Q. Ummm… Have to admit I was not expecting that kind of logic.
A. Well we can also look at why homosexuality is anti-natural from the effects or consequences perspective.
Q. Let’s hear it.
A. Ok. So. Statistically speaking and keeping all things constant, children living with a biological father and a biological mother tend to be bettermembers of society (than children who don’t). “Better” meaning they have lower chances of ending up in poverty, they are more likely to get a better education, they are less likely to be violent or criminals, they are better adept at dealing with members of the opposite sex, etc. Marriage (heterosexualmarriage is a redundancy… but that’s quickly dying…) is the only social institution that ensures a child grows up – or at least has a higher chance of growing up – in such a family.
Secondly, because homosexual unions and transsexual unions are by default not open to procreation, then the entire focus of the couple is themselves. Even when the couple decide to adopt a child, they do so not because of the child, but because it makes them “feel complete” (as individuals or as a “family”). Homosexual unions champion the “feelings rights” of adults at the expense of “growing-up rights” of children.
Please note I use the phrase “feelings rights” –
Q. Exactly! I was going to ask you what that is all about… Why not just use "romantic rights”?
A. Well the Greeks distinguished three kinds of love and had three different words for these three kinds of love. In English we lump them all into one: “love”. And because language naturally has an effect on thinking, we naturally tend not to distinguish these three uses of "love": “I love chicken!”, “I love soccer!” and “I love you!”
Q. We'll have to explore that part for "...language naturally has an effect on thinking..." some time. Sounds interesting. But continue...
A. The Greeks distinguished the three.
First they had “eros”. Originally it referred to something that pulled us from the outside rather than pushed us from the inside. It was attractive e.g. the love of a person, the love of art, the love of philosophy, the love of a good life. All that was eros.
Then came Freud. Freud changed eros into the “erotic”. Then erosmeant sexy. And this then became the modern understanding of love. The Greeks never intended that that kind of love should so degenerate. And the new erotic love takes the fig-leaf that once used to be put in Greek sculpture over the secret parts of man and woman, and it puts it over the face, so that the person is not loved, but only the experience. You drink the water, you forget the glass.
Q. Haha!
To be continued...
21stSeptember 2017