Apologia

When one sleeps on a thing, one sometimes comes to new conclusions. I've been thinking about al this sexual orientation "debate" progressing on a few of these blogs, and I think i've done myself a disservice.

The rational approach and the responsible approach, I think, would be to make an attempt at educating those whose experiences have not succeeded in doing so. I have long been fascinated by Socrates' method of asking question and analogizing the answers to mundane topics, so I'll try to entertain this approach.

First, both posters claim that homosexuality is chosen. A choice is an opportunity for an individual to determine which of two or more outcomes they prefer and subsequently incept that outcome. If given a choice, then,would one choose an outcome which will benefit them or injure them? If one must remove a hot pan from the oven, would one choose the outcome of burning themselves or sparing themselves the burn? One would choose to spare the burn, thus employing a potholder for the sparing. If one must venture out in a blizzard, would one choose the outcome of hypothermia or warmth? One would choose warmth, and thus employ a coat in the warming. If one falls ill and a doctor is available, would one choose the outcome of remaining ill or being healed? One would chose to be made well, and thus employ the doctor in the healing. Thus, if one could choose the outcome of between being accepted by society or being ridiculed by it, would one choose acceptance or ridicule? One would choose acceptance, of course, and thus employ heterosexuality for the purpose of being accepted.

Of course, sometimes people do get burned, suffer hypothermia, or remain ill. Hoever, these occurr when said outcome cannot be avoided; only when one cannot choose the beneficial outcome, as one naturally would, must one suffer the deleterious. If one suffers ridicule, then clearly they suffer it because they could not make the choice to avoid it. Thus, if homosexuality will necessarily meet with ridicule, as Melodi claims the homosexual must reasonably anticipate, then it can be logically assumed that the homosexual does not have the choice to reasonably avoid it.

Both posters, in asserting tht homosexuality is a choice, claim to have knowledge of th nature of homosexuality. If one seeks knowledge of the nature of musicianship, is one best served consulting the musician or the audience? The musician, of course, as the musician experiences the the being of a musician while the audience merely observes him existing. If one seeks knowledge of hte nature of femaleness, does one cnsult the man or the woman? The woman; while the man may observe the femaleness of the woman from without, the woman experiences her femaleness from wthin. the And if one seks kowledge of the nature of the democrat, is one best served consulting the democratic party member or the republican? The democrat, certainly; while both are aware of one another, only the democrat can speak with experiential knowledge on being a democrat.

Thus, if one seeks knowledge of the nature of homosexuality, does one consult the homosexual or the heterosexual? The homosexual experiences homosexuality while the heterosexual only observes it, thus the homosexual is the greater authority.

By "disagreeing" with homosexuality, both posters imply that there is something wrong with it, and I suppose this is a conflict of definition. Some people have claimed that homosexuality is wrong because the purpose of sex is to create children. Let us question this as well, in the style of the old sage, so that we might come to a greater understanding of intention.

It could be said, then, that the purpose of sex organs is to create children, to the exclusion of all others. What is the purpose of feet? One could answer that the purpose of feet is to transport the body. And the purpose of a garden hose? One could answer that the purpose of the garden hose is to provide water for gardening and washing one's car. And the purpose of a book or magazine? To convey ideas in printed form to the reader.

Thus, if applying the sex organs for any use beyond the creation of children, one could logically surmise that the playing of soccer or the recieving of a pedicure is wrong because both apply the feet to a purpose other that transportation. Children running through the spray of a garden hose would be wrong because they apply the garden hose to a purpose other than wtering the garden or washing the car. And seating a child on a telephone book so that sh can see over the dinner table or covering one's head with a magazine in a rainstorm is wrong, because both apply a book or magazine to a purpose other than the communiction of ideas in print form. If we do not criminalize such uses for being outside the stated purpose of the object, we cannot reasonably criminalize homosexuality for ppying the sex organs to a use other than the creation of children.

Another reason that many cite for homosexuality being wrong is that it runs contrary to the law of the christian god. As there are many religions throughout the world and many varieties of adherence, let us consider the question, if one does not adhere to one institution, but to another, is one doing wrong by acting in a way that the non-adherent institution condemns? Consider the institution of sports. Soccer condemns any player but the goalie for touching the ball with the hands, thus would a football player be equally wrong for handling the ball with the hands? Of course not; the rules of football,to which the rules of soccer do not apply, permit the player to handle the ball with their hands, and in fact would do offense to those others playing football. Consider too the institution of traffic law. In Great Britain, it is wrong for a motorist to drive on the right-hand side of the road; thus would the motorist in Casper be equally wrong for driving on the right-hand side? In fact, one who drives ont he left hand side of a Casper road would endanger many lives, regardless of the laws of Great Britain. Finally, consider the institution of laws pertaining to dogs. In Casper, one is required to attach a collar and leash to their dog if one is taking hte dog out in public. Is it wrong, then, to take one's wife out in public without first dressing her in a leash? I have no doubt that the very idea of leashing one's wife is highly offensive to a women's studies class, as it would be to most wives; thus, a the institution that applies its laws to dogs cannot rightly be applied to women.

Thus, if a homosexual does not adhere to an institution which condemns homosexuality, but rather to one which promotes consensual love, is his same-sex relationship wrong by virtue of the non-subscribed ruleset, or right by virtue of the subscribed and inoffensive to those others who so subscribe? The same-sex relationship, pursuant to said institution, would be in the right, and its condemnation would be wrong and offensive to the institution that supports it.

Still another condemnation of homosexuality is the idea that children will grow up to be homosexuals if they witness homosexuality. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the same sex relationship, of itself and defrocked of the implications of social rejection, is unilaterally undesirable for a child's future. Thus the question is: will an adult inevitably imitate all those behaviors which he witnesses as a child? Consider the child raised on a horse ranch. Will the child, necessarily and definitely, grow into an adult that rides horses, or one that is aware and knowledgable that some people ride horses? The adult may or may not ride horses, but he will necessarily and definitely be aware and knowledgable that some people ride horses. Consider too the child who is raised among smokers. Will the child, necessarily and definitely, grow into an adult that smokes, or one that is aware and knowledgable of the fact that some people smoke? He may or may not smoke as an adult, but will necessarily and definitely be aware that some people smoke. Finally, consider the child who is raised in a hospital, possibly for the treatment of a long-term illness. Will the child necessarily and definitely, grow into an adult that practices medecine, or one that is aware and knowledgable of the fact that some people practice medecine? He may or may not practice medecine, but there is no doubt that he will be aware and knowledgable that some people practice medecine.

If a child is raised among homosexuals, will he, necessarily and definitely, grow into an adult that is homosexual, or one that is aware and knowledgable that some people are homosexuals? He may or may not become a homosexual adult, but he will necessarily and definitely become a person who is aware and knowledgable that some people are homosexuals.

Conversely, if a child is raised exclusively around heterosexuals, will the child necessarily and definitely grow into an adult that is heterosexual, or one that is aware and knowledgable that some people are heterosexual? Again, while he may or may not be heterosexual, he will know that some people are. Consider as proof the thousands of homosexuals who never in their childhood encountered a homosexual, but nonetheless end up homosexual. Clearly, it cannot be said that one will necessarily and definitely assume the roles in adulthood that one witnessed in childhood, but instead develop an awareness and knowledge of those lifestyles. Thus, the fear that children who witness homosexuality will become homosexuals is invalid.

In these pages, I have successfully disproven many of the assertions made by those who condemn homosexality, by way of the logical methods of Socrates, long-lauded for his methodology. We have determined that sexuality cannot logically be a choice, that using one's sex organs for the purpose of same-sex enjoyment is no more right or wrong than using them for the purpose of procreation, that one institution's laws regarding homosexuality do not necessarily apply to those that do not subscribe to that institution,and that exposure to homosexualis will not inevitably convert a child to homosexuality. There are counltess other arguments against homosexuality, and I will be happy to similarly disprove any of them.

In some ways I feel apologetic for some of my previous posts. The apology,though, is not rooted so strongly in the possible offense these posts might have incurred against those with whom I do not agree, but more strongly in the offense I have shown myself. Ultimately, as always historically occurrs, the illogical assertions of the oppressing body must, necessarly and definitely, eventually be eradicated by the logical demonstrations of careful intellect. I have done myself wrong by presenting that side of me which viciously abhorrs unjustified hatred in lieu of that side which most effectively can negate that hatred. Rather than scathe those persons who fail to fully consider their opinions before expressing them, as I so gracelessly have, the above is my attempt to eradicate these opinions fom sensible thought by emloying the sensible, as has always served me well in the past. To attack offense with offense can only be as effective as attacking an insane asylum with a banana; thus I will endeavour to refrain from it in the future.

I urge anyone who reads this: approach your opinions in this manner. Think through them. Challenge them rigorously for yourself, so that when you express them, you can do so confidently and intelligently. Do not do yourself the same disservice tha tI did, expressing emotion in the guise of thought to the detriment of all. Whatever your opinion, make sure it is an intelligent one.