Leviticollision

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"(Lev. 18:22)

The above verse speaks for itself. I need not clarify nor introduce it, for it is apparent our topic of discussion is homosexuality. Before we delve into this issue allow me to provide the reader with autobiographical information that should serve as a backdrop for my argument.

The Houn is genderless, and as such, has no personal experience in regards to this subject. I have never felt the sexual desire, nor passion, nor love. And though my enemies would claim this disqualifies any opinion I may have, the reader may guess I disagree. In fact, I know that asexuality affords me a unique vantage point no sexual being possess. I am impartial. In every subject I am right; however, my enemies ought to be more convinced by my rightness since I take neither side. Let us be done with this business and address the issue itself.

It is pertinent to present this issue in the form of an argument containing points, counter points, etc; particularly because I see myself as a mediator between two sides that I will not hesitate to summarize using impartial labels:

Group 1: Homosexuality is a perversion of God's original intention and should not be condoned in our society.

Group 2: Homosexuality is an inherited trait part of our biology and should recognized and respected in society.

Now, there are many subsets of these sides that attempt to blur the lines with rationality and diplomacy, but they are of no matter. This is the reality of public rhetoric as it stands today. A conversation between these two groups usually functions as follows:

Group 2: We would like you to recognize our rights.

Group 1: No.

Group 2: No seriously, we really would like to be able to marry each other.

Group 1: No, not allowed. God says so.

Group 2: [Expletives]

Group 1: [Something about fire and brimstone]

Group 2: [Organizes a political rally that functions as a veritable anger-festival]

Group 1: [Recites "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"; connects homosexual acts to natural disasters]

The conversation devolves from here. This fight has raged for all time, or at least as long as I can remember, which is as good as forever. And, let us be clear: I did not start this fight. In usual fashion, we must deconstruct both sides to excavate the real truth.

There is an archaic air about Group 1. I am a champion of things long dead. Resurrection of old testament law appeals to my iron sensibilities. Moreover, forcing my beliefs upon others using civil/military authority is a pastime of mine. However, in this case that action is illogical for one simple reason: We must not discourage the wrong actions of others when that wrong action dictates their own erase. Allowing homosexuals to marry would amount to less children with the genetic predisposition for homosexuality. Over time, there would be none left. [Say what you will of adoption and surrogate mothers; these practices will merely slow the process]. If Group 1 really wanted to remove homosexuality from society as a sin, they would let it extinguish itself.

The prime dispute I hold with Group 2 is that they have created their own problem. If at this very moment I declared people whose favorite color is orange to be a minority and lobbied for them, I could call it a civil rights movement. Moreover, I could created my own enemy simply by annoying them. I could shout on street corners and be so loud as to force the middle ground to take a stand. And of course, they would stand against me because I would be incredibly irritating. This is Group 2's quagmire.   If they really wanted rights they could have them in an instance, simply be attaining them stealthily. Instead, they demand the surrender of the opposition as a condition of their victory.

I have hinted at the solution underlying this problem. Both sides can claim victory. Homosexuals can marry. Group 1 can work toward their world without sin. However, in the end, this argument isn't about solving a problem. It is about argument for the sake of argument. It is about yelling atop your lungs with fury. It is about acts of violence and annoying pop singers who wear audacious costumes. It is theatre. And, in truth, neither side can bare for it to end. Debate will only end when one side sounds the death knell with a faint sign and a few words: "This bores me..."

Far be it from be to spoil the fun.
Calhoun out.