Posts Tagged ‘homosexuality’

HOMOSEXUALITY FROM A MOHAMMEDAN PERSPECTIVE

Monday, June 13th, 2016

The great, anonymous, military strategist who coöpted Sun Tsu’s name emphasized the importance of knowing the enemy. To Mohammedans, we infidels are the enemy. They know us, and none among us is worse than a homosexual.

Do we know them? Do we even want to know them?

See “Americans?” under …
http://nationonfire.com/category/government/foreign-relations/ .

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman kind; it is an abomination.” -Leviticus 18:22

“And if a man lie with mankind as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they surely shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” -Leviticus 20:13

The Hebraic Bible is explicit and unambiguous. Homosexuality is an abomination before God, demanding of capital punishment.

The Hebraic Bible is the foundation firstly of Judaism then Christianity then Mohammedanism (aka/Islam). In this age of secular relativism gripping the West, such notions seem archaic and barbaric — not to orthodox Mohammedans (aka/Muslims), however. Make no mistake. Orthodox Mohammedans are no more “radical” than orthodox Jews or devout Catholics; they are orthodox.

As such, they respect The Book and that which it says. They act accordingly. Their recent, homosexual victims died in testimony to that respect.

To Mohammedans, homosexuals have made a mockery of sacred beliefs. They view so-called homosexual marriage as, perhaps, the ultimate affront to the Almighty. To them, these United States of America have degenerated into an immoral cesspool of depraved degradation, and this nation has transformed itself into the “Great Satan”. We infidels’ calling Mohammedans names does not diminish the force nor negate the substance of their argument.

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” -Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

In fact, many Americans view homosexuality with disdain if not disgust, the media notwithstanding. They view a tiny, homosexual minority as having turned the morality of these United Stated inside-out and upside-down; thereby, imperiling its very existence as a republic. They believe that the Founding Fathers would agree with them.

Science tells us, “Behavior has its consequences.”

Homosexuality is a behavior. It has its consequences.

One billion Mohammedans consider it an abomination before God. They are not alone. Many in the East view homosexuality as unacceptable if not intolerable. Many in the West agree but mostly keep silent. Although most Americans rightly would not condone homicide, some may be quietly sympathetic to it, affrighted by the wrath of organized homosexuality and its supporters to admit their sympathy.

Omar Mateen, the alleged avenger in Orlando, was willing to die for his beliefs. In doing so, he quickly has been characterized as “mentally unstable”. Was he?

Meanwhile, we Americans hardly are willing to fight for ours. By the way, what are our beliefs?

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

TEXTING FOR SEXTING

Monday, November 11th, 2013

The nation is sinking down into the pit that it made;/In the net is hid its own foot. -Adapted from Psalms 9:16

Hedonism: the doctrine that pleasure is the sole or chief good in life. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

PART ONE

“What was his name?”

“Whose?”

“The guy last night!”

“Can’t remember . . . Joe, Joel, something like that. He’s on my ‘cell’.”

“In the buff?”

“Natch!”

“Did you send him one of you?”

“Only the top half.”

“Going to text him again?”

“Are you texting your guy again?”

“Don’t know. Anyway, use ‘safe sex’ last night, babe?”

“Did you?”

“Wanted to.”

PART TWO

Among officially-atheistic, Chinese autocrats, the view of America is the following: a quasi-democratic nation in terminal decline . . .  a nation on fire . . . a nation, ironically stated, afflicted by the age-old, seven, cardinal sins delineated by Christianity. Among the foremost ranks lust leading to sexual depravity.

Sinking into such depths of depravity carries with it consequences,  inescapable consequences . . . disease, disability, and even death. In America, female genitalia have become potential death-traps, as lust overpowers logic. Even 20% of American, adolescent females between ages 14 and 19 harbors a communicable venereal disease such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, Herpes simplex, Human Papilloma Virus (“HPV”), or syphilis; among Negroes, the figure is 48%.(1) Many of these communicable diseases are becoming increasingly resistant to treatment, partially as a consequence of trying to eradicate them from the infected bodies of homosexuals with the worst of the venereal diseases, “AIDS”.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”) causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (“AIDS”). Acquired from whom? From someone else . . . usually sexually. Once inoculated, the victim can choose unpleasant treatment versus agonizing death. It is a treatment not innocuous . . . a treatment not curative . . . a treatment not capable of eradicating the virus inside infected cells, leaving an amount sixty-fold that previously believed; virus untouched by even the most potent, unpleasant pharmaceuticals.(2)

HIV is a retrovirus. It mutates frequently. To date, it remains confined almost entirely to inter-human transmission. Male homosexuals are its largest human reservoir, by far. Should one of its mutations find a commonplace vector to transmit it among humans, a vector such as the mosquito, those homosexuals may find themselves more than a bit less acceptable, even among the “trendy”.

In comparison to the new so-called War Against AIDS begun in the 1980s, the old war against unbridled lust itself antedates the Christian era. The ancient Hebrews, for example, fought against the lure of Baal in its various forms, a religion that promoted base, animalistic, sexual behaviors including the worship of its revered sexual goddess, Ashtoreth. The Hebrews regarded Baal as organized moral filth . . . pure evil. In fact, from the name Baal (to the Hebrews, the “Lord of the Flies”) is derived the name, Beelzebub (i.e., Satan), the anthropomorphic symbol of evil. As is evil, the character is ubiquitous, appearing not only in the Hebrew Bible but the Christian and Mohammedan.

For the Hebrews, to worship Jehovah or Baal?  That was the question. What appeal did the abstinence and fidelity demanded in worshiping Jehovah offer against the licentiousness and promiscuity promoted in worshiping Ashtoreth?

Today, are we not witnessing the same war waged between Judeo-Christianity and atheistic and agnostic secular relativism? Texting for sexting versus praying for saving. Lead me not into temptation and deliver me from evil or lead me to the next “hook-up” and deliver me into carnal pleasure? Nothing new there.

The three, major religions based upon The Book of Abraham preach delay of sexual gratification. Atheistic and agnostic secular relativism allow for any sort of immediate gratification no matter how abominable in the eyes of the faithful. The atheists and agnostics boast a powerful ally in Big Media to promulgate the pursuit of pleasure. Pleasure now . . . pain later. Of note, Chinese autocrats censor media-based productions promoting lust.

Globally, the number of atheists has tripled during the past forty years; whereas, the percentage of those even claiming a religion has declined from 73% to 60%.(3) Claiming religion is one thing; attending religious services, another. Verbal behavior correlates only loosely with instrumental; saying is not doing.

The houses of traditional, organized religion have emptied, especially in the West . . . other than those of Evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Mohammedans. As a consequence, the admonitions of traditional Hebraic and Christian clergy to delay pleasure now in order to avoid pain later go largely unheard; drowned in the din of television, video-games, and “rap”.

One reason that, even were they there, ears might hear but not listen is that clergy preach The What (e.g., abstinence till marriage and fidelity thereafter) based upon The Why (i.e., God) but not The How. At the interface between The What and The How lays the interface between theology and science . . . biobehavioral science, in particular. Specific, scientifically-based procedures exist; procedures to apply The How to The What. Fortunately, these procedures (e.g., stimulus-control) easily are learned and understood (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

To the truly faithful, it might seem that Beelzebub is winning while God is losing, at least among young, American minds . . . but is such really the case? Be history our guide, the truth might be that the immediate rewards of lust will win the battle in the short term but, given the delayed punishments following depravity of Biblical proportions, lose the war in the long term. If not, what then?

Behavior has its consequences. What will the long-term consequences?

Were we to look theologically to The Book, we should predict that they will be not to our liking. Were we to look atheologically (not anti-theologically) to Science, we should find that all Nature is interconnected . . . from viruses to humans, so the consequences of making Mother Nature angry, if you will, can be mighty, brutal, and ugly.(4)

References

1. Reinberg S: “One in 4 Teen Girls Has a Sexually Transmitted Disease”. U.S. News & World Report, 11NOV2013.

2. Winslow R and McKay B: “Fight Against HIV Hits A Roadblock, New Study Shows”. The Wall Street Journal, 24OCT2013.

3. Porter, N: “Atheists Find Shelter From Christianity In ‘Secular Safe Zones’”. The Washington Times (National Edition), 07OCT2013.

4. Dembosky A: “The Next Human Pandemic”. Financial Times, 06OCT2012.

-END-

ONE LIFE . . . MANY DEATHS

Monday, March 11th, 2013

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue; And they that indulge it shall eat the fruit thereof.” -Proverbs 18:21

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination.” -Leviticus 18:22

“Therefore, send not to know/For whom the bell tolls/It tolls for thee.” -John Donne (1572-1631)

The physician, garbed in hospital-scrubs and looking glum, approached the obviously apprehensive parents. “Mr. Mayfield. Mrs. Mayfield.* I’m sorry . . .  terribly sorry. Your son, Robbie, just passed away. The infection? It became just overwhelming.”

His words elicited immediate, racking sobs from the distraught mother. Gradually, the woman began to compose herself. “I don’t understand, Doctor. Robbie didn’t have any infections when he was admitted. He came here for a simple surgery . . . a simple hernia-repair, you said. How could he suddenly die of an overwhelming infection? “

“The surgery was successful . . . .”

“And the patient died. Is that it?” The mother’s grief suddenly was transforming itself into anger.

“Unfortunately, after the surgery, as you know, he suffered urinary retention. It’s not uncommon, especially in older men.”

“He’s . . . he was . . . an adolescent boy not an older man.”

“True, but even so, it can occur in anyone. His urinary bladder was becoming distended, so we were forced to drain it by inserting that indwelling catheter you saw. The catheter . . . a foreign object to the body . . . apparently became the focus of the infection. As you know, we detected the situation almost immediately. We called in a specialist in infectious diseases. He used every antibiotic in our arsenal. They failed. These things happen . . . unfortunately, with increasing frequency and ferocity.(1)”

“Why?”

“Do you prefer a less unpleasant lie or a more unpleasant truth?” Now, it was the physician who was showing anger.

“Of course, I want the truth! Who wouldn’t?”

“Apparently, a majority of Americans,” replied the physician bitterly.

The grieving mother was taken aback. The physician’s attitude, even more than his words, alarmed her.

“Alright, Mrs. Mayfield, I’ll tell you the truth. There are thousands of perv . . . persons . . . with HIV and AIDS. The virus compromises their immunological systems, seriously weakening their capacities to combat infections. Ultimately, even with the most powerful antibiotics, the patient must cure himself.

“When persons with AIDS contract infections, even infections that would be relatively benign in otherwise normal patients, treatment may require massive doses of our most powerful antibiotics. Eventually, the bacteria develop resistance to these antibiotics, a kind of genetic learning. Worse, the bugs not only develop resistance. They become more virulent . . . more lethal . . . more deadly.

“When other patients . . . sexually normal patients such as your son . . . contract the same, now more virulent infections, they are more likely to suffer higher morbidity and higher mortality than otherwise would be the case.”

“Can you say what you just said in plain English, Doctor.”

“Sorry. Thanks to homosexuals with HIV, normal people are suffering infections that are making them sicker and killing them more frequently. Your son was one of those victims.”

The woman turned to her husband, who had remain seated, silent with an ashen pallor. “Howie . . . Howie killed our son!” she screamed.

“Who’s Howie?” asked the physician.

“He’s a friend of mine since childhood,” mumbled the husband. “He’s ‘gay’.”

“Gay?” screamed his wife. “You mean he’s a queer . . . a faggot . . . a pervert. He’s not ‘gay’. Gay is a feeling not a way of life . . . or, more accurately, a way of death. Your son was gay until Howie . . . and those like him . . . murdered our little boy, my innocent baby.” Her eyes seemed to dissolve in a pool of tears.

The husband arose, pointing his finger into his wife’s face, raising his own voice. “How conveniently you forget that you’re the one in favor of ‘homosexual marriage’ . . . not I. Well, there are consequences, aren’t there?”

The woman sank onto the hard, plastic bench behind her, breathing rapidly but shallowly. Slowly, she seemed to regain a modicum of composure.

“So, what you’re saying, Doctor,” she began, “is that possibly to save one homosexual afflicted with HIV, potentially thousands of other, innocent people will die.”

“You might put it that way.”

“I believe I just did.”

“Mrs. Mayfield, we physicians can’t withhold treatment from homosexuals, irrespective of the long-term consequences for the rest of the population.”

“Is there a name for this insanity?” the husband interjected.

“Some call it ‘Radical Maternalism’ (www.inescapableconsequences.com).”

“Interesting term,” opined the husband. “Tell me, what do you predict will be the ultimate consequences of this . . . this Radical Maternalism?”

The physician paused. “It depends upon advances in medical technology. If the genetic advances among the bacteria outpace the technological advances in medicine, possibly worldwide pandemics with millions of deaths.”

“In order to make the world safe for homosexuality?”

“You said it, Sir, I didn’t. There’s another problem, however.”

“What’s that?” inquired the wife.

“Profit.”

“Yes, I know what you mean,” the woman replied. “Greedy pharmaceutical companies making huge profits at the expense of the sick and injured.”

“No, ma’am! Quite the opposite to your widely held opinion. As we develop new antibiotics in America and Western Europe, they’re stolen by undeveloped countries that rob the developers of their rightful profits necessary for investment in future research. These thieves defend their thefts by proclaiming the need to save lives now not later. Meanwhile, these same countries refuse to control their mindless breeding, so a life saved today means more lives to save tomorrow . . . at someone else’s expense. Radical Maternalism!”

The husband raised his hand as though he were a pupil in school. He meant the gesture as a sign of respect for insightful knowledge over blind opinion. “My son is dead. We can’t restore him to life. Can’t we protect other innocent Americans and Europeans? If so, how?”

“From what I know, I’d say that the answer is to employ biobehavioral science.”

“Never heard of it. Have you?” the husband asked his wife.

“Never.”

“Neither have most others,” admitted the physician. The most frightening aspect is that most people don’t want to learn about it even though it’s the only road to our survival as individuals and as a species.”

The couple looked stunned. Then, the husband asked, “Can you give us an idea what it’s about?”

“To answer your question as best I can, firstly you describe the context in which the situation-in-question is occurring. Then, you specify the antecedents, behaviors, and consequences . . . the ABC’s.”

“That’s it?” the wife asked.

“No. Then, you define the problematic behavior in terms of it being either an excess or a deficit, you target appropriate and attainable goals, you design practical plans and put them into play, then you measure the outcome.”

“Why aren’t we doing that now?”

“Ideology controlling politics. The consequences? Short-term gains enjoyed by the politicians and ideologues . . . long-term losses suffered by the rest of us. We prefer to ignore one basic fact.”

“What’s that?” the couple asked in chorus.

“Ultimately, reality always wins.”

The couple remained silent. Then, the wife hesitated, “You seem . . . How should I put it? . . . quite bitter, Doctor. Is your attitude only a consequence of Robbie’s dying?”

The physician sighed. “You’re an observant woman, Mrs. Mayfair. The sad fact is that my own, beloved wife . . . mother of our two children . . . died in this same hospital last year . . . from the same sort of infection that killed your son. Two innocents . . . victims of our current ignorant, arrogant, misguided, suicidal ideology.”

The couple, bereaved themselves, again remained silent. Then, the husband asked, “You focus your attention on homosexuals. What about patients with cancer or with transplants receiving immunosuppressant chemotherapy?”

“Your point is well taken. The difference is that their plight typically isn’t the consequence of their own wanton lust. It’s more of a happening than an action. The issue, nevertheless, is similar, and there’s no easy answer . . . but there is an answer. It’s a biological balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of the species . . . a balance to be decided rationally via scientific methodology and the morality of the Ages not emotionally via ideology and the morality of the moment.”

The physician looked at his pager. “Now, please excuse me. Ironically, I’ve another innocent patient down the hallway, dying from the same infection.”

Reference

1. “Deadly Bacterial Infections On the Rise.” The Wall Street Journal, 06MAR2013, page A6.

*The characters presented herein are fictitious. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is coincidental.

STRAIGHT OR GAY: Part Two of Two

Monday, October 4th, 2010

Homosexuality and Society

“I gather, Butch, that you harbor strong feelings against categorizing homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.”

“I harbor strong feelings about the destruction of Western civilization . . . the civilization that has done more good for mankind than every other civilization combined.”

“Overlooking the bad done by Western civilization, do I detect a sense of righteous indignation?”

“I suppose that you might use that term. Yet, in one way, I agree with what you said. Generally, it’s no business of government or others what consenting adults do in private as long as their acts don’t injure others directly or indirectly. When homosexuals parade through the streets, wearing only leather pelvic-thongs and proclaiming the so-called virtues of their vice, it becomes quite another matter. Then, they’re going public and, thereby, undermining the foundation of the society that tolerates what many consider an abomination . . . on occasion, even forcing those who oppose them to participate against their wishes.(2) In addition, many of them don’t stop at mere homosexuality. They also advocate paederasty and even incest.”

The clergyman decided not to deal with the accusations about paederasty and incest since he could summon no acceptable defense. In fact, he agreed that Butch’s accusation was valid.

“You see, Padre, that, whereas it may be true that many mammalian males exhibit a tendency toward homosexual behavior in certain contexts, we humans need not glorify the basest elements of our collective, behavioral repertoire. In fact, socialization represents the exact opposite. It represents suppressing those basest elements in favor of facilitating the higher elements . . . thereby, making humans most human.”

“What makes you so intolerant?”

“Tolerate the intolerable? Our nation is on fire over what this issue symbolizes. I’m hardly alone in my opposition.”

“Not being alone doesn’t make you right.”

“Not being alone might not make me right, but hating the hateful doesn’t make me a bigot either. Homosexuality symbolizes the undermining of our society. It’s a behavior forbidden by Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism.”

“Maybe forbidden by some brands of Islam. About all, I’m not so sure. The Pashtuns in Afghanistan, for example, accept homosexual paederasty but not adultery.”(3)

“So? Does hypocrisy make them right?”

“Isn’t it all in your point of view? To them, it’s not hypocrisy.”

“To the rest of the world, it is. Let’s put it this way. Would you tolerate your pre-adolescent son becoming the victim of sodomy by a Pashtun or anyone else?”

“No.”

“Enough said. Anyway, over time, American and European homosexuals have succeeded chipping away social censure. Their success reflects the platitude, ‘Give them an inch, and they’ll take . . . .’ Well, you know what I mean.”

“What you mean is that you’re a ‘homophobe’,” the clergyman fired back.

“Opposing homosexuality as an acceptable, alternative lifestyle does not render one a so-called homophobe. The term, phobia, denotes an unreasonable and inappropriate aversion to a particular stimulus. A phobia is a mental illness. To oppose homosexuality and to label it the abomination that historically it has been considered, in and of itself, is neither unreasonable nor inappropriate. A small but vociferous band of homosexuals literally has turned vice into virtue. In doing so, homosexuals label ‘mentally ill’ those who label their perversion a perversion. As so often happens, especially in a society with fluid standards . . . .”

“Speaking of fluid standards, I’m hearing that homosexuality remains fixed as a seminal issue in your argument about the decline of Western civilization,” the clergyman interrupted with a smile.

The biker failed to suppress his own smile. “Come off it, Padre, you know it is.”

“A single, fixed issue? Rather simplistic. Besides, even were homosexuality still a crime, it’s a victimless crime. These are consenting adults engaging in private acts.”

“Wrong!  From an historical point of view, admittedly with some early exceptions, these people engage in acts that Western civilization long has considered perverted. Theologically, the Bible in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is specific and explicit . . . homosexuality is an abomination. Socially, it’s an abomination that undermines the foundation of civilized society . . . the family composed of one husband and one wife. Yes, I believe homosexuality may be the singular, symbolic issue upon which Western mores in America will rise or fall.”

“What nonsense!  Butch, your argument is especially weak in this area. History is merely a record of changing events. Firstly, our society is evolving, which is consistent with history. Secondly, different bibles cite different acts as abominations . . . acts in some of which you yourself indulge . . . or have indulged. Have you ever . . . well, you know?” The clergyman had held up his hand. “Don’t bother responding. The question was rhetorical. I know the answer already. Look, as society evolves, accepted standards of conduct evolve, so ours are evolving. What’s more, there’s little proof that homosexuality is a potent force undermining our society.”

“I’m pleased to point out it’s your argument that’s especially weak . . . not mine. Historically, societies that allow dismantling of their standards of conduct fall into permissive, self-indulgent licentiousness, ultimately leading to their decline and demise. Currently, we’re witnessing that phenomenon throughout what’s left of Western civilization. Socially, we’ve already seen the destructive effects of so-called alternative lifestyles. Witness the widespread bastardy with ‘single moms’ becoming economic lesbians married to a big-breasted, overly maternal government to gain financial support instead of married to men. Witness traditional mothers becoming out-of-home workers instead of in-home wives and caretakers. Aren’t children the most precious part of any culture?”

The clergyman interjected in a dismissive manner, “Yes, yes, I know. Children represent the future.”

“They are the future not we. The future is theirs not ours. We’re the protectors. They’re the protected. We’re the ones who must protect them from licentious, predatory, homosexual paederasts, about whom the newspapers are replete with reports. Witness the Catholic priesthood that became riddled with faggots . . . often brutal faggots, at that.”

“What can you expect from Catholics?” the clergyman interjected.

“More than from radical Episcopalians. Anyway, let’s move to your second point, the one about different bibles stating differing admonitions. Different bibles do espouse different values. So? The point is that having a single, overriding system of basic beliefs, such as Christianity in whatever form, binds a society . . . otherwise, the social fabric fragments as ours is fragmenting. As to prohibitions, it’s true that the Old Testament contains a number. Some are essential to the survival of our society . . . others not. Prohibiting the public presentation of pernicious perversions . . . for example, flagrant ‘faggotry’ . . . is essential. Prohibiting self-gratification in private isn’t.”

The clergyman chuckled. “Far be it from me to argue religion with a self-anointed, theological scholar such as you. Let’s turn to legalities. What’s your view of ‘homosexual rights’?”

“There are none. The U.S. Constitution never mentions homosexuality directly or indirectly. The only rights we Americans have are those specified in the Constitution.”

“What about the Ninth Amendment?”

Butch paused before replying, “Although much ignored by the Court, the Ninth Amendment confirmed clearly the existing ‘natural’ rights of the citizenry prior to the signing of the Constitution . . . primarily the right to self-government . . . and clearly limited expansion of federal powers. It contains a single sentence, which makes no mention of protecting deviant acts historically considered perversions.”

“How about the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?”

“To begin, the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to the states, not to the federal government. Its original intent clearly applied only to the civil rights of life, liberty, and property. Its goal was to have protected the civil rights of the recently-freed slaves. The intent was to have the laws of each state applied fairly and with due process to one’s life itself, to one’s liberty in the form of freedom from unfair and arbitrary prosecution, and to one’s property relating to ownership . . . all without regard to one’s race. The Amendment didn’t apply to political rights, including the right to vote. If it had, there’d have been no need for the Fifteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth, as with the Ninth Amendment, certainly didn’t apply to deviant, social behaviors.”

“You’ve become quite the ‘jailhouse-lawyer’, Mr. Biker. Anyway, that’s your opinion . . . not the opinion of the Court,” the clergyman noted.

“You refer to the lawless, renegade, Warren-led Court. Typical of that Court, the judicial majority whimsically magnified the vagueness of the term, equal, by interpreting the Equal Protection Clause to mean virtually anything the Court wants it to mean and even expanding it to include the Fifth Amendment.(4) The Court’s arbitrary and capricious actions scream for an end to unprincipled and lawless, judicial activism and a return to principled and lawful, original intent. Based upon original intent, homosexuals have no special rights.”

“How then would you deal with homosexuals? Imprison them? Castrate them? Kill them? What would you suggest?”

“None of the above except imprisonment under certain circumstances.”

“What circumstances?”

“I firmly believe that states and municipalities have the authority under the Constitution to set acceptable codes of social conduct. It’s not the province of the federal courts to interfere. If a state-legislature votes to outlaw public acts or promotion of homosexuality, or paederasty, or bestiality, the Constitution leaves to the state the right to do so.”

“What about homosexual acts in private?”

“Legally, more ambiguous. If two adults of the same sex engage in consensual, sexual acts in a manner inaccessible to others under usual circumstances, I’d not advocate any laws preventing them from doing so . . . simply as a matter of enforcement. A basic rule of employing behavioral science is never establish a rule about a behavior that no observer can monitor.”

“A rule about making rules. There’s one statement of yours, Butch, that does makes sense.”

“The Fourth Amendment rightly protects citizens against unreasonable search. Accordingly, if consenting homosexuals exercise discretion, they shouldn’t be subjected to punishment for their sexual acts per se . . . if for no other reason than the authorities can’t and shouldn’t monitor their sexual behavior in private. Outside the privacy of their own homes, they well might be subject to legal penalties, depending upon the laws of that state. I myself would recommend the offense be kept at the level of a misdemeanor . . . subject only to fine not imprisonment.”

“What about homosexual marriage?”

“It’s an oxymoron. Historically, marriage refers to a uniting of men with women for legal and religious purposes. Its primary goal is to have ensured the stability of the family as the fundamental social unit for child-rearing and to have provided an explicit line of succession of legitimate heirs.”

“What about states allowing homosexuals to marry?”

“Under current circumstances, that presents a constitutional dilemma. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution(5) might obligate one state to recognize same-sex marriages from another state, federal law notwithstanding, depending upon the leanings of the Court. The only countervailing certainty would be a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman, the passage of which seems unlikely at the moment.”

“Even so, do you favor such an amendment?” asked the clergyman.

“I feel conflicted . . . torn between my aversion to perversion and my support for states’ rights.”

“How about getting off the fence?”

“Begrudgingly, I say yes . . . however, the issue seems academic because sufficient support for such an amendment reportedly doesn’t exist . . . at least according to Big Media.”

“So, what do you propose?” the clergyman asked.

“In 1996, I supported the federal Defense of Marriage Act allowing states not to recognize ‘homosexual marriage’ performed in other states as legitimate within their own borders . . . nevertheless, the Act would seem to conflict with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution itself.”

“Given the federal Defense of Marriage Act, should a state later be allowed to rescind its recognition of homosexual marriages previously performed?”

“No, a state might prohibit further such unions, but laws shouldn’t be enforced retroactively. The fundamental risks associated with retroactive legislation are too great. Those homosexuals already joined should be allowed to remain joined. Alternatively, they might be allowed to dissolve the so-called marriage themselves without any formal divorce-proceedings in court other than as a consequence of whatever pre-marital or post-marital contracts the parties may have signed.”

“What about ‘homosexual unions’ or ‘domestic partnerships’ rather than formal marriages?”

“No.”

“Why?”

“As a clergyman, surely you recognize they make a mockery of marriage and sabotage its status as the basic bulwark of our social system.”

“I do? How?”

“Such ‘unions’ and ‘partnerships’ blur the distinction between legitimate marriage and every other type of social relationship. Why not have a ‘union’ among fraternal groups or between a woman and her poodle?”

“You’re aware that re-enacting laws against homosexuality would force those who possess that sexual orientation to re-enter ‘the closet’, so to speak.”

“So?  In this age of wantonly laying bear our hearts with abandon and without shame, people forget practicing discretion is an honorable and longstanding virtue. Allow me to direct your attention to Proverbs 18:2. It states the following:
‘A fool hath no delight in understanding,
But only that his heart may lay itself bare.’”

“I’m wondering who’s the priest here.”

“So am I.”

The clergyman chose to ignore the remark. “Anyway, it’s fortunate for the gossip-mongers on television that few Americans seem to follow the precept,” he noted.

“Look, if man or woman must succumb to overwhelming desire to have consensual relations with another adult of the same sex, allow him or her to do so. Let the abomination, however, be committed in private and in secret. Let discretion be the byword. If that’s being consigned to ‘the closet’, so be it. Besides, shouldn’t all sexual congress be conducted in private?”

“Perhaps. Laws are one thing, however, and constitutional amendments another. You’re aware, I’m sure, that many people would consider a bit old-fashioned the proposing of a constitutional amendment about homosexual marriage.”

“Ah yes, popularity in the polls of public opinion . . . the current standard distinguishing he who is righteous from he who isn’t. Most Germans considered Herr Hitler a hero even at the end of World War Two with Germany laying in ruin.”

“By the way, he harbored your antipathy toward homosexuals . . . passionately.”

“Yes, and he was a vegetarian, hated smoking, and loved dogs. So? Guilt by association?”

“No, just looking at history, Butch.”

“Hitler aside, with all due respect, I disagree with your assessment of the attitude of the populace. From what I gather, public opinion remains divided fairly evenly, at the least . . . . nevertheless, few parents wish for their children to become homosexuals.”

“I suppose so . . . if for no other reason than they want grandchildren for themselves. Some would consider their wish selfish.”

“That wish may be selfish, but, like heterosexuality, it’s biologically normal and natural.”

“So it is,” the clergyman agreed. “Okay, your position, a bit archaic by contemporary standards, is against homosexual marriages or legalized unions. What about homosexuals serving in the military?”

“For self-proclaimed homosexuals free from the dreaded diseases they often carry . . . only in hospitals and medical clinics. For non-proclaimed homosexuals? They present an ethical dilemma. Some critics of ‘Don’t ask – Don’t tell’ allege that allowing non-proclaimed homosexuals to serve is allowing lies by omission. I disagree. Every citizen has a right to his thoughts and desires. Placing limitations on what the military can and should ask is reasonable and appropriate, especially in a context of no declared war. If a recruit’s cognition or emotion conflicts with the standards of society, so be it . . . unless that recruit acts. Thoughts are subjective. Feelings are subjective. Behavior is objective. It’s behavior that has consequences not thoughts or emotions.”

“Then, the policy of ‘Don’t ask – Don’t tell’ you can accept.”

“With some discomfort, yes. We’re all human. Every human has faults. Accordingly, the systems we devise . . . especially the social systems . . . are likely to reflect our fallibility. The mission of the military is to wage wars and to win them. As long as policies don’t interfere with that mission in any way, they should be considered acceptable albeit not necessarily desirable.”

“Yet, the same man . . . or woman . . . serving openly you can’t accept.”

“Right.”

“Can you prove that the consequence of allowing gays . . . excuse me, homosexuals . . . to serve openly would interfere with the mission?”

“I don’t need to prove it. The miliary doesn’t need to prove it. There’s no constitutional right to serve in the military. It’s the homosexuals who’re making the claim against historically established policy. The burden is on them to prove that their presence wouldn’t compromise the primary mission of the military.”

“How can they prove their argument? The only way would be to allow them to serve openly then measure the consequences.”

“True but how can you measure beforehand whether it’s worth the risk to national security?”

“I don’t know.”

“That’s the point. Who does know? Verbal answers to questionnaires, at best, are only an indirect measurement of sentiment. Actual service, especially in actual combat, is the only true test. I submit that the risk of such a social experiment is too great.”

“Israel allows it.”

“Citing Israel or other countries isn’t proof. The Israeli military, for example, operates in a completely different context. Israel can’t afford to lose a war. For them, it’s victory or annihilation. Europe can’t defend itself against the Girl Scouts. Let me ask you a question. Would you want to take a shower with another man who becomes sexually aroused as he gazes at you longingly?”

“How do you know that would happen?”

“How do you know it wouldn’t? Haven’t we had sufficient evidence of wanton but prohibited, heterosexual activity in the Navy when women are at sea?”

The clergyman shrugged. “Butch, your argument effectively blocks homosexual citizens from serving their country openly.”

“Not if they’re serving in hospitals and medical clinics.”

“Well, you have your opinion. I have mine.”

“Yours is too risky. Should we test impairing our military capabilities and possibly losing yet another war to fulfill your view of so-called social justice for a tiny but vocal minority who practice what historically has been considered an abnormal abomination? How about justice for the majority whose lives depend upon our military capability?”

“Our differing views of social justice aside, let me return to what you were saying a moment ago about wanting children and grandchildren being biologically natural. Do you believe that there’s a biological basis to homosexuality?”

“Possibly. Actually, sexuality within and across species seems to be something of a continuum.(6) Even so, because there might be some biological predisposition toward homosexual behavior doesn’t justify it becoming an acceptable lifestyle. The individual does have some responsibilities toward the society that allows him to exist as more than a feral animal. Because one has a biological predisposition to murder others doesn’t give one the right to do so.”

“Homosexuality isn’t murder. As I said, between consenting adults, it’s victimless.”

“Wrong! As I said, it’s victim-filled. Normal members of Western civilization are its victims. Homosexuality is an issue that crosses several boundaries . . . theological, sociological, political, and scientific. Scientifically, we can view it in terms of context and consequences. Say the context is a reasonably well-functioning, stable society that promotes creativity and productivity; offers reasonable protection of individual liberties; and allows for change consistent with its founding principles. Say some advocates of a behavior considered historically an abnormal abomination promote reclassifying that unacceptable behavior as acceptable . . . even normal. If the consequence is destruction of the function and stability of the society in the name of an idiosyncratic version of social justice for a tiny minority, should defenders of that society allow it?”

“You really believe that homosexuality represents such a threat?”

“I do.”

“Proof?”

“Observation. Look around you. We’re witnessing the end of The American Era . . . the end of Western civilization. The licentiousness of homosexuality is hardly the only cause, but it’s a symbol of all the causes.”

“Believing is seeing. Personally, I see the world becoming more homogeneous . . . more egalitarian . . . more tolerant.”

“Padre, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Conservatives and liberals alike agree America is in trouble. I submit that destroying our culture . . . the culture that made this nation great . . . accelerates that awful trend. Until recently, homosexuality as an open, acceptable lifestyle had no place in our culture. It still doesn’t.”

“Homosexuality aside, do you believe that we can reverse this trend that you claim to see?”

“I do.”

“How?”

“By returning to the Constitution and promoting the American Tradition of the pursuit of happiness through protecting life, safeguarding liberty, and defending private property . . . both augmented by the benefits of modern behavioral science from the biobehavioral orientation.”

“If we don’t, you predict the end of The American Era and Western civilization as inescapable consequences (www.inescapableconsequences.com).”

“You said it, Padre, not I.”

References
2. See, for example, Hudson, A: “Firefighters Seek to Sue over Forced Role in ‘Gay Pride’ Parade”. The Washington Times (National Edition), 13 August 2007, page 1. Four firemen in San Diego claimed that they were forced by the Department under the command of a lesbian to participate against their will in a public event celebrating homosexuality.
3. Gertz, B: “Homosexual Afghans” in “Inside the Ring”. The Washington Times (National Edition), 13 September 2010, page 26.
4. Bolling vs. Sharpe (1954).
5. Article IV, Section 1.
6. Blumberg, MS: Freaks of Nature. New York: Oxford Press (2009).

– End of Part Two of Two –