something to consider: why is the government involved in marriage, at all? Why should heterosexual marriage be sanctioned by the state? If a couple is concerned about contract law, or community property, etc, let them make a domestic contract with the state as sponsor. On the other hand, if it’s a matter of being joined in the name of God, let them get married in a church. If a church will marry two men, or a man and a chicken, or two men and a chicken, that’s the church’s business, and I shouldn’t have to pay for it. I don’t think there should be any laws against marriage of any kind, because I don’t think the government should be involved in it, at all.

I don’t agree with marriage as a creature of the state, period. Now, we’re never going to sell that in this lifetime, so we have make a decision. Some don’t like paying taxes to a government that won’t marry gays. I don’t like paying taxes to a government that does marry gays. Somebody’s gonna feel screwed. (Actually, they’ll probably come up with enough stuff to make everybody feel screwed!) Shall we just put it to a vote? Sort of like it says in the Constitution? What fertile ground for a states’ rights movement!

While I don’t hate gays, I don’t want them proselytizing my kids, who have enough crap coming at them without that! I have worked in environments filled with predatory lesbians, and have seen families destroyed and lives irreparably damaged by their depredations. I hate that, and I won’t apologize for hating it, and I won’t back down.

I am really, really sick and tired of these people slamming their sexuality in our faces and demanding that we recognize it, praise it, teach our kids it’s okay – hell’s bells, that it’s preferable – that we are required to pay for their neuroses and trauma, that we’re monsters or Nazis if we try to teach our kids to be straight. How about this ... entity that Obama appointed to keep our schools safe saying that plays like “Romeo and Juliet” are malicious and harmful stereotypes that keep people from embracing homosexuality? Oh, that doesn’t piss me off too much! How is appointing someone like that to a job paid for by my taxes – and a job of tremendous power and authority over me and my kids – not every bit as hideous as forcing atheist cadets to march in an Infidel Flight? It’s the same double standard we’re seeing in everything else: opposing aggressive public homosexuality is a religious intrusion, but using the power of the law to make it the standard is enlightened and honorable. Horseshit! I stand against both sides of this false dichotomy because they are really the same thing.

And yes, I have the same reaction to people who teach my kids that promiscuity is preferable to chastity. Encouraging my daughters to be whores is just as bad as encouraging them to be dykes. To repeat – and to emphasize – I have nothing against homosexuals, and think they should have full rights and protection under the law. But… It’s hard enough to explain to my 9-year old daughter why some women suck penises in public bathrooms, when I’m at least allowed to tell her it’s wrong.

I bitterly resent the fact that I risk prosecution by the state for telling her it’s wrong for men suck penises in public bathrooms. I’m sick and tired of having the glories of homosexual fellatio shoved down my throat. (Choice of words not intentional, but I think I’ll let it stand.)

We are seeing the institutionalization of such despicable behavior in our government at all levels. Yes, Bush had some appointments that I detested, and so did Reagan, and it still sets my teeth on edge to hear people talk about Reagan being such a great capitalist and libertarian. But if it was wrong for them to do what they did in the semi-discrete manner in which they did it, how is it so wonderful for this current pack of looters to do it right in our faces, not giving a flying rat’s empennage about morals, ethics, liberty, free will, individualism, personal choice, or a single one of the principles I was brought up to cherish and defend?

Mad? You betcha.

No comments:

Post a Comment