I wrote this as part of a comment to a post on Facebook regarding the Indiana RFPA and it spurred a thought:
“The rabid anti-religionists scream this is intolerance when what they are actually campaigning for in their rage-hate is acceptance. Tolerance is allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. Acceptance is to believe or come to recognize something as valid or correct. Christian belief requires tolerance of the existence of homosexuality, it does not demand acceptance, therefore opposition to the gay lifestyle or gay marriage isn’t “hate”, it is principle. A business refusing to cater a gay wedding is not “hating gays”, it is acting on its owner’s principles. The minute people are forced to abandon their beliefs simply because another group wants to legitimize a certain behavior, we are no longer free.”
The thought was this: do societies have the right to reject people or behaviors inconsistent with the goals or good health of that society?
A person’s race is a matter of genetics. No one can become white or black or stop being either as a matter of choice – race is not behavior. It may be true that a gay person is “born that way” but the physical manifestation of homosexuality (gay unions) has been determined by the majority of societies in history to be counterproductive to the goals of those societies and have shunned or banned that particular disposition. One must consider the possibility the rejection of homosexuality has more to do with nature than religion.
The most primary goal of a society is the continuation and furtherance of that society through reproduction (that is actually a goal of the all living things) – that is how membership in society is replaced and expanded. Since it is impossible in nature for human same sex couples to procreate, this coupling was rejected by societies as unhelpful in achieving that primary goal. It appears that this is less a “religious” judgment per se, it seems to be a functional decision based on human biology.
I am basing this line of reasoning on natural evolutionary biology – I am NOT making the argument that the members of the LGBT community have no contribution to make to society as individuals. I am addressing the “institution” of homosexuality and its failure in a natural procreative perspective.
It seems somewhat selective that the same ideology supporting the mainstreaming of homosexuality also is a staunch believer in evolution. Given the reality of natural human biology and viewed intellectually and dispassionately, it is a scientific fact that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end and as a result will always be a minority deviation in the history of human evolution – yet they choose to ignore their own logic and blame religion rather than nature for the rejection of homosexuality.
That brings us back to my original question: do societies have the right to reject or discourage aspects not productive to their ends and promote or encourage aspects that do?
I would argue that they do.
The common assertion the LGBT community makes is that they are “born that way” and because of that, homosexuality is the same as race. While being “born this way” may be true, it must also be recognized that this is the same argument being made to pursue normalization and societal acceptance of pedophilia. I want to be clear – I am NOT equating homosexuality with pedophilia. I am simply noting that if every behavior must be accepted on the basis that a person is “born that way”, society would necessarily have to accept pedophiles and their behavior as unquestionable and unassailable.
Yet society doesn’t accept all behaviors. It deems pedophilia as a deviant and socially damaging behavior. It is also important to note that being a pedophile is not illegal, acting on that impulse is – the behavior is considered illegitimate, not the individual. From a purely philosophical perspective, isn’t a homosexual person who rejects pedophilia actually legitimizing discrimination by saying “my deviation from society is acceptable but yours isn’t?”
Viewed from a purely biological perspective, race and being gay are not equivalent. Eliminating racism is a valid goal because interracial heterosexual couples are capable of supporting the procreative goal of society, something no homosexual couple can do; therefore, it is plausible that while a society may recognize the LGBT community as a natural minority and tolerate it, it may also choose not to accept the homosexual lifestyle.
It is an unassailable fact that humans adapt to and recognize natural laws as a mechanism for the survival and prospering of the species. Those of us who believe in God believe that He is, as Jefferson wrote, “Nature and Nature’s God” and His laws are the same natural laws designed as a road map for the survival and prospering of the human species. Whether one believes in the existence of God or simply in Nature, it seems that both have established a similar position on homosexuality – that it will exist in a minority of the species and it will always remain a deviant minority because it has no procreative value.
Those who choose to attack Christianity for its position do so in opposition to these natural facts. They fail to realize that the tolerance and inclusion of Christianity (love the sinner, hate the sin) is a far kinder approach than that of the natural world where dead branches of the Tree of Life are summarily discarded.