Friday, October 10, 2014

Defend Monogamous Procreation 9/25/16



The Defense of Monogamous Procreation
            So far in the complaints by the same-sex community against a people who would govern of by and for a civic people---those who want broadly-defined-civic-safety-and-security---there has been no acting defense: the plaintiff has been vigorous, but the defense has been passive. Governance under religion is dysfunctional. When religion’s canon does not work, offense against a civic people must wait for action by gods: a civic people must wait during a future eternity. Thus, a civic people has betrayed itself by brooking governance under religion, in this case, defense of marriage as a Judeo-Christian tradition.[1] According to human physics, only couples can serve a child for procreation and coaching unto adult person-hood. It is time for a civic people to use the-indisputable-facts-of reality to discover and benefit from civic morality.
The-indisputable-facts-of reality
            Reality may be discovered from physics. For example, two vehicles cannot occupy the same space-time; thus at intersections, one vehicle must stop while the other expediently proceeds. Again, ethical people are candid with each other, because expressing the truth is the only way to disclose personal, civic needs; the alternative to being candid is bemusing self in fruitless attempt to deceive neighbors, whose minds cannot be read. In other words, civic people do not lie so they can understand and trust each others statements. Again, an ethical adult who helps a child play with shape-matching toys celebrates when the child first places the round peg in the round hole, and does not encourage a child’s insistence on matching the square peg with the round hole. Finally, in the physics-based ethics, a same-sex partnership cannot be a couple to either a child to be born or a child to be adopted; according to physics, only a man and a woman can be parents to a child. Without a couple, the child cannot experience the noble work of monogamy within a civic culture.
 
Civic religion dysfunctional
            Because a people has indolently relied on religion to defend a child’s both 1) equality and dignity on entry into person-hood and 2) opportunity to cultivate psychological maturity as she or he seeks understanding, the plaintiff has had free reign. The plaintiff states the same-sex case as only "personal equality" or "marriage equality" in a two-party contract at the expense of children. The plaintiff has persuaded significant public support for its woeful cause.             The purpose of this essay is to suggest the defense’s arguments and reform the focus from the LGBTQ person’s religious “right to love” with subjugation of children and thereby defend states wherein a people uphold every child’s personal right to equality and dignity as well as opportunity to pursue private integrity. The proposal involves two reforms. First, it would put religion in its proper role as a private activity between consenting adults[2] instead of a civic practice. In the United States of America, religious institutions must yield to the rule of civil law—now and without question. Second, it would establish supervision of governance of by and for a civic people using the preamble to the United States constitution with physics-based-ethics rather than dominant opinion as civic mediator. In other words, the same-sex ruse is only one of many civic problems created by governance under theism.
            As background for these considerations, I discuss the human condition: Human beings begin feral and should grow to recognize both that understanding is a personal duty and that preservation of personal autonomy is the social dilemma and opportunity. A civic people collaborate for private-liberty-with-civic-morality or private integrity. I discuss the many deviations from monogamous love-making to "have sex." Then, I analyze same-sex lawyer's lies and errors. Next, I show how the courts have overlooked equality and dignity of children and children to be born as well as couples. Then I show how governance under religion has brought about a problem that would not occur with governance according to the-indisputable-facts-of-reality, which is a civic practice and not a secular (areligious) cause. I hope my work will help focus attention to equality and dignity of children.
 
Personal autonomy
A prime consideration in defense of children is personal autonomy--each person’s opportunity to make decisions affecting personal fate. Personal autonomy respecting fate’s unknowns distinguishes humans from the other animal species. For example, knowing that disease is transmitted by sexual intimacy, an autonomous person may choose monogamy instead of promiscuity. Also, knowing that breaking solemn promises begs ruin, humans can practice personal integrity--integrity to themselves in the promises they make. In a civic culture, people may choose private integrity as private-liberty-with-civic-morality.            Without a civic people, an infant is defenseless—is subject to abuse by its parents or caretakers--yet has the right to personal autonomy. While civic equality and dignity are owed the children to be born, not all infants benefit. Some children are born to parents who have no intentions to appreciate the person they beget. Regardless of each of the parent’s intentions for the infant, each infant has a fate of either subjugation or personal autonomy. If the subjugated child can perceive subjugation early enough, she/he can initiate personal autonomy, but the chances decrease with age.[3] Some parents respect the personal autonomy of their progeny and coach each child to a personal path of self discovery that may lead to psychological maturity.[4] Perhaps self-discovery is the purpose for human life.
Since an infant is defenseless, protection of her/his personal autonomy rests first with her/his parents, each operating in cooperative association. According to physics-based ethics, the unit of parents and child is the natural mother, natural father, and their progeny. No child should be subjugated to discover that he/she would like to know who his/her mother or father really is or wonder, as an adult, what difference it would have made if he/she had known his/her ancestors. However, the civic couple’s appreciation for their progeny existed before conception. In fact, when they became a couple they were aware of the awesome responsibility they were taking on, and they cultivated an appreciative bond. And if they decided to make love, they took consideration for each personal autonomy within the collaborative association or appreciative bond. Their integrity extended to their progeny and beyond to a civic people, which is known to assume responsibility when parents default.
Understanding human physics is available to everyone, and each person has the ethical responsibility to learn the facts and benefit from them. A female, at puberty, has some 400,000 immature ova and losses about 1000/month, producing perhaps one mature ovum/month, or about 400 mature ova before menopause. Thus, the typical woman is in charge of 400 potential lives—an awesome responsibility that is taken for granted by many people, especially many men. Being acutely aware, she may seek to 1) find a man who would increase her potential for the integral happiness she anticipates, 2) preserve her autonomy in mutual interest with him, 3) mutually commit to monogamy, or appreciatively bond, 4) enjoy his performance in protecting her autonomy (or reject him), 5) agree to share the noble work to care for and coach a child in her/his path to personal autonomy, and therefore 6) carefully expose the ova in her body to possible conception. A couple who holds these noble goals does not need civic involvement in their family unit, yet cooperate with the civil regulations in place to protect children and spouses. A woman who is deceitful in her negotiation of a spouse begs ruin,[5] perhaps woe in many lives.
Extent of care is a matter of judgment, but procreation without a marriage license is civically risky for all parties involved; yet it happens. In fact, one of a civic people’s current concerns is a high rate of single parenthood. Unfortunately, the federal government encourages this wrongful conduct. Before motherhood, as time marches on, the woman has the temporal dilemma of mate discovery before fertility depletion. Some women lose patience with the search for a worthy man and become pregnant without regard for the progeny's equality and dignity. The fate of every ovum is important and its personal autonomy should be respected. No person wanted to be conceived for subjugation, abuse, abandonment, or murder.
While the adult has equality and dignity commensurate with his/her conduct, the ovum has nothing but fate. The newborn has no self determination--could not even know to choose to eat. According to physics-based ethics, the couple’s duty to a newborn is to assist her/him in attaining basic understandings over a period of about seventeen to twenty years of care and coaching. Together, heterogeneous, monogamist parents can coach a child to personal autonomy. Beyond personal autonomy is collaborative association and psychological maturity.
As cultural evolution has discovered physics-based ethics—with “women from Venus and men from Mars,” the woman is innately capable of caring about and for others, perhaps because potential persons are in her. After conception, attachment to the womb, gestation, and birth, child and mother continue attachment that was begun in her womb and the father assists these two autonomous parties in the attachment process leading to serene detachment yet appreciative bonding for life. The man is innately equipped to focus on responsibility, achievement, and reliability---to grow private integrity. Together, cooperatively autonomous persons of the two genders may make a psychologically and actively powerful family unit. Innate gender differences in the children are enhanced by good examples and coaching from their gender role-models, and appropriate modeling occurs in heterosexual families, especially those with ancestral monogamists who visit or are talked about. For example, knowing I have some Scots-Irish genes, I try avoid being stubborn.
According to human physics, persons are physically capable of procreating at puberty yet have bodies that don’t complete the parts of the brain needed to build wisdom until young adulthood.[6] Consequently, psychological maturity for parenting comes more than a decade after the physical possibility! Physics-based ethics suggests adequacy for parenthood later than during young adulthood; perhaps beyond age 30 for men and beyond age 28 for women.[7] An ameliorating factor is the heritage of monogamous procreation. A monogamous couple has two monogamous parents, who collectively have four monogamous parents, who collectively have eight monogamous parents. Influencing the newborn, there’s a possibility of at least four generations, who provide higher levels of psychological maturity in gender roles to fill psychology gaps of parents.[8] Within the heritage of monogamists, the child learns by experience and example enhanced by coaching; there is no need for barren exhortation. This follows the principle that collective knowledge is more effective than singular cognition.
Regardless, if a parent neglects or abuses the child and the privation or harm becomes civically known, a civic people typically takes charge, because a child is a person with understood civic rights and stated civil rights. A civic people’s tacit goal is for each child to grow cooperative autonomy, even though the only goals they claim are broadly-defined-safety and permanence. President Obama said, I think erroneously, “Together we determined that a modern economy requires . . . schools and colleges to train our workers.”[9] Well-intended or not, that seems like tyranny over the minds of a civic people. A civic people is civically interested in cultivating persons who possess personal autonomy: not “workers.”
 
Collaborative association
Collaborative association is critical in forming and maintaining human bonds, and the commitment to monogamy may be the ultimately beneficial, voluntary, surrender of some personal autonomy.[10] However, collaboratively protected personal autonomy strengthens the couple and their progeny—helps prevent grave mistakes if one party dominates. Once she has found that mate she thinks is worthy and has bonded, the woman has a natural desire to consummate her commitment, in competition with her commitments to her ova. Properly influenced and coached, he is aware and takes charge of her personal autonomy by controlling his desire to make love, either by abstinence or by birth control. In so doing, he strengthens his own character and protects the autonomy of their progeny. He is growing private integrity. But few men have been coached in either personal autonomy, appreciative bonding or making love as opposed to having sex. According to both the media and disease statistics, society is obsessed with having sex, so it is not surprising that many men do not make love let alone form appreciative bonds. In other words, society’s witness is in direct opposition to physics-based ethics. Society is encouraging woeful, animalist values instead of goals worthy of the highest species, humankind (low as its behavior may be[11]).
I told my physically and psychologically handsome son about hormones, attractions, personal autonomy, and the man's role in protecting the woman's personal autonomy, because no one told me when I was in puberty and I had to learn on my own, not so well. He was initially embarrassed by the candid discussions but understood and as I understand it, took responsibility. The dialogue did not embarrass me, but I did not want him to learn about making love as "having sex." I have no experience with female puberty and left it to my wife to inform our two daughters and think my bride did well.
But I am the parent who received one daughter’s question, "Dad, is Santa Clause real?"
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?" 
The responses must protect personal autonomy for the child, not the partnership, and falsity could create multiple contradictions against physics-based ethics. Opposing physics invites woe. Importance of appreciating the personal autonomy of each child is not immediately obvious, but the reader can gain some insight from the literature.[12] I hope this paragraph suggests that my writing seeks to enhance anticipation of the facts of reality rather than to control other persons.
Personal autonomy and collaborative association concepts should be developed for teaching in elementary school, because no entity is conveying this important aspect of human life and bonding. Neither parents nor churches teach the importance of personal autonomy in human intimacy and appreciative bonding. And human intimacy involves far more than making love. In fact, the Christian teaching that marriage is for procreation detracts from needed emphasis on both 1) bonding, not necessarily having sex but also not excluding sex, before procreation and 2) maintenance/cultivation of inalienable personal autonomy of all parties, including the progeny. Neglected in modern adolescence education is the understanding that persons who bond surrender to each other and beyond a measure of personal autonomy—create obligations to each other and perhaps a civic people. The psychological guilt of having sex instead of making love can prevent procreation.[13] Bonding is foremost about making love rather than having sex. If pregnancy occurs, equal and separate obligations to the person to be born and his/her personal autonomy come into force.  As a consequence of not understanding personal autonomy, much of a nation---a people---is bemused by “having sex” instead of making love. Governance under religion, which is brooked by the people--forced neither by the government nor by religious institutions (see Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XI), helped establish this privation.
Yielding personal autonomy unto the chaos of promiscuity
Like other mammalians, typical humans have both strong, mutual, psychological attraction, often enhanced by physical attraction, plus sex drives that are hormone driven. When opportunity for either same-sex or heterosexual gratification materializes, some pairs have neither the understanding nor the prudence nor the character to protect each other’s personal autonomy. Mutual sexual gratification may lead to any of 1) monogamy, 2) an awakening, 3) irresponsibility, 4) adultery or 5) promiscuity, among other possibilities. I cannot attest to subjugation in same-sex gratification, but in heterosexual monogamy, contrary to religious thoughts, there is no need for subjugation: heterosexual couples may make love. More often than not, strictly physical attraction enhanced by sex fades and dies. Each new personal pursuit of a sex object erodes personal autonomy. Eventually, even health risks lose importance. The consequence can be death. A civic people is obliged to discourage conduct that can lead to death. Regardless, some people think promiscuity enhances their life. People who say, "That's their business," overlook the medical and social costs to the people.
When monogamy occurs, it is so rare--perhaps 13% of marriages--that it should be celebrated. Only the human species has the character to fall in love regardless of the bodies that contain the two persons. Therein lies the argument from physics for civil, same-sex monogamy-licensing: If two same-sex persons are in love, their monogamy is noble. But there is no civic value in either promiscuity or subjugating children to benefit a partnership.
 
Surrogacy—two or more kinds (if you grapple with same-sex lawyers’ terms)
            In Spring, 2013, a Louisiana state senator who has two children born by gestational surrogacy proposed empowering the surrogacy industry into Louisiana by establishing the legal apparatus to oversee gestational surrogacy contracts. A married couple provide her ova and his sperm to the industry, which in vitro fertilizes the ovum, grows the zygote, and places it in the uterus of a surrogate mother. The surrogate mother negotiates her benefits, which could be the joy of the experience. Such contracts are executed now in some states. I read the legislative proposals and wrote against it in The Advocate Online comments. The law did not protect the child to be born and neglected everyone but the married couple and the surrogacy industry. A people would bear the cost of state services—not only institutional dollars but misguided practices and contracts gone wrong, such as the couple leaving the country for their reasons during gestation. Happily, Governor Jindal vetoed the 2013 bill and a 2014 revision.[14] However, a similar bill under Gov. John Bel Edwards, became Act 494, effective August 1, 2016.*
            My online comments in defense of monogamous procreation were met with many rude, immature, yet some informative responses. The comments, as well as related news made it clear that a strong special interest was coming from the same-sex crowd—defined by me as practitioners and their sympathizers. They seemed to demonstrate Overstreet’s 1949 claim that same-sex people will not develop mature character.[15] Controversial as Overstreet’s claim is, it should be considered, and in my opinion his advice could diminish support for same-sex civic aggression. 
            During legislative debate on gestational surrogacy, the same-sex crowd lobbied for reversal of Louisiana law[16] 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.)
            The woman supplies the ovum, conceives under contract, and gestates a child. She is the mother, who has, beyond the physical attachment, begun psychological attachment with the baby. However, on delivery of the infant, due to her contract, she must abruptly terminate psychological attachment with the newborn. The child may never receive food from its mother's breast and must suddenly redirect its attachment endeavors to a man, or two men. Surrogacy motherhood is in the partnership of two men! How can anything but attachment disorder be expected in the child's adulthood? Here’s what Dr. Martha Stout says about attachment disorder:
 
Quite unlike sociopaths, children and adults afflicted with attachment disorders are seldom charming or interpersonally clever.  On the contrary, these unfortunate individuals are typically somewhat off-putting, nor do they make any great efforts to ‘fake’ being normal.[17]
 
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.
The liberal mind vs the conservative mind
            Negotiating physics-based ethic is in tension between expanding personal liberty and preserving domestic justice. For example, liberty was needed for discovery of the continents; exploration was once restricted by the false impression that the earth was flat and gravity-free: Explorers could fall off. Island dwellers, with a better appreciation of the horizon's curvature, perceived better, yet still wondered what the horizon might be. Persons with liberal visions of the future and persons with deep respect for established thought find themselves at odds. Usually, liberal persons plead for the opportunity to live according to the happiness they perceive for their lives and conservatives strive to preserve what has seemed successful, so far, for them--their society. The conservative approach seems favorable for the long term preservation of physics-based ethics by a civic people and the liberal approach seems advantageous for urging a civic people to take early advantage of new discoveries. The two groups have both common interests and the incentives to candidly express civic needs. But they tend to alienate each other by deceit. That's a tendency I hope to change with a more satisfying view of a neglected, founding sentence.
            Any listing of liberal thinkers in history is mostly favorable in this writer's view, with a few exceptions. See for example, Wikipedia’s list,[18] which includes Aristotle and Locke. I consider myself fiscally conservative, yet I agree with many thoughts most of the people in the list expressed. I see in the comments about each of those thinkers that address personal liberty that does not prevent personal liberty for other persons, which I favor. But, I adamantly oppose what has been labeled “the liberal mind,” a pejorative term, and think I finally understand the more profound concern.
The use of alternative words and word usage is called “doublespeak,” which means language used to deceive, usually through concealment or misrepresentation of the objective truth. It is a common practice in politics and in personal conversation by both some liberals and some conservatives. In my experience, through the media, public speakers, and civic dialogue, it seems that all special-interest groups have within them some people who employ doublespeak. Heretofore, I have held that the term “the liberal mind” applies to fiscal policy only and I agree fully with its usage by Lyle Rossiter,[19] who describes people who want a "nanny state." But I want to discuss a new concern.
I have the concern that “the liberal mind” also references someone who habitually ignores the dictionary so as to support their argument regardless of the words being used by the opposing party. For example, in a recent dialogue, while I was claiming that this country is governed under “theism” (the belief in the existence of a god), the other party insisted that this is not a “theocracy” (a country governed by a god that is defined by ministers). Because our dialogue did not conform to a dictionary, we could not civically collaborate. But it seems to me the other party and I are in civic agreement: freedom of religion is expected in this country. The point I want to express is that neighbors cannot be neighbors if they are not willing to agree on a dictionary, and someone who is locked into doublespeak, or their personal dictionary, cannot express their civic needs in terms a neighbor who uses the dictionary could accommodate. Thus, the needs of a liberal mind are a mystery, perhaps even to the person with the liberal-usage practice. The point of this section is that someone with a habitually liberal mind--disrespecting word usage--may not be capable of identifying their personal, civic needs! For example, the person who likes both fidelity and promiscuity cannot perceive his or her vulnerability. Fidelity in polyamory is suspect.
  

Same-sex mendacities and errors
            As in many controversies among a people, some plaintiffs stretch the truth, equivocate, and doublespeak to intellectually construct a case. America seems bemused by doublespeak, and it starts with the famous branches of government. An indolent people has allowed legislation to unconstitutionally gravitate from Congress into both the courts and regulatory agencies, which are substantially controlled by the administration. A people has sat idly by while administrations, especially the last two[20], have taken responsibilities not granted to them by the people. Part of the executive ploy has been to control the courts. Many people decide their vote for president based on influencing the Supreme Court.
Same-sex lawyers, aided by the present administration, with socially active former Attorney General, Eric Holder, presented errors and lies, including: there is an inherited trait called “sexual orientation”; single people (including children) and couples should fund tax advantage for same-sex partners; same-sex partners are civically equal to couples with progeny; same-sex partners provide children equality and dignity; a personal heritage of monogamous procreation is not important for either children or society; the same-sex cause is like the African-American civil-rights cause; opposition to homosexuality is homophobia, but fear of heterosexuality is not heterophobia; tax advantages favoring heterosexual partners who never procreate should not be revoked, since revocation would not help justify favor for same-sex partners; there is no justification for distinguishing civil marriage from civil union and providing both licenses, or allowing two people who love each other to marry is a no-brainer---forget children's protections through marriage---or a civil union might be adequate but would not satisfy same-sex egocentricity or pride (pride is better than humility); heterosexual promiscuity justifies same-sex promiscuity, or lifestyle is not a civic issue; suicide by a homosexual is society’s error more than suicide by a heterosexual is society’s error; opposition to LGBTQ practices is hatredsurrogate motherhood is “genetic surrogacy” and surrogate fatherhood can be ignored; the preamble to the constitution for the USA was and is insincere; religion must suffer for its opposition to same-sex practices. I’ll discuss these one at a time.
 
There is an inherited determination called “sexual orientation”
Same-sex sex has been practiced by placental mammals for some 65 million years at about a 4 % rate. Sex drive is hormone driven and mammals use any method for gratification they discover. Yet, many species procreate, and some couples remain with their social unit until the young are developed. Dam-building beavers act like monogamous families. However, monogamous same-sex relationships for life are not confirmed among placental mammals accept between humans, the most aware of all species. Significant in human awareness is the fact that same-sex sex does not risk pregnancy: same-sex sex seems convenient for the partnership but not for children. A deeper concern resulting from human awareness is heterophobia: fear of persons of the opposite sex and fear of responsibilities respecting relationships with them. Lastly, there is a belief that males are intellectually stronger than females and therefore gay love is superior to heterosexual love.
Of all the mammals, humans are the most inventive respecting sexual gratification, primarily because humans can talk. Among paraphilia are object sexuality, sexual fetishism, pedophilia, and zoophilia. People practice polysexuality, recreational sex, and polyamory. Among consensual human relationships are monogamy; the polygamies: polygany, polyandry, and group marriage; pedastry; and prostitution.  All of these practices are reported in ancient and modern histories of all cultures: Same-sex sex is neither new nor alone in its variance from heterosexual monogamy.
            Plato reported or imagined philosophers arguing love and different sexual practices in Symposium, 380 B. C..
 
Pausanias argues that love is not about the body but about the intellect and applies his idea to pedastry: males are preferred because they are more intelligent. In pedastry, the boy surrenders to the man, and the bargaining is a point of civic concern—the state’s concern. Aristophanes compares the sense of “wholeness” partners perceive and claims that homosexuals have more tendencies toward monogamy. (I wonder if the heterosexual divorce rate was above 53%.) Socrates, married with children, implied that intellectual achievement is more immortally edifying than procreation. Alcibiades vainly attempted to seduce Socrates.

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.
            Many researchers have tried to prove that sexual orientation is hereditary, but none succeeded; yet the same-sex lawyers declare it is so. From the above discussion, it would seem "sexual orientation" is no more that statistical variation that is as old and natural as the most sentient species, humankind—a species that is perhaps some 0.2 million to 1.8 million years old, depending upon the degree of awareness used to define "humankind". What humans add to the statistical variants is awareness. (Cultural awareness emerges at a much faster pace than biological evolution, perhaps in decades instead of thousands of years, yet governance under religion, traditionally factional or sectarian Christianity, has persisted on this continent for over four centuries. Religion often retards cultural awareness so severely that it oppresses lives being lived.)
            It seems that the hormonal sex drive is so strong that unless a person respects her or his personal autonomy,[21] 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.[22] Some STD rate increases are dominated by same-sex practices. (I know directly that they think I am na├»ve and too old to think clearly and should drop dead, but I never had STD.)
The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), gay men account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).[23] That’s sixteen times the demographically proportionate rate. The evidence is that more than sexual orientation, the consequences are the result of imprudence and lack of regard for personal autonomy: careless promiscuity. With 34.5 % of the population reporting STDs and others not reporting, it seems perhaps half the nation is promiscuous. A civic people could reduce promiscuity. The STD statistics for gays does not reflect wide-spread gay monogamy: I feel certain gay monogamists exist but think they are a small fraction of the gay population, so maybe 0.1% of the total population. That 0.1% may be noble, in my opinion. Again, I write not to judge or dictate but to influence focus on the-indisputable-facts-of-reality so as to help lessen misery and loss.
One of the unintended consequences of promiscuity is that a significant portion of the women in society do not trust men at all and in fact do not want a husband. This is a consequence of no institution teaching the difference between having sex and making love and the importance of personal autonomy by each person within a unit of a child, his or her mother and his or her father. Yet women want to be mothers, often for selfish reasons, such as “to have someone to love me,” or "to have someone to love." Many are not committed to coaching their own child unto collaborative association, and essentially abandon children to whatever fate will come from community influence. Community influence is bad. This is only my view of a problem being addressed now in Baton Rouge.[24] The problem is substantially created and continued by federal welfare programs and is not isolated to a race, as the Baton Rouge event would indicate.
            Without proof, I have spent a lot of words trying to make the case that sexual "orientation" is a matter of complex forces involving physics, pregnancy avoidance, heterophobia, compromised personal autonomy, attraction to other people, and society's disregard for the-indisputable-facts-of-reality. Often human attraction is only the thrills of personal intimacy and promiscuity--having consensual casual sex in every city visited, or some other belt-notching idea. The chief evidence against "orientation" is that only the human species, with its awareness of the duty and responsibility of pregnancy, has members who claim a same-sex orientation (although researchers cannot witness for animals). The compromised personal autonomy paradigm, which covers the deviant practices beyond same-sex sex, listed above, and focuses on pregnancy avoidance, has yet to be disproved by confirmed hereditary evidence: Nobody can prove it is in the genes.
  
Single people should fund tax advantage for same-sex partners
            An embarrassing lie by same-sex lawyers is that declaration of partnering justifies tax advantage over persons who do not declare partnering! Fresh out of college, my salary was insufficient for my wishes, so I roomed with an affluent man who had a three-bedroom house. Not long thereafter, on my suggestion, a man from work rented the other bedroom. We also carpooled when possible. We had no scheme or desire to codify our cost savings through a civil partnership. None of the three of us ever suggested partying other than most Friday nights with women we invited to enjoy the home bar with jukebox our landlord had built. The landlord was a confirmed bachelor who appreciated practically everybody he knew. For all I knew, I was a confirmed bachelor and would remain “single” for tax purposes for the rest of my life. If I had had a sex partner, I would not have changed my civic regard for my tax status, because I always thought marriage tax-breaks supported progeny: a civic people maintains itself through procreation, so procreation is a civic interest and therefore a civil responsibility (even though some people, as in all civic governance, try to circumvent the law). If any financial partnership had lasted into old age, and my partner and I needed a contract to authorize each other to care for each other and to be beneficiaries, a lawyer’s product, a simple contract, would have sufficed. But there is no way I would have wanted to tap into provisions that favor progeny. Let me conclude by suggesting a vote on this tax-favor question by the 53% singles together with the 4 % same-sex partners within the population. For same-sex partners to take advantages intended for children is civic immorality as viewed from the-indisputable-facts-of-reality rather than court opinion.
 
Same-sex partners are civically equal to heterosexual couples with their progeny
            A people needs procreation to maintain itself and consequently is obligated to support best provisions for empowering children into personal autonomy and on to their particular psychological maturity. A people must not condone the birth of children for abuse or neglect. In other words, a civic people wants children but would not tolerate children’s woe. Infants have feral beginning and need to grow understanding and personal autonomy to choose a path toward psychological maturity over some eighty years of living. An infant's life is in its hands, even though he/she does not know it. As the child matures, he/she has duty to self to realize, despite abundant false inculcation, duty to his/her self to seek a path toward psychological maturity. For equal and dignified opportunity, each child benefits from the experience—should take part in--the hard work of maintaining and cultivating the heritage of heterosexual monogamy.
            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.
 
Same-sex partners are sufficient for children
            Same-sex partners egocentrically appeal to a people’s empathy, crying, “We want to get married and have children, too!” 
            A people asks: “What can you do for children?” 
            The same-sex partners respond, “We can procreate." Gay partners take the child from its mother, and force her/him to attach with a man or two then suffer surrogacy motherhood. Lesbian partners provide a surrogate father, who is a woman or two of two women. The partners decide whether to allow a child the privilege of knowing her or his other natural parent and grandparents and receive the guidance their heritage offers. Partners either deny a child a gender role model, or hire a surrogate, but the children cannot experience the give and take of a couple. Gays can learn to dress a girl for every occasion. Lesbians can teach a boy how to make love. Partners can explain to children intercourse and why partners do not practice it. The child can handle that contradiction and their distinction from children with their couple. "We make conscientious parents.” 
            A people responds, “You would deny children equality and dignity. You would subjugate them for your purposes. We oppose your intentions. If you proceed, you do so against civic policy.” 
            From the perspective of the child to be born, same-sex partners are not couples. Same-sex partners don’t respect equal personal rights and dignity for children. They can read stories about the challenges when a woman and a man form a monogamous couple, but cannot provide the example of the heterosexual bond. The can take a child to observe nesting bald eagles and explain the couples monogamy. They assert that a same-sex social unit is equal to a couple and their progeny, despite privations to the children.
 
Monogamous procreation is not important
            Within the evolution of the universe there is biological evolution and human evolution over millions of years. Human awareness drives cultural evolution over much shorter times, perhaps thousands or even hundreds of years or even decades. One of the epic stories in the world’s literature is the diverse allegories of Abraham considering the “sacrifice” of his son. There are many interpretations of that epic story, and my fascination with the stories I've read led to fiction wherein four generations of the same paternal family manage to overcome the false practice of human sacrifice to bargain with a god. Please read the short story, “Abraham Decided Not to Murder His Son,” at understandtheknowledge.blogspot.com. The chief beneficiary in my fiction is the son, who saves his own life. With his dad's knife over the son's bulging eyes the son recalls his family history, and thereby knows how to appeal to his loving father who is in psychological crisis. The key is that the child never denied his family ties including his father's love. Thus, both the child and humankind benefit from four generations within a culture overcoming a bad practice: human sacrifice in hopes of bargaining with a god.
Same-sex partners arbitrarily terminate family heritage and plea for endorsement by a civic people to impose their privation on children and humankind.
 
The same-sex cause is like the racial civil-rights cause         
Same-sex lawyers claim the same-sex cause is like racial causes, especially the racial civil rights movement. They have skillfully mimicked it, with their "gay pride" marches and adding doublespeak. However, same-sex partners have no civic disadvantages. They can vote and be of a people according to the preamble. They can own property, rent, enjoy privacy, move about freely. They can create a contract to legalize their partnership. However, partners cannot, on the desire to “get married and have children,” justify civic rights equal with children and their couples. Granting partners civil rights beyond what they have is unjust, even though Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) approved gay marriage. The Supreme Court has ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, and that happened because Congress’s basis is religion and Congress did nothing to grant gay authentic companionship for insurance, medical responsibility, inheritance, and other purposes. Correction of Congress’s error is in Congress's hands, but in the long run, it is the responsibility of a civic people. Marriage between a man and a woman is based on physics' progeny biology, which religion, especially the same-sex religion, can’t influence. Religion can only conform to physics. Neither reason, nor faith, nor force can influence physics-based morality.
            The argument that the same-sex cause is analogous to racial civil-rights causes is civically immoral for two reasons. First, through mitochondrial DNA, we understand that all races are descendants from a man and a woman in Africa, some 60,000 to 200,000 years ago. Thus, the race issue is about not discriminating on false bases, such as skin color. The subject population—everybody—includes same-sex people and all other statistically deviant sex practitioners in the list I presented above. A biracial couple is a couple with their progeny, whereas same-sex partners cannot be a couple; to procreate, they must employ someone outside the partnership, separating the child to be born from one of its natural parents and one heritage of successive parenthood. Second, pick any of the physically variant sexual practices listed above and try to present the case for rights above singles (including children) or equal to couples with progeny.
For example, consider zoophilia. There is no doubt by me there can be emotion between people and their pets. I appreciate Spunkie Beaver! Just check our veterinarian bill for evidence or watch us in wintertime protecting this outdoor cat. Spunkie has heated quarters in the attic over the garage. (Spunkie does not love me, though, as he suspects that I am going to catch him and take him to the veterinarian, but Spunkie does appreciate my daughter and anticipates her return from work.) Beyond appreciation, if people make love with their pets, as depicted and written about throughout history, I have no objections to their private practice: pets, like humans, want to be served and to serve. If people demanded a civil zoophilia license, civic debate by a people should follow, and the plaintiff should either be prepared for a negative response or should not ask. That is, a petition is not an application of force on the defendant. Canada is currently reviewing its laws respecting bestiality.
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.
 
Homophobia versus heterophobia
            Same-sex lawyers say that a people’s aversion to same-sex practices is fear based, much like past fears of misogyny. They label it homophobia. However, one incentive for homosexuality is heterophobia, the fear of the lasting responsibilities (and joys) of heterosexual monogamy: monogamy is for life. Making love with a woman is awesome, threatening, and sexually inconvenient, because of susceptibility to pregnancy with her and the attendant obligations for the lives and appreciation of any progeny into perpetuity. Yet it is the most noble, rewarding commitment a man can make, IMO. Women have the fear that no man is dependable: When beauty fades, so will the man’s commitment. My bride and I have experienced a lot of hardship, but I have never sensed doubt by her and have never doubted our monogamy. Almost all the monogamists I know never express doubt about their monogamy. Each new decade brings joys and challenges of new kinds. I am shocked that 110 million Americans have STDs and there are 20 million new cases each year and want to convince the people who are sold on the Kinsey reports (1950) to reconsider monogamy for life.
  
Well, some heterosexual monogamists never procreate!
            Same-sex lawyers complain that some heterosexual monogamists never procreate. Therefore, such partners should not enjoy marriage tax-advantages. That’s true. The tax code should be reformed in that respect. Any savings should reduce the burdens on single filers. I propose a change from marriage licensing to monogamy licensing, below.
 
Civil unions or partner contracts are unfair
            Same-sex partners assert, “Marriage between two people in love is a no-brainer.” However, incorporated in the civil marriage license is the obligation to care for any progeny, for life, which incorporates grandchildren and beyond. Only couples can independently have progeny, so civil marriage should apply to them and their progeny only. Same-sex partners may create contracts and lobby for civil union licenses, but they are not civically entitled to civil marriage licenses.
Two people dedicating their lives to each other is noble, and a people should celebrate the bond, whether it is platonic or not and same-sex or not. However, civic same-sex partners cannot opine away same-sex civic limitations. Either being in love or simply partnering with someone with whom you cannot procreate does not justify subjugating surrogate birthers, single people or children for the purpose of fulfilling the partnership. The equality and dignity of the child waiting to be born cannot be ignored. This is no more serious a challenge than the one my bride and I faced if one of us had been unable to procreate. There is no way we would have imposed the life-risks of surrogacy on a child, and my commitment to monogamy was with my bride. Other couples may want surrogacy, but a civic people does not need to endorse it.
 
Heterosexuals are promiscuous, too
            Same-sex lawyers argue that since heterosexuals have a divorce rate of 53%, and since many are promiscuous and contract STDs, some same-sex partners are entitled to the same risks. The premise that one bad practice justifies another is patently false. It’s like saying, “They have STDs and divorces, so I want mine.” However, there is no doubt that marriage is not an exemplary institution, and I suggest improvement, below.
           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.
 
Homosexual persons' suicides are society's fault
            Same-sex lawyers portray victims of same-sex suicide as society's fault. However, heterosexuals also commit suicide and society feels equal sorrow regardless of sexual practices. Discovering, accepting, and appreciating the person who is supported by her/his brain and body is a prime benefit of living, if not the meaning of life. It is tragic when the quest is voluntarily terminated.

Any opposition to LGBTQ practices and choices and options is hatred

            Any expression that there may be better options for the individual who is pursuing LGBTQ practices is held to be an expression of hatred. On a minor issue, this is much like saying that in a discussion of preferences for chocolate candy, to say that I prefer dark chocolate is an expression of hatred. Or, it would be hatred for a man to say he would not compromise personal autonomy for intimacy with a man. Or that one would not compromise monogamy for chance intimacy with anyone. Or that a woman has much more to offer a man than a man has to offer a man. There is no hatred in any of these expressions. To point out the-indisputable-facts-of-reality is not to criticize a person's will to choose otherwise.
            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.
 
Genetic surrogacy is not a same-sex topic; or what’s attachment?
            I feel this lie is adequately countered in the story of my introduction to the same-sex agenda, regarding surrogate motherhood, above. "Genetic surrogacy" starts with "attachment surrogacy" and is surrogate motherhood, as Louisiana law specifies and nullifies.[25] Women who become pregnant to facilitate surrogate motherhood specify the rewards they receive, in the contract. The contract is against physics-based morality and against public policy in Louisiana.
 
White, male property owners intend to govern
Shockingly, the same-sex agenda attacks the preamble to constitution for the USA as the basis for a civic people supervising their governance. And they can effect this attack, because the majority has neglected use of the preamble for 228 years, apparently preferring the false comforts of governance under religion. 
This nation was created on June 21, 1788, when nine states ratified the US Constitution, the first civic document (1787) in US history that does not cite a god. The preamble is the product of the first continental convention, whose delegates did not conduct prayer. But Congress hired ministers on May 1, 1789 to resume governance under religion, specifically theism, specifically factional Protestantism, like the Continental Congress (1774) had practiced. The First Congress postponed governance of by and for a people as specified by the Constitution (1787) and first expressed by Abraham Lincoln (1863), leaving such privilege for a future generation, perhaps this one. Lincoln understandably used the article "the" instead of "a," but his expressions and opinions do not limit a civic people. Establishing governance supervised by a civic people is a privilege that has been left to us by twelve prior generations.
The same-sex lawyer's offense against the Constitution came in a radio-show review with the pair of lawyers who had proudly strategized the United States Supreme Court's negation of the people’s vote against gay marriage in California Proposition 8. On the Diane Rehm show, June 24, 2014,[26] citizen John stated opposition:
I love the buzz words that fly around here. We've got diversity, equality and Constitution. [Regarding] something not directly prohibited by the Constitution, the state has a right to make decisions. So you have the will of the people completely denied, overridden by social engineering people that use words like diversity and equality to push their agenda. But it has nothing that's any resemblance in reality.

(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,
When the Constitution says, ‘We, the people of the United States,’ it really means, we, white male property owners. And every time we've tried to expand the "we," from the original limited set, it's upset people. It's upset people when we expanded it racially.

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!
            The 1787 signers intended republican national governance by a civic people. Informed people would elect patriotic representatives who would uphold the Constitution for a short time at some inconvenience then return to their personal interests. The signers disengaged from the Declaration of Independence, which had 1) cited a Deistic god in opposition to the King’s Protestant god, 2) realized its 1776 purpose of winning national independence, and 3) declared, recalling the Magna Carta, that the king of England was only a man like other elites and not that either slaves or the masses were equal.[27] The preamble referred to "liberty to ourselves and our posterity," not liberty from England, which had been won: The Declaration had served it purpose.
In the state conventions the delegates to the nine ratifying states intended governance by the people, unjust as governance was in 1788. For example, many of them were abolitionists who predicted the end of slavery (that happened) and some thought that in a few decades Christianity (Trinitarianism) would evolve to Unitarianism (did not happen). In the meantime, a Bill of Rights was suggested by some states.
            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.
 
Religion must be punished for opposing same-sex sex
            The same-sex agenda has taken advantage of the Christian majority’s enduring, stubborn intention to force Bible interpretation into civic governance, and I want Christianity to reform, because it is costing a people dearly during their brief lifetimes and always has ruined many people's lives. Damage to marriage, damage from Bible interpretation, is extensive, and I hope my work will help restore or establish national respect for monogamous procreation. However, Christianity, indeed all religious institutions, must reform their approach toward civic issues. People must, without sacrificing personal, private pursuits, such as the hope of everlasting afterlife in heaven, learn to express in civic terms their arguments regarding civic issues, regardless of whether or not their personal, civic opinion is inspired by Bible interpretation. A civic people demands liberty to think--each person's duty--above freedom of religion--a private institution. In addition, religious institutions must support and yield to civil law and do it now. However, religious privacy is important to many people and will continue to help believers who also behave civically. In private integrity, a person cannot demand civic use of Christian law yet refuse Jewish law or Muslim law or Buddhist law or any other religious canon. There must be only US law.
The same-sex agenda is civically very skilled at turning religious beliefs into folly; the religious proponent could have stated their claim in civic terms--could have and yet could use the-indisputable-facts-of-reality. Most people understand that the Biblical claim that homosexuality is an “abomination” is abstract hyperbole for “non-productive, excepting sexual gratification perhaps for one of the parties at a time (the other in a service role),” or some other concrete idea. However, the same-sex agenda will only argue the hyperbole: “abomination.” So the same-sex mendacity against religion is initiated by the Bible hyperbole; the Bible believer should know better than to invite the mirror of mendacity. The U.S. Congress does know better, but enjoys Machiavellian power[28] over a gullible majority, discussed below. People in a theism don't care what their government-clergy partnership does to them.
            Furthermore, insistence on governance under theism alienates 23% of the population: the non-theists. Just as overtures toward civic understanding, posed by non-theists, are off-putting to theists, reference to scripture is off-putting to non-theists. Both parties must insist on the use of the-indisputable-facts-of-reality to debate civic needs and mutual accommodations. Both believers and non-believers want the same thing: the opportunity to pursue happiness as they perceive it in the land where they were born or naturalized, without continual harassment over religion. Alienation by neighbors over what no one knows makes no sense whatsoever and never has.
            That completes my response to the same-sex lies and errors I thought of. I would appreciate anyone’s comments about it. “Drop dead, Mr. Beaver” is no worse than “I’m dusting[29] you off,” but either is an expression of interest in the topic. I hope for better someday, perhaps even collaboration with the clergy. Many of them would make excellent civic practitioners. Some have never grasped the civic immorality of "I love the Church too much [to help unconditionally]."
 

The fruits of governance under theism
Few citizens have read the Supreme Court (USSC) decision, United States v Windsor, but each citizen should read it.[30] The federal administration, led by President Obama, fabricated the case after agreeing to pay Windsor yet delaying the payment, so as to bring the case to the USSC. Everyone had agreed to pay Windsor, so the USSC had no adversaries for whom to conduct a hearing and should not have heard it, but did. Why? I can't guess. Holder knows.
            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.
For decades now, the USSC has taken the position that religion has lost its importance and is ceremonial[31]: therein lies the predictable outcome of governance under a god. Governance under a god has hindered governance under the ultimate justice of a people (recalling Abraham Lincoln's 1861 words). Religions divisive phantasms distract a civci people, not only the believers, from the objective truth much of which is unknown and some of which is known. There can be no civic collaboration when the basis is religion, because there is no entity on which a people can focus: No one will compromise their religion, because there is no incentive to compromise what is not known. One of the reasons religion is such a powerful distraction is that politicians always employ a phantasm. It's a two-way empowerment: the politicians garner the authority of the phantasm and maintain the phantasm's power over the people. In one case, the Civil War,[32] governance under the phantasm cost a people, this people, the equivalent of eight million persons in proportion to today's population. Consider how powerful Abraham Lincoln's cautions against the Civil War would have been if he had avoided using "God", or had referred to governance under theism, a specific, divisive branch of religion and a divisive practice.
Religion is important to believers, primarily for hope and comfort in the face of the unknown, especially the afterdeath, that vast time after a person's body has died. But it must not be the basis of either civic decisions or civic divisions and it must not determine civil law. No child should be forced to express in civic settings an allegiance to a god when neither he or she nor his or her parents have a contestant in the god wars.[33] And the number of people in this country who face the oppression of "under God" now number about 73 million people. No other oppressed minority is that large. Good grief: The oppression extends to our armed forces, where non-theists are denied equivalent counsellors!  Association of a people, this people, must transcend the differing religions and no religion; the religious institutions must observe and defend civil law. A people must reform Congress and end all legislative prayer, including "under God." There should be no support for, even tolerance of, religion in civic governance; a legislator with religious opinions must use civic terms if he/she will have standing among a people. Laws must be based on the objective truth regarding the-indisputable-facts-of-reality, leaving religious practices and decisions a private, inalienable right of each adult individual, much like choices in entertainment, avocations, and safe-sex between consenting adults. Recalling a statement by Jim Robertson, Baton Rouge, "Anarchy, in a free system, is a Federal Judge believing and ruling that an unalienable right is a legal right.” Religion or no-religion is an unalienable right. To think is an often neglected unalienable duty.
Fairness, a subject, unequal to justice, an object
In the entire document that reports US v Windsor, there is no indication that, on the basis of procreation and care of children, same-sex partners are civically secondary or tertiary to heterosexual couples, yet that seems to be the-indisputable-fact-of-reality. From equality and dignity for the child, only the couple who conceive the child are involved in the human facts, and ethically the three parties should not be separated by persons or contracts. Children are almost regarded as properties—not persons--in the verbiage of the record. Also, there is no reference to tax-equality of single adults with the members of same-sex partnerships. The record takes for granted a gay-partner's right to objectify children and subject them to gestation, birth and detachment, then attachment surrogacy, surrogate motherhood, and life without gender role-models, by not addressing those issues. It positions them to sue for such "rights" to subjugate children. Surrogate fatherhood is ignored. Role-models are a privation by lesbian partners as well, and surrogate fatherhood should also be against public policy. The lawyers of this country are deliberately skirting the objective truth in order to promote the agenda of false diversity, false equality, and false pride touted as “dignity.” Why?

Governance under legislative gods
For all I know, Congress’s religious basis for DOMA, with no mention of the objective truth about same-sex partnering was a typical Machiavellian ruse. The unstated purpose is to preserve the appearance that Congress has divine authority. Niccolo Machiavelli expressed in 1513 that governance under a god is a ploy that works well to control believers. Politicians are versed in Machiavellian ideas such as: Involve a god and the people will feel safe regardless of their losses. Or, even in a republic: Keep the people stirred up over their god and they won’t care what representatives are doing to them. Meanwhile, the people are so bemused by hopes for benefits from their personal god they ignore the lifetime injustices they suffer. (Or perhaps Congress saw DOMA as a ruse for taking a responsibility granted the states: regulating marriage.)
             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.
If there is anything salvageable from a people’s woe brought on by the same-sex agenda, it is the confrontation over the fact that the era when Christian arguments were effective in the civic arena is past. It’s not only that some Christian leaders and some Christians are hypocrites--mindless of their own personal autonomy and mindless of posterity: It is the fact that a people could not in the past and cannot now determine best civic practices based on other-worldly opinion, codify the opinion as civic "scripture,” and then inculcate good character based on the “divine” opinion. Reality, such as the earth is not flat, is discovered too fast for scripture to keep up! Understanding has proven that Bible interpretation is ineffective for civic governance, as the DOMA case illustrates once again (referring to Bible support for slavery). This does not mean that Christians should be either disparaged or discouraged, but that they should join the debate by a civic people. Regardless, they should face the reason for the failure of DOMA and do something about it: Christians are responsible for that failure and should learn from it: pursue civil private practices but also govern civic order so as to preserve liberty to practice lawful religion.
The objective truth evident in reality
A people (a nation) must base best civic practices on reality, let’s call it physics from which all overarching laws flow. For example, people refrain from lying, not to fulfill a divine command, but so that they can communicate.[34]
But a people cannot expect every person to adopt best practices. Too many variables determine personal fate and time marches without mercy as each newborn, each child, each adolescent, each young adult struggles for a path to understanding! In the worst situations, people whose appetites wildly dominate prudence die young despite all the precaution and encouragement  a civic people can muster. Some institutions, who present objections to a behavior in misguided yet influential Bible terms like “abomination,” instead of the more civic “fruitless” and “risky,” are part of the inevitability of the deceased person’s fate. A people can’t appeal to either feral or civic minds with the art of other-worldly ideas, hopes, and phantasms.  Also, because every person is unique, best practice must fit that person while accommodating other people; people do not have shared perceptions of happiness; there must be civic compromise, but discovered misbehavers must be subject to civil force. 
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,[35] require the ultimate justice of a civic people.
Civic compromise: civil monogamy licensing
            In my first post directed to the same-sex crowd on The Advocate Online, I wrote, “The same-sex crowd would do themselves a favor by offering something for the heterosexuals.” The same-sex folks tried to laugh me off the forum. I have a very concrete proposal: I want civic compromise so as to accommodate every one of a people during every decade of his/her life, including the children to be born.
            I suggest that Louisiana replace its civil marriage license with a civil monogamy license that keeps all marriage provisions in force but with some exceptions. First, it asks if the applicants can independently procreate. With “yes,” it states that each applicant is obligated to and responsible for any progeny (including grandchildren and beyond) until death do them part; all spousal provisions apply as of the ceremony but progeny statutes such as tax advantages do not begin until pregnancy and delivery of a child. In addition, it clarifies that "monogamy" includes the commitment that there will be no intimacy with anyone but the applicant's spouse. If “no,” the progeny provisions do not apply; each applicant is obligated only to the other including the intimacy provision; and their tax status remains identical to singles tax-status for life of the monogamy. Marriage ceremonies, certificates, and requirements by churches remain believers’ considerations and responsibilities.
            Additionally, I suggest licensing procreation to draw more attention to the widespread abuse of children and challenge applicants' preparedness for parenting. The procreation license would have the advantage of confronting selfish or careless or abusive parenthood.  Today, there are grandparents who are thirty years old, and, as mentioned above, the brain is not fully equipped to grow wisdom until age 25 for men. I want to debate procreation licensing.

Civicality
            I think this review shows that same-sex marriage is an unjust court decsion, to put it mildly. It certainly does not seek civic justice, equality, and dignity, but instead seeks advantage for the plaintiff. Same-sex lawyers would take advantage of children and singles, heterosexual monogamists, racial minorities, the racial majority, religious beliefs, public empathy, legislative failures, civic emotions, and mendacity to build a case on same-sex religion when the issue is monogamous procreation. The same-sex agenda seems to provide evidence that supports Overstreet’s claim that homosexuality does not facilitate mature character.
            I think Louisiana should lead the nation by not condoning the same-sex lifestyle and demonstrating the importance of both heterosexual monogamy and religious privacy. I hope Louisiana will strongly consider the two monogamy licenses to both lend gravity to civil marriage as monogamy and to honor same-sex monogamy. The children to be born or adopted would benefit directly. I hope religious believers will see the incentives for phrasing their proposals for governance in civic terms and demand that religious institutions reform so as to obey civil law in this country.

*Online at legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=230384 .
    
Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised September 25, 2016


[2] Peter Berger, “Religion As An Activity Engaged In By Consenting Adults In Private,” January 23, 2013, online at www.the-american-interest.com/berger/2013/01/23/religion-as-an-activity-engaged-in-by-consenting-adults-in-private/ .
[3] In William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning,” ten-year old Sarty Snopes leaves his family because he has learned domestic justice from grocery-store judges. The critical decision to walk away was Sarty’s.
[4] H. A. Overstreet depicts psychological maturity as a level of understanding that is achieved by a lifetime of excellence in cooperative personal autonomy. Michael Polanyi describes it as relating to the universe with personal knowledge. Orlando Patterson describes it as freedom from all internal and external constraints against self-discovery. Kahlil Gibran asserts that children have personal autonomy and are entitled to their path to psychological maturity.
[5] This is one of many themes in William Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!, 1936.
[6] At age 25 for men, age 23 for women, the body completes the parts of the brain needed to build wisdom. See online at: ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text . Also, note that auto liability insurance costs less after age 25 for males. Further, compare ages required to run for federal offices: Representative 25, Senator 30; and President 35.
[7] I became a father too early for my psychological maturity at age 27. I’ll never forget a great aunt coming to see her niece (my daughter) and rebuking my plea not to wake her. The aunt happily responded, “That’s my niece and I drove thirty miles to meet her: get out of my way!” My daughter received love regardless of my stupid objections.
[8] In an allegory I have been developing for some fifteen years, the primary beneficiary of this heritage of monogamy is the youngest generation, who has the chain of dialogue with their ancestors. The title is “Abraham Decided Not to Murder His Son,” online at understandtheknowledge.blogspot.com.
[9] President Barack Obama, second inaugural address, January 21, 2013.
[10] This thought was expressed by my friend Josh Riley of Baton Rouge in private conversation, during spring, 2014.
[11] A thought from Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Divinity School Address,” 1738.
[12] For example, William Faulkner’s novel, Absalom, Absalom!, 1936.
[13] I am reading a social-working handbook to find support for this statement, which is based on my experience: If my wife did not want to make love, my hormones shut down.
[14] Before now, I had not noticed the caption, “Government endorsed surrogacy contracts.” See online at http://cnsnews.com/news/article/abigail-wilkinson/gov-bobby-jindal-vetoes-bill-government-endorsed-surrogacy-contracts . Government endorsement and the surrogacy industry in Louisiana are what I oppose.
[15] H. A. Overstreet. The Mature Mind. 1949.  Norton, NY. Pages 58-63. The human being is born a creature of diffuse sexuality. He must mature toward a specific and creative sexual relationship. Immaturity shows when someone does not make it through one of the stages:  infatuation with the parent of the opposite sex, homosexuality, and adolescent heterosexuality. No one can be called sexually mature, it would seem, until he accepts his own sex nature without guilt; incorporates that nature in a rational life-plan; and is able to make sexual experience the basis of a sustained, mutually fulfilling, and creative relationship with the opposite sex. Where the sex linkage is immature there is no high maturity of character.”
[16] Louisiana Statutes: §2713.  Contract for surrogate motherhood; nullity A.  A contract for surrogate motherhood as defined herein shall be absolutely null and shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.  B.  "Contract for surrogate motherhood" means any agreement whereby a person not married to the contributor of the sperm agrees for valuable consideration to be inseminated, to carry any resulting fetus to birth, and then to relinquish to the contributor of the sperm the custody and all rights and obligations to the child. Acts 1987, No. 583, §1, eff. Sept.  1, 1987.
[17] Stout, Martha, Ph.D.. The Sociopath Next Door. Broadway Books. 2005. Page 133.
[19] Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. The Liberal Mind. Free World Books. 2006.
[20] Ronald Reagan had 2 czars and appointees, G. W. Bush had 82, and Barack Obama had 82. See online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars .
[21] One might think my idea of personal autonomy, practiced for seven decades now, is a figment of my imagination. Regardless, I like it. It empowered me to say “No” when a new girl at my high school patted her fanny and said, “This is mine, all mine, but you can have a piece if you want it.” It empowered me to say “No” when two boys in the same bed sexually satisfied each other and invited me to join. It empowered me to say “No” when a boss tried to kiss me. Like most other humans, I am attracted to other people, readily take interest in their opinions and can talk long, but when I sense that I could compromise my autonomy, I become reserved. Additionally, I try to share the importance of cooperative autonomy with my family, loved ones, and neighbors. Fortunately, my bride is personally autonomous, but if something happens that raises my concerns, I speak to her about it, and am happy that I do, because she reciprocates: questions me when there is evidence of error. I cannot imagine life with promiscuity. It must be psychological chaos and personal erosion.
[23] www.lifesitenews.com/news/epidemic-1-2-of-gay-men-will-have-hiv-by-age-50-if-current-rates-continue-w
[24] See comments of Judge Bonnie Jackson in http://theadvocate.com/news/10385468-123/br-forum-explores-tragedy-of , “BR forum explores youth tragedies,” The Advocate, September 28, 2014, P 1B.
[25] RS9:2713.  Contract for surrogate motherhood; nullity. Online at: http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=107154 .
[26] Online at:  thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=19478, at about 42 minutes.
[27] Slavery was wrong and slaves were equally human. In the draft, Thomas Jefferson complained that the King had imposed slavery on the states. But the Declaration did not claim that slaves were equal. Lincoln’s use of the Declaration to trump the US Constitution was civically immoral. Abolition of slavery needed to come under the Constitution, impatient as Lincoln may have been.
[28] Nicolo Machiavelli, in Chapter XI of “The Prince” states that a people under a theism don’t care about the tyranny their governors impose on them. America has suffered that tyranny since 1789. See the latest in Greece v. Galloway, which grants a town the right to legislative prayer, just like state legislatures and Congress; a people do not matter to the US government under theism.
[29] Matthew 10:14. “If anyone will not . . . listen to your words, leave . . . and shake the dust off your feet.”
[31] Online: www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-696 . “Our tradition assumes that adult citizens, firm in their own beliefs, can tolerate and perhaps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person of a different faith.” Adult citizens firm in the beliefs should pray in their closets, knowing that some people consider prayer to be arrogance against whatever, if anything, is in control of reality. Prayer is an expression of lack of trust, as though the object of prayer needs the pleas of the legislature.
[32] “[P]ublic opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. Online at sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html .
[33] A Christian teacher in Shreveport immorally harassed a Buddhist boy. The case was settled with $4000, but who is assuaging the harm to the boy? See online at http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/03/settlement_over_harassment_of.html .
[34] See my essay, “Why Our Example Is Not To Ever Lie,” at understandtheknowledge.blogspot.com.
[35] From Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?”