|
Author
|
Topic: "NATURE 101: Can government validate what nature does not?"
|
H2G2
Advanced Member
Member # 2443
|
posted
"Can anyone doubt that homosexuals, even in defining themselves primarily by their sexual appetite, reveal an unbalanced obsession with the carnal rather than the mental?"
What makes you think that (the majority of) homosexuals define themselves primarily by their orientation? If you are discussing the matter of sexuality then of course they are likely to mention the fact that they are gay, in the normal course of events it is not an issue.
It is reckoned that around 5% of people are gay. Are you seriously suggesting that you know which of the one in twenty people you meet are they gay ones (or even more strangely that they go out of their way to tell you)?
I don't know about the US but in the UK it is just not an issue. You have friends and some of them just happen to be gay, nobody really cares.
We have just had the state opening of parliament today and the government have announced that they are going to do away with the concept of 'marital status' in the state's dealings with the people and replace it with 'civil status'. this effectively means that all couples, gay, straight, married, co-habiting etc will be afforded the same rights and responsibilities under the law.
I wonder what you think of this.
personally I think it is a good thing that the state has recognised that it has a responsibility to treat all citizens equally and not to try to impose a subjective moral judgement on those who do not share the religious convictions of a minority.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
James Fletcher Baxter
New Member
Member # 2351
|
posted
NATURE 101
Q: "Can government validate what nature does not?"
The priority of ideas and behavior is what this disagreement is all about. The rule of the mind - or its submission to carnal, unnatural priorities, appetites, choices, and behavior - and their unhealthy consequences.
Nature, itself, invalidates homosexual actions for there is neither mechanistic justification nor optional validation by consent under the laws of nature. [Often referred to by some as "a Darwinian dead-end."] To state otherwise is to give a perverse and simpleton voice to glands - not to powers of reason and its implicit tools of criteria and standards; tools which equip the human family with the ability to measure and anticipate consequences and thereby avoid some choices and choose others conducive to the healthy results of survival and progression.
The rule of the glands prioritizes such appetites at the expense of the kingdom of the mind and its inevitable recession as evidenced in every society of history past.
Should a branch of government attempt to validate what nature itself does not? Does "government criteria" equip us with the wisdom of vision for future generations? Lacking such standards and their enablement, can we recognize - with foresight - the regression of our environment as thinking/choicemaking beings, and, instead, become throw-back creatures of an insatiable, grunting, lascivious, and unnatural conduct? Nature and history say, "No."
Can anyone doubt that homosexuals, even in defining themselves primarily by their sexual appetite, reveal an unbalanced obsession with the carnal rather than the mental? Such desires can and do distort perception and judgment; principles and standards have minor or non- meaning for a those whose decisions are dominated by physical appetites triggered by glandular secretions - not ideas.
In homosexuality, civilization rightly sees the threat of an anti-standards, anti-mind, anti-survival perversion of human nature. Seen against the background of history and nature, terms like "deviant,' "perverse," "weird," and "aberrant," are not epithets, then, but appropriate descriptions of homosexual behavior. Calling a homosexual "gay" is, in fact, an inhumane act, for it substitutes a platitude for the first requirement of healing such psychological cripples: objective recognition of their condition.
Additionally, many of today's psychiatrists have unscientifically finalized and capitulated to an illness they have ignorantly misunderstood; mis-applying a public confession of inadequacy and accomodation for sound diagnosis, treatment, relief and cure. Recall that "True science knows No Final Answers - only on-going questions."
Human experience is a kingdom of the mind and standards are its tools of measure and foresight. The public has the right and the obligation to set those standards and and to reject the abnormal and aberrant in the interest of posterity. On the larger loom of history, the struggle we are engaged in is but one more between the thoughtfully rational and civilized and the carnal barbarian. Nature is speaking with its constant and authoritative voice. Our temporary elected representatives would do well to pay attention.
We will, as citizens, teachers, and parents, continue to be attentive to that voice and maintain our transcendent support to 'the man of the mind' -- and of the spirit.
We will thoughtfully oppose all federal and California State Assembly and Senate Bills -- and Candidates -- which/who attempt to validate homosexual behavior as natural. We seek your thoughtful agreement and opposition to AB 205 & AB 17.
vincit veritas
Mr. & Mrs. James Fletcher Baxter
Santa Maria, California 93455
semper fidelis
choice.maker@verizon.net
http://www.geocities.com/James-Baxter
--------------------
"The way we define 'human' determines our view of self, others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Choose wisely...there will be results.
Posts: 6 | From: Santa Maria, California USA | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
