This is about dementia VS reality.
Behavior by genes or behavior by choice.
Either or for both or ?
This is about logic prevailing in either of these two possibilities:
1) If homosexuality isn’t a choice, and a person is just “born that way”, that leaves only one possibility, that we can only assume it is genetic. If such a behavior is genetic then there is going to be a homosexual gene. Since it hasn’t been located, we are forced by faith into the assumption that it does exist.
Genes mean, or at least imply, there is no fault for behavior which is derived from them. Or it implies that if it is not “wanted” like a cancer gene, we can go in and modify it or eliminate it. Let’s now open the premises of this to be inclusive and fair. If homosexuality behavior is genetic, then why must there not be a Biblically religious gene? This means the repulsion and offense homosexuality incites and evokes upon such a religious genome is not by choice. In addition, if that is true then those with this religious gene, specifically, their behavior cannot be classified as “bigotry”. It must be genetic and not a choice. If its good for one its good for all, that is fairness.
This means to impose genetic homosexuality upon the religious is not fair. It means DADT is fair. Just like we don’t allow the religious to go about in virile evangelism, we don’t allow the evangelism and overt conduct of homosexuality. It is logical and fair.
2) If homosexuality is a choice with subsequent behavior following, then such a choice is private, like the religious choice must be, and neither deserves more “rights” than the other, to impose or flaunt itself. This means as well that neither deserves state promotion, hindrance or even protection from the state. Like the separation of church and state, in its behavior through activism, either imposing itself upon the other who also have a choice-driven ideology to pursue their unhindered “happiness”. That is constitutional fairness.
If the cultural norm finds it repulsive to observe and mingle with those who assume they can modify morality to fit chosen behavior, then the imposition is expressed and not private. It a disapproving look on my face is insulting & bigoted to a homosexual, then his sexual flourishes whether gestures or lisps are insulting to me in no differing context. If I have no right to impose rejection upon him, then he has no right to impose provocative’s upon me. Its perception and my right to happiness and it has no higher weight over the other, except by the prevailing norms.
Now we must address imagined duress and oppression of alter-realities. This is where dementia enters. Anyone can claim harassment be it even a look on one’s face. Anyone can claim they are oppressed, and the feelings are real while in actuality is not. Should such law or right be given to insanity’s plea for relief? Even hate speech enacted on behalf of this dementia? Who is the arbiter of such a cause? A secular liberal and activist judge? (She was subject to adopting “artificial rules”). One already bent toward defining traditional morality as oppressive? The blindfold has then slipped off the lady justice and is being trampled on the floor.
Lets go to Thomas Jefferson:
“The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of a man as his leg or arm….
State a moral case to a plowman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules”
Letter to Miles King, Sept 26, 1814
So, imagine this, Jefferson believed in a conscience like we do in a physical appendage. One to be used or bound and made useless whatever the case. Then such a conscience must be seared to promote or even allow moral depravity by default.
Those of complicated liberal academia have professed themselves into injecting “artificial rules” and other depravity into our society, claiming it as good, and has “rights”. This is insulting to those like Jefferson and all who hold traditional values. Homosexual activism is artificial and coercive, only to gain acceptance of men, to convince themselves of it being right, when their consciences have rejected it. This is the stress source for the emotional impairments of homosexual conflicts, not from those who believe in the choice of traditional morality. It isn’t our fault. No civil laws will ameliorate an ailing conscience. A boy jumps off a bridge of his own accord, from a pathology of inner distress, and that from defiance of an ailing and abandoned conscience.
Whether genetic or choice, both Christians and homosexual activists must back away from impositions of their beliefs, by conscience, preferring one another, without forcing their behavior upon others. DADT has been the best compromise under the constitution.
I can go through both evolutionary and Creational proofs that homosexuality is a loosing behavior. Maybe later. Lets see how the hate is incited from the natural logic of this post.