Gays and Lesbians. They think the rest of the population is against them, doesn’t understand them, refuse to accept them, looks down on them, wants to take the moral high ground on them, preach to them, criminalize them, etc.
They argue they are what they are, they were born that way, what they do is perfectly natural and innate, they should not be penalized. In fact, they want to be treated as equals, they want an end to discrimination, they want to be able to live openly and love freely, without fear.
Have I got it right?
But I wonder if they realise if it is precisely because they were born the way they are that shows something is wrong.
Not wrong as in morally wrong, religiously wrong or legally wrong. No, wrong as in biologically wrong.
I agree it’s not their fault, but can they agree they were born biologically incorrect?
Man belongs to the species of animals that procreate through sexual reproduction. Sex is for the purpose of mating to produce offspring, to ensure survival of the species. Yes, Man may pervert the purpose of sex, use it for pleasure or entertainment rather than procreation. But that does not change the biological design and intent of Nature.
To have any member of a species born sexually oriented to their own sex instead of the opposite sex surely indicates some fault. If genes are responsible for everything from the colour of our eyes to how tall we become, then is it possible that genes are also responsible for sexual orientation? And if so, would it be fair to say that gay/lesbian orientation is a genetic anomaly of some kind, like being born albino?
No one who is born with a genetic defect claims he’s normal. They may achieve great things, like Stephen Hawking. They may even overcome great odds, like Chang and Eng. But they understand that what they were born with is not desirable and not normal at all.
Given the above, one can ask:
1. Should consensual gay sex be criminalised? I think not, because if one is really born that way, it’s not one’s fault. But can you see why it should be discouraged? The lawmakers of the 19th century may not have understood the above when they criminalised gay sex, but I think it’s reasonable for them to send a message that gay sex is not right, and the only way Parliament speaks is through its laws. Why would they want to take a chance that gay sex can become an acquired taste for heterosexuals?
2. Should gay marriage be legalized? Well, marriage as an institution came about because of social norms, specifically to legitimize offspring and to recognize a man’s sexual rights over one or more women. Marriage was created to facilitate inheritance and propagate a (legitimate) family line. It is only in modern times that one sees childless marriages and marriages of convenience.
Knowing this as a background, does gay marriage make any sense? There is no possibility of naturally born children, no family line to propagate. Recognizing the sexual rights of gays amounts to society saying gay sex is right, which doesn’t follow from the above. Knowing that gay orientation is biologically wrong in the first place, why would society agree to institutionalize it through gay marriage?
3. Freedom and acceptance. Yes, gays have rights too. But I think that, if gays understand that what they are and what they do is not right biologically, they’ll be able to find greater acceptance. Ironically, the more militant they are, the more resistance they’ll find.