A very strong (if not impenetrable) argument might be made that members of the LGBTQIA+ community are suffering from illness or, scientifically speaking, some kind of disorder — the latter being true by definition for the fact that each lifestyle represents not only an obvious departure from the natural course of the species, a course necessary for its very survival, but a lifestyle that would have never been possible if not for others specifically rejecting them in favor of procreation and pair bonding.
While this is not necessarily a criticism of any individual’s personal preferences, it is to show that our species has survived, and will continue to survive, through that same kind of rejection; there is no other option.
And while that language may seem harsh to those with deviant sexual preferences, the ‘rejection’ is not a rejection of the sexual deviant as a person but squarely the rejection of any claim which seeks to normalize a set of sexual preferences which cannot be universalized.
Of course, this is not to suggest that individuals ought to be forced, compelled, or considered obligated to follow said ‘course’ — as people are, of right, free to make their own decisions so long as they are not violating the non-aggression principle. However, this also does not mean that we cannot be honest in simply identifying disorders and expressing disagreement or disapproval toward said preferences, especially where their universalization threatens the end of our species.
Clearly, well before the point of universalization, there would, of necessity, come a time where the species would have to acknowledge the trends and the threats, social as well as psychological. In the event that the species were approaching (or on track toward) universalization of sexual deviation (or “sociopathic personality disorder”) — homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, asexuality, et cetera — the species would be fast approaching its self-imposed extinction.
As such, regardless of politics and prejudices, regardless of preferences and feelings, there would inevitably come a time to say and do something in the simple interest of pragmatism; in an effort to curb these kinds of lifestyle choices, if not on spiritual or religious grounds then at least for the sake of continuing the human species. Where we can find some mutual understanding at least around this particular concern, we might then stand a chance at reaching some understanding around the other principles of the matter, not least the reasons why sexual matters, in general, are best kept private and sacred.
We might then begin to reach a mutual understanding around the Scripture which instructs, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God…. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” However, as the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Just as Jesus Christ told the adulterous woman whom He protected (per the Gospel of John), the important part in this is to “go, and from now on sin no more”; for “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
It appears unlikely, however, that we will reach any mutual understanding anytime soon, especially given the murderous rage on display throughout the country from the unwashed, the unrepentant, and the incorrigible who compensate for their lack of wisdom with a distinct lack of humanity; all of this indicating not only a distinct disinterest in bringing children into the world, but also a rabid appetite for eliminating them and their parents — as evidenced by so many vocal members of the transgender (or “trans”) community, the proponents of abortion, the assassination of a Christian father of two, Charlie Kirk (by a skoliosexual/trans-partnered assassin), and the cheers and celebrations among the LGBTQIA+ community following his death. None of this is particularly promising, considering not only the moral implications but, once again, the further practical implications for the course of our species.
Comments
Post a Comment