Ireland changed me
No, I have never been to Ireland. It is the recent Ireland referendum on abortion , that has left an indelible mark on my soul. You see, I am passionately opposed to abortion of a foetus conceived of consensual unprotected sex. It just isn't right that a human being's life should be deliberately started, and then deliberately terminated, unless if such life threatens an(other) human life.
Those who follow my blogs know that I do not believe that a homosexual could be "born that way". One could even label me an orthodox "African" in the sense that I have fully embraced the view that "if dogs know which one to corpulate with, how could humans fail to know?". But the Irish referendum changed all that. During the Irish referendum I was confronted by the conundrum: Nature uses animal predatorship as a major control mechanism to prevent overpopulation of earth by any and all animals, except man. So how does nature control human overpopulation, given that control human population, nature must?
It could be argued that such diseases as ebola, AIDS etc are nature's way of controlling human numbers. But humans put up stiff resistance to such controls. They develop sophisticated vaccines and other remedies to frustrate nature's designs on them, something which no other animal does.
So is it possible, even just remotely possible that nature may be turning us into homosexuals and lesbians by design, in an effort to control our numbers on the planet? If so, then perhaps those of us who are passionately opposed to abortion as afore-described should come to terms with homosexuality and lesbianism as possible evolutionary progressions of our species. In other words, maybe it's precisely because as a species, we are much more intelligent than dogs, and we fight nature back, that those among us who practice homosexuality and lesbianism are the way they are. It is not because they are less intelligent than dogs!
That said, I am still opposed to blurring the difference between a legalised sexual relationship and a marriage. In my view, the word "marriage" should only be used to describe a union whose participants intend to start a family through procreation. If they are heterosexuals, of child-bearing age, but have no intention of ever starting a family through procreation, they should be treated exactly the same as homosexuals and lesbians - their sexual union should be legalised, but should not be called a marriage. It could be called "life-partnering", for example.
Those who follow my blogs know that I do not believe that a homosexual could be "born that way". One could even label me an orthodox "African" in the sense that I have fully embraced the view that "if dogs know which one to corpulate with, how could humans fail to know?". But the Irish referendum changed all that. During the Irish referendum I was confronted by the conundrum: Nature uses animal predatorship as a major control mechanism to prevent overpopulation of earth by any and all animals, except man. So how does nature control human overpopulation, given that control human population, nature must?
It could be argued that such diseases as ebola, AIDS etc are nature's way of controlling human numbers. But humans put up stiff resistance to such controls. They develop sophisticated vaccines and other remedies to frustrate nature's designs on them, something which no other animal does.
So is it possible, even just remotely possible that nature may be turning us into homosexuals and lesbians by design, in an effort to control our numbers on the planet? If so, then perhaps those of us who are passionately opposed to abortion as afore-described should come to terms with homosexuality and lesbianism as possible evolutionary progressions of our species. In other words, maybe it's precisely because as a species, we are much more intelligent than dogs, and we fight nature back, that those among us who practice homosexuality and lesbianism are the way they are. It is not because they are less intelligent than dogs!
That said, I am still opposed to blurring the difference between a legalised sexual relationship and a marriage. In my view, the word "marriage" should only be used to describe a union whose participants intend to start a family through procreation. If they are heterosexuals, of child-bearing age, but have no intention of ever starting a family through procreation, they should be treated exactly the same as homosexuals and lesbians - their sexual union should be legalised, but should not be called a marriage. It could be called "life-partnering", for example.
Comments
Post a Comment