Sexual preference can only exist as long as humans exist. Therefore, preserving a healthy, reproductive humanity takes precedence over protecting their sexual preferences.
As long as it exists and remains sexually functional, the human race will always have freedom to choose its sexual preference and thus, their sexual preference never needs protection from extinction of this right. However, the human right to exist does need protection. Thus the need to protect human’s ability to reproduce is warranted but the right to prefer one sexual experience over another is not grounds to alter the institution of marriage that was set up to help facilitate the human body’s reproductive functioning.
The organizational structure provided by a physically and emotionally healthy, married, one-woman-one-man relationship is dynamically setup to reproduce an unbroken DNA human bloodlineâ€”all the while, promoting opposite gender diversity and thus, innately provides for sturdy, holistic leadership roles of relationship within a family structure. Holistic means: characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.
Without investing in expensive major health workarounds such as sperm implantation, hormonal therapy, organ transplants, and diversity counseling for any children born to same-sex parents, the reproductive capacity and social responsibilities of same-sex relationships are more likely to contribute to a decline of human reproduction and facilitate a non-holistic “sameness” (i.e., less gender diversity) in the leadership roles of relationship modeled within the family structure.
Marriage between one man and one woman, equally loving and honoring each other, facilitates stable human procreation because children are naturally reproduced within the context of a preset physical norm and a diverse, holistic, leadership/parenting relationship. Within a loving marriage of one-woman and one-man, there is an increased chance of humans being responsibly procreated and brought to maturity.
In the United States of America’s Declaration of Independence signed on July 4th, 1776, we read:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
â€¢ That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
â€¢ That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (“Despotism” is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power.)
When the constitution of the United States of America was drafted, representatives from 12 of the 13 states met in Philadelphia in the middle of a hot summer for the Constitutional Conventions. Most wore wool vests and sweltered in the heat of a non-air conditioned rooms for 4 months as they relentlessly hammered away at all the issues that would best provide for the individual state’s identity as they joined together to form a federally unified government without forming an overly centralized or overly distant entity. A chief aim of the Constitution as drafted by the Convention was to create a government with enough power to act on a national level, but without so much power that fundamental rights would be at risk. From this 4-month sequester of sorts, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government were formed.
What should the American lawmakers do before passing laws that directly or indirectly impact human bloodline potential?
When the judicial branch of the U.S.A. is forming decisions that affect the nation about a matter so important that it directly impacts its American citizen’s human bloodline potential, the process of due diligence, that discovers and upholds the provisions of the Declaration of Independence must be thoroughly and provisionally conducted. An all-encompassing, scientific and moral study, a public review of all the collected evidence, and an all-inclusive discussion between representatives from all sides, must be conducted in order to comprehensively determine “Prudence” and what constitutes “Despotism.” This discovery must also be provisional in that all of the information and evidence for such a study may not be available at the time of decision-making and thus need adjustment later on based on follow-up impact studies. This due diligence process should be conducted before an overarching federally mandated law of the land affects the basic right of humans to exist.
Questions and answers to consider:
â€¢ Does a person’s sexual orientation and sexual preference need federally mandated, Supreme Court protection from discrimination and potential extermination OR
â€¢ Does the preservation of the human bloodline and its resulting ethnicities require equal or greater protection and preservation? No matter who ends up raising a child, the act of bearing human children will always require a male and female contribution. Thus, the sexual orientation and preference of a male-female reproductive marriage should hold a greater priority in our setting of precedence, and receive an equal-or-greater amount of protection, than same-sex sexual preferences.
â€¢ A person’s sexual orientation and sexual preference forms a personal preference, but this preference is not an ethnic bloodline issue, it is a personal preference issue.
â€¢ The Gay and Lesbian agenda positions most of their argument for right of protection within an “ethnic bloodline” discussion.
â€¢ Within the context of a reproductive marriage, does a male/female sexual preference facilitate procreating and forming a bloodline ethnicity? Yes it does. The life of a body is in its blood. Ethnicity and human bloodline is the result of the human body’s male-and-female physical reproduction cycle.
â€¢ Does a male-with-male or a female-with-female, same-sex marriage naturally provide for the potential of perpetuating a bloodline ethnicity? No. The actual bloodline will always be formed by the male-and-female egg-sperm contribution.
â€¢ How many same-sex permanent relationships can and will invest in the major health investments needed to reproduce?
â€¢ How many same-sex parents will provide their children with an understanding of the benefits of a diverse-gender parental structure?
â€¢ Has the U.S.A. done its homework over the long term to prove that same-sex parents are equally or more beneficial to children than one-man and one-woman parents?
â€¢ Does the U.S.A., who is renown for its science and medical innovation, want to set a global standard on this subject without performing the scientific and medical due-diligence proving the long-term benefits of dramatically changing the ground rules for such an important institution?
Again, as long as it exists and remains sexually functional, the human race will always have freedom to choose its sexual preference and thus, their sexual preference never needs protection from extinction of this right. However, the human right to exist does need protection. Thus the need to protect human’s ability to reproduce is warranted but the right to prefer one sexual experience over another is not grounds to alter the institution of marriage that was set up to help facilitate the human body’s reproductive functioning.
To take this point a little further down the road, have we thought about these questions?
Will those who want to marry a sibling or a close, blood relative also need this right federally mandated as legal and acceptable?
Would an incestuous marriage form a bloodline ethnicity? Not a healthy bloodline with an unbroken DNA.
What about those who want to marry their dog or their sheep or their goat? Why should they be denied the right to legally marry their beloved animal? Would a bestial marriage form a bloodline ethnicity? No.
Can the (66-book) Bible help us understand issues like these more comprehensively?
To bring the Bible into this discussion, I Thessalonians 5:23 describes the 3 dimensions of humanity, â€œMay God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.â€ The Apostle Paul refers in this scripture to man as a triune being.
1. Body = the bloodline, ethnicity, and gender of a person.
2. Soul = the personality and diverse nature of a person who has individual and personal preferences.
3. Spirit = the wisdom and revelation that the person uses to guide their body and soul. James 3:13-18 describes two kinds of wisdom: A heavenly, pure wisdom and an earthly, evil “wisdom.”
Humans are created with 3 dimensions. They have a body (visible flesh exterior), a soul (invisible personality interior), and a spirit (invisible navigator).
Thus, the Bible’s description of the triune nature of humanity comes into play as the Supreme Court of the United States of America considers where to draw the line when making federally mandated decisions for the institution of marriage. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. must be able to discern and divide what rights and freedoms belong to the human body, what rights and freedoms belong to the soul, and what rights and freedoms belong to the human spirit without afflicting any of the other dimensions in the process.
Marriage is an institution that is set up to ensure that the reproductive components necessary for human survival and continuance reach their maximum potential. Through respect and commitment, marriage is designed to provide a stable environment between a man and a woman who, according to the Bible, are created to represent the equally male, equally female nature of God, who lives in perfect union and harmony, and is engaged in an eternal love covenant that reproduces after it’s own kind. From his heart of love, God created male and female and gave them the power to do the same. That is, from love, procreate more males and females.
Whether we acknowledge the God of the Bible or not, we must acknowledge that natureâ€™s intimate design teaches us that holistic human inter-connectivity and reproductive qualities require a male and a female contribution and that every other form of facilitating reproduction is a â€œwork-around.â€
And even if we choose to ignore God, the 66 books of the Bible, or forget about nature itself, human technology still teaches us that strong, holistic inter-connectivity happens best when a male light bulb screws into a female socket.