Nature Vs Government
By James Baxter
Q: "Can government validate what nature does not?"
The priority of ideas and behavior is what this disagreement is all about. The rule of the mind - or its submission to carnal, unnatural priorities, appetites, choices, and behavior - and their unhealthy consequences.
Nature, itself, invalidates homosexual actions for there is neither mechanistic justification nor optional validation by consent under the laws of nature. [Often referred to by some as "a Darwinian dead-end."] To state otherwise is to give a perverse and simpleton voice to glands - not to powers of reason and its implicit tools of criteria and standards; tools which equip the human family with the ability to measure and anticipate consequences and thereby avoid some choices and choose others conducive to the healthy results of survival and progression.
The rule of the glands prioritizes such appetites at the expense of the kingdom of the mind and its inevitable recession as evidenced in every society of history past.
Should a branch of government attempt to validate what nature itself does not? Does "government criteria" equip us with the wisdom of vision for future generations? Lacking standards and their enablement, can we recognize - with foresight - the regression of our environment as thinking/choicemaking beings? Nature and History say, "No." Instead, we will become throw-back creatures of an insatiable, grunting, lascivious, and unnatural conduct.
Can anyone doubt that homosexuals, even in defining themselves primarily by their sexual appetite, reveal an unbalanced obsession with the carnal rather than the mental? Such desires can and do distort perception and judgment; principles and standards have minor or non- meaning for a those whose decisions are dominated by physical appetites triggered by glandular secretions -- not ideas.
In homosexuality, civilization rightly sees the threat of an anti-standards, anti-mind, anti-survival perversion of human nature. Seen against the background of history and nature, terms like "deviant,' "perverse," "weird," and "aberrant," are not epithets, then, but appropriate descriptions of homosexual behavior. Calling a homosexual "gay" is, in fact, an inhumane act, for it substitutes a platitude for the first requirement of healing such psychological cripples: objective recognition of their condition.
Additionally, many of today's psychiatrists have unscientifically finalized and capitulated to an illness they have ignorantly misunderstood; mis-applying a public confession of inadequacy and accomodation for sound diagnosis, treatment, relief and cure. Recall that "True science knows No Final Answers - only on-going questions."
Human experience is a kingdom of the mind and standards are its tools of measure and foresight. The public has the right and the obligation to set those standards and and to reject the abnormal and aberrant in the interest of posterity. On the larger loom of history, the struggle we are engaged in is but one more between the thoughtfully rational and civilized and the carnal barbarian. Nature is speaking with its constant and authoritative voice. Our temporary elected representatives would do well to pay attention.
We will, as citizens, teachers, and parents, continue to be attentive to that voice and maintain our transcendent support to 'the man of the mind' -- and of the spirit.