Nature Vs. Government
Q: "Can government
validate what nature does not?"
The priority of
ideas and behavior is what this disagreement is all about. The rule
of the mind - or its submission to carnal, unnatural priorities, appetites,
choices, and behavior - and their unhealthy consequences.
Nature, itself,
invalidates homosexual actions for there is neither mechanistic justification
nor optional validation by consent under the laws of nature. [Often
referred to by some as "a Darwinian dead-end."] To state otherwise
is to give a perverse and simpleton voice to glands - not to powers
of reason and its implicit tools of criteria and standards; tools which
equip the human family with the ability to measure and anticipate consequences
and thereby avoid some choices and choose others conducive to the healthy
results of survival and progression.
The rule of the
glands prioritizes such appetites at the expense of the kingdom of the
mind and its inevitable recession as evidenced in every society of history
past.
Should a branch
of government attempt to validate what nature itself does not? Does
"government criteria" equip us with the wisdom of vision for
future generations? Lacking standards and their enablement, can we recognize
- with foresight - the regression of our environment as thinking/choicemaking
beings? Nature and History say, "No." Instead, we will become
throw-back creatures of an insatiable, grunting, lascivious, and unnatural
conduct.
Can anyone doubt
that homosexuals, even in defining themselves primarily by their sexual
appetite, reveal an unbalanced obsession with the carnal rather than
the mental? Such desires can and do distort perception and judgment;
principles and standards have minor or non- meaning for a those whose
decisions are dominated by physical appetites triggered by glandular
secretions -- not ideas.
In homosexuality,
civilization rightly sees the threat of an anti-standards, anti-mind,
anti-survival perversion of human nature. Seen against the background
of history and nature, terms like "deviant,' "perverse,"
"weird," and "aberrant," are not epithets, then,
but appropriate descriptions of homosexual behavior. Calling a homosexual
"gay" is, in fact, an inhumane act, for it substitutes a platitude
for the first requirement of healing such psychological cripples: objective
recognition of their condition.
Additionally, many
of today's psychiatrists have unscientifically finalized and capitulated
to an illness they have ignorantly misunderstood; mis-applying a public
confession of inadequacy and accomodation for sound diagnosis, treatment,
relief and cure. Recall that "True science knows No Final Answers
- only on-going questions."
Human experience
is a kingdom of the mind and standards are its tools of measure and
foresight. The public has the right and the obligation to set those
standards and and to reject the abnormal and aberrant in the interest
of posterity. On the larger loom of history, the struggle we are engaged
in is but one more between the thoughtfully rational and civilized and
the carnal barbarian. Nature is speaking with its constant and authoritative
voice. Our temporary elected representatives would do well to pay attention.
We will, as citizens,
teachers, and parents, continue to be attentive to that voice and maintain
our transcendent support to 'the man of the mind' -- and of the spirit.
We will thoughtfully
oppose all federal and California State Assembly and Senate Bills --
and Candidates -- which/who attempt to validate homosexual behavior
as natural. We seek your thoughtful agreement.
vincit veritas
Mr. & Mrs. James Baxter
Santa Maria, California
semper fidelis