Jean Valjean is an example of when laws are not just and go against nature. Cicero is the one that stated that laws that go against Natural Law and God’s Law are unjust. (This was way before Christianity, by the way.) Valjean was not defying nature at all, on the contrary, so I don’t get your analogy there.
My problem is that happiness (pursuit of virtue—Founders knew that happiness could not occur without virtue) can never exist if you go against Natural Law. Where that begins is the natural right of a baby to have a caring biological mother and father. Anything else is not optimal for the emotional health of that child. It goes back to the philosophical questions such as, “Who am I?”
The lack of material wealth does not lead one to become immoral. The formative years of a child is when you either instill character and morality, or don’t. The current black families are swimming against Natural Law—single, unwed mothers, which causes children to be given no direction, no morals. Those things are learned, like all behaviors and behaviors have to be modeled.
The current out-of-wedlock black families proves what happens when laws go against nature and reward immorality. Welfare legislation has promoted unnatural living arrangements and destroyed black families and their future—their children.
I know of many black (and white) people who have suffered great poverty who have excelled in life without having to resort to crime or immorality.
Most cultures throughout the history of the world have not condemned homosexual activity nor encouraged monogamous marriage, so we have examples of what happens in those type of situations. Great inequity and slavery abounds! Anywhere homosexuality becomes rampant and admired, pederasty is involved. “This older man would educate the youth in the ways of Greek life and the responsibilities of adulthood, and he would also take the boy as his lover.” Homosexuality is learned; it is a gender identity problem caused by abnormal situations in a child’s life. Many studies validate this and only modern progressive writers dispute this with propaganda and “feelings”, rather than with scientific truth.
To learn that behavior, you have to abuse a boy. To advocate homosexuality, is to advocate child abuse. A civil society could never condone that behavior.
Why do you think NAMBLA has their motto? Why does Kevin Jennings advocate books that have kindergarten boys practicing sex acts on each other? I’ve raised four boys and say that is unnatural and sick, destructive behavior. Why have the priests who were guilty of molesting boys, talked about their childhood molestation? The “gay gene” doesn’t exist, just like the baby-raping gene. People who rape babies were severely abused when they were young; it is absurd to say they were born with a baby raping gene.
My bottom line: I can not condone a lifestyle that abuses children and models for them a nihilistic, destructive lifestyle.
I have seen some plausible studies that have shown that through successive depletion of hormones in the womb after multiple male births, the successive male children, robbed of the same hormones as the first few become more likely to grow up homosexual. Is this the case? Possibly. But if it were at least a contributing factor then one could not say definitively that all homosexuality is nurture nor that all homosexuality is choice.
The Catholic Church could shed light on this. With generations of records on their priests, if the younger male children in largely male families become priests, that would be consistent with the vocation as sanctuary argument throughout western civilization. My hypothesis would be that there would be a preponderance of younger male children from large families who joined the priesthood. That would provide some anthropological evidence to support the new biological studies, perhaps going back centuries.
Your comments are crafted to fit your opinion. They are indeed well written but totally self serving. Even the exceptions you point out are only there to further support your foregone conclusion...not a hint of variance. Bravo on your commitment but honestly, it doesn't develop the discourse much. I mean really, what is “Natural Law”? Is it so different than “Divine Right”? Both are man made constructs who's very definitions are dreamed up to serve either Straight man or crown to the exclusion of others.
Those same founders that we ensconce in a pantheon of righteousness were vilified in their own time as going against the natural order and the divine right of kings. Did they somehow know more or were they obstinate traitors who happened to prevail? Are blacks 3/5 human or was that just the natural order of things during the first half of the 19th century.
These things you see as concrete may just be sands that slide away as you do, forgotten curious arguments lost to the history of the 21st century and as quaint as the idea of a large turtle holding up the globe.
All behaviors are not learned. We have ample evidence of that. Twins separated at birth who grow up thousands of miles apart come together after many years only to find that certain character traits are identical even though they have never been in each others conscious presence. We know this to have been documented. How can you present a table as argument when the legs which support it can be kicked out so easily? Suggested as theory I find totally acceptable but cast in stone as your words attempt, does a disservice to the truth. And if one truth is not served, how can we believe that others are justly represented through your prose?
Finally, and of course, is your Horatio Alger reference, the exception that virtue against insurmountable odds is always present in the heroic as if to say that all who do not surmount the insurmountable are either weak of discipline, mind or character. There is always that exception...”if you just tried harder, it's your own fault.”
In the end homosexuality is not vampirism. It does not get passed on exclusively through the bite of another homosexual in an abusive act as you would have us believe. Some homosexuals are from perfectly “normal” loving, two parent households, raised in propriety and civil decency, well educated, active in sports, the boy scouts, altar boys, military, business school etc etc. and yet still without a sliver of abuse, they find they are homosexual. Was this behavior learned? Are these people vile and debased? Or are they the younger sons in a large predominantly male family growing up in an age when becoming a priest is no longer the only place to hide?
We should at least open our eyes to the 1% or more possibility that alternate paths to the present do exist. Surely you can see that.