1.
Sexuality is regarded as a right.
a. Our
understanding of ostensibly archaic institutions requires us to consider a
sociological context wherein this was not so. Furthermore,
b. Our assessment
of the Present Day must reflect not only threats to Life as punishments for (expressions
of) sexuality, but also threats to Sexuality Itself.
2.
Homosexuals endanger themselves willfully.
a. Barring the
existence of a social institution which requires modern people to account for
their internal sexual feelings and marital goals, sexual identity, except as an
internal phenomenon, is a choice. This is not merely a choice of WHICH identity
to have, but rather whether or not TO have a sexual identity.
b. Since
homosexuals, therefore, CHOOSE to be homosexuals, either by self-identifying as
such or by becoming thus identified through expressions of their sexuality,
then, presuming upon two premises, they are willing to risk their lives to
express their sexuality, presumably willing even to die for it, though
preferring not to. This implies that a sexual drive, whether or not it is
conducive to reproduction, is just as valuable to human beings, subjectively,
as is Survival. The two premises are:
i. That the
risks are not exaggerated by homosexuals, and
ii. That they are
lucid about these risks at the moment of becoming homosexual.
3.
Considering, therefore, all the restrictions
placed upon sexuality, whether or not these are life-threatening, which becomes
secondary according to the will of the sexual person, we must conclude that homosexuals
are not exceptional to “oppression”, and as such it is impossible or unfeasible
to identify an oppressor. Both historical examples and contemporary
examples abound with regards to the subjugation of heterosexuality, whether it
is an accounting of Puritanical punishments for marital infidelity in prior
centuries or something as pathetically recent as the Bill Cosby trial.
[({Dm.R.G.)}]
No comments:
Post a Comment