I have a problem with this reasoning in one respect. The two corollaries I point to are found in literature and life. The first is the character of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. This individual, when faced with starvation, false accusation and total annihilation, opts to steal a pair of candlesticks from the Catholic Church. The argument from the constable is that he is irredeemable and needs to be incarcerated forever. However, it is clear that this man is noble even heroic but that circumstances beyond his control, imposed by a draconian society have led him to this. The second is the young black man in America. Faced with little prospects, double the unemployment, no food, no hope and a wrenching despair that spans decades, he turns to violence or theft. Does this mean that all young black men are violent or thieves? I am not sure. I'd like to hope that even the most loyal of dogs, when cornered will show teeth and resort to less than polite behavior when given no alternatives.
We as a society, for centuries, have told a significant portion of our population that their behavior is unacceptable. Whether it is socialized or natural, it hasn't mattered. We have made that decision. In a sense, we have forced what seems natural to them, into the sewer, the underground, the darkness. Are we to feign surprise when they act on their behaviors in the sewer, the underground and the darkness? Aren't we in a sense, calling the effect the cause in this instance? Aren't we reaping what we ourselves have sown and aren't we adding insult to injury when we tell them that their behavior in the darkness which we cast upon them IS the very reason we have cast them into the darkness. Would that any of us might rise above this circular logic after decades and centuries of externally imposed self-loathing.
An example of this is the Catholic priest. In the repression of the 1950’s a young single man with no predilection for marrying a female or living a lie was offered no opportunity but to become a priest, it was the only occupation beyond suspicion where a single man could go. It was a “higher calling”. It was a way to mask the self loathing society had thrust upon him in a cloak of communal respect. But it wasn't a cure, solution or road to happiness. The condition remained beneath the vestments and the repression continued. What some chose to do was wrong but are we to be surprised given the dead end course, we as a society set them on, that some ended up where they did?
These are some things we need to think about.
We certainly do not treat other less fortunate parts of our society with the same pariah status from such a young age.
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.