Two competent and consenting adults – whether man and man or woman and woman – should be allowed to erotically express their feelings for each other and even marry. So, John and Robert (or Lisa and Sophie) should smooch in public – while little impressionable boys and girls watch – because they ‘love’ each other and are ‘sexually oriented to have amorous relationships with the same sex (forget the fact John had a stable heterosexual marriage and has with his former wife several children who are spitting images of his).
No one should moralise about this, argue advocates of same-sex relationships and marriage. After all, they say, morals are a subjective creation of society. No one, but God alone, should claim the lofty seat of judgement.
The argument is not only flawed. It is also dangerous, as it can be used to justify the decriminalisation of a host of inclinations, practices, and acts that society properly deems repulsive and immoral.
Public order requires that society must agree on how it is best to act, which, in a democratic nation such as ours, it then formalises in its laws. We, the people, charge our governments with the duty of making into law those behaviours and actions we accept and should be rewarded for and those that we do not and should be punished for. And society can have acceptable behaviours and acts that remain true without invoking God or some deity.
Do not steal; Do not kill; and Do not lie for example, remain true even in a largely atheistic or agnostic society. If this holds true, we should then accept that society has a right to determine those dos and don’ts for order and other critical considerations to obtain. When society does so, it is not playing God, even though its reasoning may rhyme with those of some religions.
So back to our premise. If we should agree with the justification for same-sex, we should in the same vein, accept incest (largely seen as the erotic relationship between people of the same blood such as father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, etc.), where the parties are of a competent mind and consenting. We should even allow them to get married if they so choose! It is their fundamental right, according to this argument; a right that society as the majority wants to suppress.
Perhaps we could, for what it is worth, accept that animals have emotion and can build emotional relationships with both humans and other animals; that they, (especially dogs and cats) can express emotional bonds and consent, (again toward both humans and animals) through body language. So what they can’t say in words, they make up for through body language. They can be amorous and have been shown to be capable of initiating sexual activity with humans. We should logically come to the conclusion then, that an erotic relationship between a man and his goat or a woman and her dog is OK and should be legalised. We should even allow them to marry. And we should not moralise about it as morality is after all, subjective.
While we live, we know that we shall die one day – or soon. Someone may wish for their partner to be able to ‘make love’ to their corpse (a practice called necrophilia), and cognisant of the fact their lifeless body would not be able to give consent, they may want to authorise that, be it by way of a will or some other means before their death. For, they may argue, while their body lies lifeless, the act by their partner is expressive of their bond of love.
This, and the preceding examples, can and should be logically deduced from the argument presented by the proponent of same-sex relationships; namely that they should be legalised as existing proscriptions are merely statutes enacted by fellow humans who are no higher in the ethics ‘food chain’. This is after all their choice and/or sexual bias/orientation. It is their fundamental right.
This is the society that, without saying it, the agitators for the legalisation of same-sex relationships are advocating. Any attempt to disprove this logical conclusion is bound to come with catastrophic implications for their cause. They must have realised this, as their battle cry has leapt and stepped between a bold, in-your-face “Who made you judge?” a pitiful “God also loves us” and a whimpering “This is oppression by the majority”.
But the same-sex campaigner would more than likely realise the pun he is likely to play on himself with any moralistic proposal against the legalisation of any of the examples. No, any attempt to appeal to biology or social sciences would be self-defeating for the devastating consequences of same-sex, especially between men, are well documented.
The astounding incidence of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, Hepatitis B and C, gonorrhea and so on and so forth – in some cases up to six times national averages – as well as physical damage resulting in such acute problems as chronic incontinence (owing to damage of the elastic and one-way valve-like anal sphincter muscles; which is why your homosexual relative or friend may be needing to use diapers and sanitary pads, proving that certain sexual actions are contra-indicated for the plumbing work that is our intestinal and urinary systems), are clear examples, of the damage caused by same-sex relationships. That’s only a bit of the biological side. Then there is evidence from Social Science.
An as yet to be contradicted study (not challenged largely owing to its robustness) by University of Texas scholar Mark Regnerus, provides incontrovertible proof that same-sex relationships and marriages are an existential risk to humanity. There is no doubt that in calling for the legalisation of same-sex relationships, the campaigners will also want their marriages to be recognised, and for them to be allowed to adopt the children that they obviously cannot have – at least without employing technology. This is what he found in families and children who were raised by homosexual parents as opposed to those raised by biological dad and mom. They:
l Are likely to commit crimes and be arrested more often
l (If they are female) Have multiple sexual partners of both male and female
l They are unlikely to keep a full-time job
l More than three times more likely to be unemployed
l Nearly four times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
l Are more likely to receive welfare
l Have lower educational attainment
l Are more likely to suffer from depression (one of the growing mental illnesses, which Parliament is currently trying to make legislation for)
l Are 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver”. (And who are those likely to be?)
l Are nearly four times as likely to have been ‘physically forced’ to have sex against their will
l Use habit-forming substances such as marijuana more frequently
l Smoke more frequently
l Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offence
In that these vices tend to snowball, can we say with certainty that our society will be an exception? That we will not be dealing with more of these terrifying problems in the future?
Can the advocate for same-sex relationships guarantee the bestialist, the incestuous, and the necrophiliac will not be coming along to demand that they too should be recognised? What reasons would he/she provide as compelling enough for their continued criminalisation? And would those reasons not defeat the argument the same-sex campaigner is using for the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships?
Finally, will progeny applaud this generation for the type of future it is currently building for it?
