Disagreement on homosexuality

Reno resident Bill Hamma is a graduate of the University of Nevada, Reno, with degrees in political science and public administration. He is now retired.

Is Jimmy Boegle appointing himself spokesman for the whole world? In an August editorial, he wrote that Question 2 [a Nevada ballot question that promoted legislation to limit the legal definition of marriage] was “hateful by any standards.” Since 70 percent of Nevada voters didn’t find it hateful, we should consider why.

First, it is true that homosexuality is not voluntary, and the politically correct theory is that it is genetic. This is certainly an argument for dealing sympathetically with homosexuals, but not for accepting the condition as either normal or desirable. Hemophilia, a disease that prevents blood from clotting normally, is also genetic.

Next, consider how the homophiles have escalated their demands. They began by saying we shouldn’t be judgmental about their lifestyle, which would be reasonable if all they were asking for was the right to live their private lives as they see fit. However, when they make demands like recognition of their marriages, this necessarily involves making the judgment that homosexuality is acceptable. If we, as a society, have a right to make that judgment, we have an equal right to decide the other way, and we should.

In 1933, J.D. Unwin published Sex and Culture in England. Unwin, not a religious person, studied a number of civilizations, ancient and modern, and found that no civilization could sustain both great achievement and sexual licentiousness for more than a generation. The apparent reason is that the achievements of civilization are to a large extent the result of a transmuted sexual energy. Writer George Orwell, also not a religious person, was aware of this; in one of his essays, he said that no society could survive without demanding a high standard of sexual morality from its members.

Therefore, marriage receives legal protection because of its importance in preserving and continuing civilization. The legal benefits that husband and wife receive are simply means to that end, not an end in themselves. The proponents of homosexual marriage—and those who want the same benefits for heterosexual cohabitation—are, in effect, demanding that we reward them for attacking the foundations of our civilization!

The homophiles don’t make their demands easier to take by their behavior, either. They demand the right to shove their sexuality in everyone’s faces, and then scream, “Hate!” when others express their disgust. While they demand every freedom for themselves, they sue the Boy Scouts, a private organization, attacking their freedom to set their own membership requirements. The American Psychological Association has condemned curing homosexuality, as is now possible in at least some cases. Some homophiles are so brazen that they want to deprive other homosexuals of the freedom to be cured.

I believe this topic needs discussion, and I will welcome intelligent disagreement. However, if the responses are on the level I expect—name-calling and screams of "Hate!"—I’ll point out that such behavior is no argument.