Good morning Colonel,
Consider the argument below as proof that there is no "gay" gene. Additionally, even if there such a thing, it is still no excuse for homosexual behavior.
Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation, as officially defined by the APA, is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of any mentally healthy, adult human being.
If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.
If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.
As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual
and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)
By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., HutchinsonGilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.
Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.
All voluntary behavior is subject to legal restriction within the constraints of our Constitution. Therefore, unless there is a claim that that homosexual behavior is a Constitutionally protected right, it is subject to lawful control, especially in the military.
Additionally, even if it were successfully alleged to be a Constitutional right such as is "freedom of speech," it is still subject to constraint, e.g., one has no freedom of speech to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, military members are not legally allowed to make publicly "disparaging remarks" about, nor hold up to ridicule, elected officials.
To: Lucky Dog
I always start with the baseline: biology. At its core, sex is for reproduction, to ensure the survival of the species, and NO two men, nor ANY two women, can naturally conceive a child. That makes homosexual sex abnormal by its very nature. The moral and religious arguments start with that baseline: if it’s abnormal, but you do it anyway, you’ve got to have chosen to do it, and for some reason other than biology. The choice carries consequences - unfortunately, those who continue to insist it’s not a choice have won this round.
posted on 12/27/2010 8:39:32 AM PST
("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson