LETTERTO THE EDITOR
Published: Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Updated: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 15:11
To the Editor:
In his response to my earlier letter, Mr. Jim Steele raised a few objections to the reasons demonstrating the moral evil of LGBTQ relations. Additionally, the two-fold purpose of my letter also caused some confusion in Mr. Steele’s mind. The first part of the letter laid out how tolerance is not the absolute good that society makes it out to be. It is a means to an end, namely the common good. Tolerating something implies that it is unpleasant or even evil. Good things are not unpleasant, and by their nature cannot be evil. So it should be abundantly clear, as I said before, that you never need to tolerate a good thing—you accept it gladly. You only tolerate evils for the sake of a greater good, or in face of a greater evil i.e. society tolerates divorce (an evil) for the sake of preventing a spouse from possibly murdering the other (a greater evil).
Regarding LGBTQ relations, Mr. Steele asserts my argument was based on an “essential unfounded assumption” that individuals engaging in LGBTQ relations are seeking pleasure and emotional satisfaction as the primary goal of sex. Considering natural heterosexual intercourse, the only apparent goods are A) children, B) physical pleasure, and C) emotional satisfaction. LGBTQ relations are completely incapable of producing children naturally, which leaves only two possibilities: physical pleasure and emotional satisfaction. Thus, the original assumption is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from natural experience. It is interesting that Mr. Steele was unable to propose any alternative motives for engaging in LGBTQ relations other than those listed in my supposedly unfounded assumption. There is nothing wrong with two men or two women being friends, but there is no reason why sexual relations should be essential to such a friendship.
Mr. Steele paraphrases me stating that LGBTQ individuals are irrational and unnatural people. To be clear, an irrational and unnatural person is simply one who intentionally and habitually acts irrationally and in a way contrary to nature. If you open any human anatomy book and turn to the reproductive organs section, you will find that these organs are in fact for reproducing (surprise?). The human mind is quite capable of discerning the purpose of these organs, just as it can see that ears are for hearing, and eyes are for seeing. Thus, to use these organs in a way contrary to their clear natural purpose is to act contrary to reason and nature i.e. irrational and unnatural. This is not to say these individuals are without reason, but it does mean they are failing to exercise that reason. The fact that some people don’t feel these emotional inclinations is no more a proof that reproductive organs are not for reproducing than blind people are a proof that eyes are not for seeing.
Finally, Mr. Steele’s defense of the legitimacy of LGBTQ relations is a clear example of how even the most obvious truths seem false to someone who attempts to defend such acts. Mr. Steele asserts that natural heterosexuality is likely just a social custom. The falsehood of this assertion is so patent that it hardly needs refutation. But since he has asserted it, the following simple facts show his statement to be false and entirely contrary to reason.
First, societal customs are, by definition, those things that vary by society. An example would be handshakes as a form of greeting—some do it and some do not. But some things are independent of society and are therefore found in every society, such as smiling. This is because smiling is natural. Now, the inclination of males and females to reproduce is found in every human culture and society, which again indicates that this activity is natural and independent of society. Secondly, babies cannot come from societal customs—they come from the natural and complementary abilities found in the heterosexual relations of a human male and female. There is no societal power on earth or custom of any culture that can give two men or two women the ability to produce children.
Finally, and which was most disheartening, Mr. Steele ignored the blatantly obvious fact that every human society is composed of people! In order to get people, you need males and females to reproduce. So the very existence of a society (and hence social customs) depends upon natural heterosexuality. To put societal customs before heterosexual inclinations is to put the cart before the horse. In contrast, LGBTQ unions are entirely fabricated by and dependent on society to even exist—let alone be accorded their supposed rights.
Senior, Mechanical Engineering