Subjectivity, Morality, and Sexual Identity — A Morass of Confusion
Increasingly, people are living by their guts or feelings, as opposed to attempting to reason things out. Fits the mold of the times in which we live.
In today’s world, if you feel gay, it is okay to be gay. If you were born female, but think you are male, it is okay. Ditto if you were born male but believe you are male. Morality is subjective, not objective.
What exactly will we do on the day a teenager believes he or she in reality is not human?
If when stretched to its boundaries, a belief system results in an incredulity or absurdity, such system of beliefs is rooted in feelings or irrationality. In the case of subjectivity of morality, stretched to its limits, we conclude no action in of itself is immoral, an evidently or obviously irrational conclusion.
I have nothing against gay people. I believe people feel gay for two reasons — mixing of male and female genes over time, and resulting increase in emotional or gender confusion; or spiritual connection with spirits seeking to foster homosexual or lesbian activity (this is biblical but I choose not to digress) on earth.
I love gay people. I do not believe, however, that a gay lifestyle is original plan of man’s Creator. Regardless of warnings which occur within context of Christian beliefs, gay people have a right to choose to be gay.
Gay people have a right to want to file taxes together, and a right to take care of each other as next of kin in the event a party to the relationship were to happen to fall sick. Gay people, however, have no right to seek to redefine marriage just so they can have rights every free society ought to make available to its citizens or residents. The redefinition of marriage occurring across developed countries can be likened to a decision to include a temporary permutation of an existing metal in the metal table regardless of recognition that the permutation is time sensitive and not self subsisting.
It is evident to any reasonable person that neither of homosexuality or lesbianism can, outside of science, maintain life on earth. If we allow for procreation to be via sex only, and if every person on this earth were to become homosexual or lesbian, it would take no more than about 150 years for mankind to become extinct. Marriage as defined then as “union between male and female man” is definition of how life is maintained on earth via natural means. Without any thoughts as to implications of redefinition of marriage, societies are rushing heedlessly headlong down precipice of confusion for future generations.
Do we really think a society devoid of gender identity is evolution that makes for better societies? Any thoughts in this direction are rooted in false hope.
It is presumptuous of gay people to seek to redefine marriage over a permutation of what only is the self subsisting definition of maintenance of life on earth. Marriage is not a civil institution. Marriage is recipe for life on earth. No government anywhere in the world has a right to redefine marriage.
It would have been a better solution for marriage terminology to remain domiciled within context of spirituality or religious institutions and for all governments to issue civil union certificates to all sexual unions — heterosexual, homosexual, or lesbian. That way, marriage as an institution remains exactly what it is, a spiritual phenomenon, a recognition of how life is maintained on earth.
Yet with all of this messing with eternal principles or definitions, meaningful lasting peace and joy continue to elude our societies. Even gay people experience divorce.
As dire as things seem, I see light at the end of the tunnel. I have hope then that somehow mankind is beginning to recover its way, its collective mind, and transitioning to path of true hope for the future. In the midst of the despair that is mankind’s current condition, I see a glimmer of hope that we are resetting ourselves on right paths, paths which lead to better equilibriums, paths which lead to a better future for us and future generations. I see a moving away from attraction to dystopian endings, a moving away from love for meaningless evolution — never mind the fact that when scientists play around with genes, this is creationism not evolution as there is a mind (the scientist’s) behind whatever outcome is desired or obtained.
I see confluence of good actions, right actions, noble actions creating a better present and future for us all. What I see is not false hope. It is rooted in truth, rooted in reality, rooted in evidence which while lost to some remains evident to me.