Mon., Aug. 16, 1999
"It equally amazes and amuses me that people honestly believe that the sexual 'choice' of being homosexual and marriage of the same-sex are morally and ethically OK.
It equally amazes and amuses me that -
1. You object to homosexual marriage on the grounds that gays cannot reproduce. Do you also object to heterosexual marriages in which one or both of the people involved are sterile? Do you believe that women who have experienced menopause are acting immorally or unethically if they wed? And what of heterosexuals who marry and are sexually active but avoid having children through the use of modern contraceptives? If you don't object to these marriages, you're being inconsistent. If you do object, why didn't you say so? Why did you single out homosexuals for special criticism? 2. You say that married homosexuals may not reproduce. That's not true. They may not biologically reproduce with each other, but that's a slightly different thing. Many lesbian couples chose to have a child with the help of a sperm donor - just as many heterosexual couples do when one partner is unable to produce enough sperm. Does the gender of the partner who is unable to produce the sperm on their own really matter? Why is it ethically ok when the male is deficient but immoral when it happens to be a female who is deficient? Isn't the female naturally the one who is supposed to be deficient? Explain. 3. Suppose the day comes when two lesbians may biologically reproduce thanks to advances in cloning technology. Does any marriage between them suddenly become morally OK the moment a certain technological breakthrough occurs? If so, it seems to be a very odd sort of morality which depends upon the activities not of the people directly involved but of faraway scientists who will probably never meet them. If not, why aren't you condemning in vitro fertilization which allows otherwise sterile women in heterosexual marriages to conceive today?
4. Even if homosexual couples could never reproduce, they still could
become parents through adoption. Should the morality of their parenting
be judged on the basis of their physiology? I don't believe you can
possibly be saying that all wedded heterosexual parents are moral and ethical
merely because they are wedded and heterosexual. Are you really saying
that all homosexuals are condemned to be immoral parents simply because
they are homosexual? Why?
5. Your letter suggests that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad. Do you believe everything unnatural is bad? Airplanes? Antibiotics? The wearing of pants? Women who shave their armpits? If not, what makes the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality so special? It seems to me a better case can be made that airplanes are immoral. After all, I've never heard of two men engaged in sex crashing into a city and killing hundreds of people.
6. Actually, I don't believe you'd find many biologists who would
agree with you that homosexuality is unnatural. As I understand
it, the habits of our close cousins, the chimpanzees, would shock you.
And I dare not mention all those creatures for whom the murder of a mate
is an intrinsic part of the sex act. Or the wasp that lays its eggs
in the body of a caterpillar so that they may hatch and eat the caterpillar
alive without benefit of clergy. If what you're saying, in
part, is that whatever is natural is good, moral, and/or ethical, I'm afraid
you're one sick puppy
7. Whether nature is good or bad, it is a moving target. Nature is more a process than a thing. Over time, it is a process which has given birth to many, many different and often contradictory things. Sex itself was quite "unnatural" in the world of amoebic fission in which it first evolved. Did the amoebas protest with letters to the paper? Not that I know of. Is there something to be learned from this? Discuss.
8. I discovered a long time ago that it's very, very difficult to
make meaningful distinctions between natural and unnatural.
That word unnatural is just too slippery. It is better to
avoid it altogether and replace it with one of two other words: supernatural
or man-made. Obviously you're not objecting to homosexual
marriage because it is supernatural - right? So: Perhaps you are
objecting to it because it is man-made. And I'll interpret that in
the best way possible: You think homosexuality is an artificial, human
practice which is much inferior to "natural" heterosexuality. To
which I have two things to say: 1) What makes you a much better judge here
than the people directly involved? And 2) It seems that the difference
between "man-made" homosexuality and "natural" heterosexuality
9. No, I'm not gay. I'm just naturally idiotphobic. 10. Sorry. That was uncalled for, as were some of my other remarks. I'm so ashamed.... 11. But at least I know better than to embarrass myself by sharing 'em with a newspaper that would probably just make them seem ten times worse with poor editing. 12. So: What say we just kiss and make up in private like self-assured heterosexuals sometimes do? Please?
13. OK, OK - settle down! I just suggested that because
that's what Romans 16:16, First Corinthians 16:20, Second Corinthians 13:12,
First Thessalonians 5:26, and First Peter 5:14 says we should do!
Geez! There's just no getting along with some people!!
|
Back To A Simpler Past Go On - Feel Free To Screw Around
|
(All Material Apart From The ACTUAL, UNRETOUCHED Letter Reproduced Verbatim At The Top Of This Spew ©1999 by Dan Birtcher in a vain attempt to forget this is the 22nd anniversary of the death of Elvis) |