I answered, "Yes. Santa is a metaphor for good will among all people, and we are reminded of that opportunity each December."
I would not want to be a same-sex partner and face the question, "Is it true that I came from sexual intercourse?" Then another question, "How do partners have intercourse?" And after the answer, another question, “Why did grandma and grandpa have intercourse but you and your partner do not?” And finally, "What couple had intercourse to make me?"
During legislative debate on gestational surrogacy, the same-sex crowd lobbied for reversal of Louisiana law against what same-sex lawyers labeled "genetic surrogacy." A man in a gay partnership directly or artificially impregnates a woman, who, after childbirth, turns the child over to the man who would offer surrogate motherhood, as though a man can substitute for a woman in attachment or any other function for her child. The practice is against public policy. On September 24, 2014, for the first time, I caught up with the 1987 Louisiana Legislature's RS9:2713--overcame the doublespeak blinders same-sex lawyers had used on me, and read the subject of the statute: surrogate motherhood. For two years, my brain had converted those words to "genetic surrogacy." Shame on me for being so blind to my gullibility. (And I had sworn to turn off my gullibility long ago.)
A people should protect children to be born from ignoble, surrogacy entry into the world. A people should not condone surrogacy, because it neglects the dignity of children to be born and their person. Gay men use the term "genetic surrogacy" to dissuade a people from thinking "surrogate motherhood" in hopes that they may sire and possess children detached from their natural mother. Both surrogacy motherhood and surrogacy fatherhood oppose the-indisputable-facts-of-reality respecting the child and his or her couple. At conception, a child received 17 chromosomes from its mother and 17 chromosomes from its father, forming a single cell, becoming a unique human being that is part of the couple as well as each of the couple's ancestors and siblings. The genetic surrogacy industry denies the child its heritage and should be kept out of the State of Louisiana. So far, it is.
Same-sex mendacities and errors
My principle motives for including this too brief review are three: 1) 2400 years ago homosexuality was common practice by philosophers in Greece, 2) sexual promiscuity was a concern, and 3) civic responsibility in the submission side of homosexual practices was a concern: sodomy sexually gratifies only one of the partners. In heterosexual love-making, there is no submissive partner: both parties make love. Same-sex is not a new civic concern.
It seems that the hormonal sex drive is so strong that unless a person respects her or his personal autonomy, many will take opportunities for sexual gratification and casual intimacy. The movies and TV depict people who, despite all sorts of commitments and responsibilities to themselves (and to other persons), upon the slightest encouragement from another person, leap into sex with serious relish. Some politicians seem to watch too much TV. Many people would earnestly gratify each others base sexual appetites despite the costs to personal autonomy. In fact, some people divorce for promiscuity, without regard for the promises they had made to themselves. I often tearlessly cry over the loss of Freddie Mercury, but he seemed to feel it was a noble loss: he had it all and that was enough. Some people can become adulterers, cause pregnancy, or acquire STD without the slightest conscience. It’s like popular society is comprised of sociopaths--people with no civic conscience. The gullible portion of society follows popular images, and as a consequence there are 110 million known STD cases in the US with 20 million cases each year. Some STD rate increases are dominated by same-sex practices. (I know directly that they think I am naïve and too old to think clearly and should drop dead, but I never had STD.)
A same-sex partnership is a private contract that does not need civic endorsement. Only a couple who can independently procreate require civil provisions that guarantee the welfare of the progeny for life and unto grandchildren and beyond. According to physics-based ethics, the only way to assure children to be born their equality and dignity on their entry into life is to assure them natural parents. Otherwise, the children will mature with a longing for their heritage and the attendant privations.
I’d want to study claims of the request and consider a license which keeps responsibility for health issues and animal care in the hands of the applicant, allows the applicant to honor the animal in any way he/she can fund that did not compromise children or other people, consider ideas other people might bring to the discussion, and grant the licensing, if and only if the discussions showed civic justification for licensing—civic and civil endorsement. The question that should be answered is: why should there be a civil license for zoophilia. The answer cannot be, “To make the pet owner feel equal and dignified.” Zoophilia seems none of the public's business. If there is no justification for licensing--no reason to convert a private practice into a civic endorsement, then keep zoophilia a non-civic and non-civil practice—in other words, private. On the other hand, if a parent imposed zoophilia on a child that would be a civic matter, and there should be clear civil law againt it.
However, an appeal for zoophilia to be included in civil marriage licensing or for zoophilist to enjoy tax favor versus single fillers would be out of the question, because progeny is out of the question. The same-sex lawyers might label me barbarian for this argument, but they’d be wrong again. I have no problem with harmless practices by people in the privacy of their homes and would not pretend to judge other people’s psychological wellness. Human imagination is powerful and wonderful! And pets are wonderful beings that I cannot judge. However, the defense of child dignity and equality is a major civic duty, and only a people can defend the personal autonomy of children and children to be born. The zoophilia argument also is common to all races and making it a racial issue would be false.
Governance under religion has failed a people in this regard, and religious education regarding bonding, making love, and monogamy instead of having sex only to procreate should reform. Also, the religious institutions should withdraw from their bid for government partnership and collaborate with civic believers to supervise government. Believers can make this happen, and if they do not, a civic people can eventually fill in the integrity gap: Religious institutions must conform to civil law, which must conform to the-indisputable-facts-of-reality. On the specific subject of this essay, endorsing same-sex sex will not cure society's faults.
Any opposition to LGBTQ practices and choices and options is hatred
The human will and chemistry to empathize with other humans is so strong, even as adolescents, that it takes character to decide not to compromise personal autonomy--to reserve relaxation of autonomy---until private values are completely understood. Too often, the body and appetites are mature enough to sacrifice those values before personal preferences have been established. Sometimes it takes counseling from a social worker (I'd prefer to call them civic practitioners) or coaching by parents or friends to understand the conflict between hormonal drives and preservation of personal autonomy until the time that psychological maturity has positioned the person to make the choice his or her mature person would make.
These issues are private, yet a person should enlist every resource possible in protecting his/her personal autonomy, because each successful attack on autonomy weakens it. Religion is well informed on these issues, but for its reasons has not made human-knowledge clear to the public. The Church's privation may be born of greed, but it is not hatred. Writers like H. A. Overstreet offer assistance, and he does not object to experiments but recommends self-acceptance that does not subjugate others.
(John and I might enjoy discussing physics-based ethics to finally replace religious doctrine as a focus for civic morality.) Same-sex lawyer David Boies responded,
Bois lied, perhaps strategically choosing the word “means” instead of “meant,” and even that modification would cultivate the lie. This is another racial-discrimination piggy-back by the same-sex lawyers, who would imply that only white Protestant men were included in the preamble. Their lie is particularly woeful, because some people, including some in each race, do not perceive that they are among the triumphant 94 % who the signers hoped would one day enjoy suffrage. Most of us are among the 94%--have overcome that 1790 start with 6% eligible to vote. And same-sex persons are included!
Back to the same-sex lie: in 1790, 6 % of the population could vote: in 2014, 100 % of non-criminals may vote. It is true that at each step in the expansion of voting rights, some people resisted, but ultimately, the-indisputable-facts-of-reality prevailed: all people are people and all non-criminal adults may vote. Maybe Boies is either not an American or alienates himself, like British loyalists did when the preamble was written. However, I do not want his lie to dissuade anyone from volunteering to be of the people who use the preamble to fulfill a civic people. Same-sex people can vote and can civically collaborate. Every American can civically volunteer to fulfill a civic people, and that is what the signers provided for, perhaps fortuitously: The preamble is there for a people to use. So far, the people have brooked governance under theism instead of establishing governance under a people.
It is shameful that a pair of activist lawyers overthrew the governance of the people of California, but it is a fact of history that an indolent people who brook governance under god can be taken. The alternative that has been there since 1787 is governance of by and for a people. I hope most citizens will adopt a new, more satisfying regard for a 229 year old, neglected, founding sentence: the preamble.
The fruits of governance under theism
What was argued was not Windsor’s case, but Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Previously, Congress unjustly and unconstitutionally defended marriage between a man and a woman arguing the Judeo-Christian tradition, instead of defending it on the basis of a child and his/her procreating couple and related references to the objective truth, or my preference: monogamous procreation, or even better, the-indisputable-facts-of-reality. Since then, Congress sits idly while the USSC awards favor to self-proclaimed same-sex partners--perhaps no more significant than roommates--exceeding the civic equality due each individual or single person, including the children to be born, as well as heterosexual monogamists who procreate. Don't forget: the harm originates from governance under the factional religion imposed by the Congress in 1789 and in DOMA. The alternative is government supervision by a civic people according to the preamble, which has lain fallow for 228 years.
Governance under legislative gods
When I was a believer, I indolently felt that my god would prevail civically, and besides, in the end, my soul was saved! I now recognize such gullible thinking as antinomianism. Gullibility is a deadly error for the gullible. I think I know why Christianity left gullibility off the list of seven deadly sins: gullibility of the believer empowers the dogma. The church, in Machiavellian concert with the government, needs to maintain a personal god. The temporal end of that ancient game is practically in infinity--way beyond any person’s lifetime. But a people can terminate civic governance under a god, at any time now, by collaborating with a people who use the preamble to the United States Constitution and fulfill its nine goals for the sake of their own lives, the believers still trusting their god for a good afterdeath. Believers do not need to forgo private pursuit of their religious scripture, but they do need to understand that civic accommodations enable such private pursuits: Believers need to attend to both private and civic duties. Then, people can strive for private integrity as private-liberty-with-civic-morality.
Some of us are neither theists nor atheists, and our opinion about ourselves is civically more important than other people’s opinions about us: We are citizens. To resolve opinion, we must, borrowing words from Abraham Lincoln, require the ultimate justice of a civic people.
*Online at legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=230384 .