latest

I do not understand the question. A homosexual couple living chastely is not a homosexual couple, because then they are not performing homosexual acts. Homosexuals are not a race or subspecies of man. They are men who indulge in a certain vice, like alcoholics, or like men who have sex with their sisters.

An unmarried pair of unrelated roommate cannot adopt a child in any state in the union of which I am aware. Anyone can identify anyone else as having their power of attorney for health care decisions. I am not sure what financial benefits you mean: there is no point in giving the tax breaks given a married couple to a pair of unrelated roommates.

In any case, I was once firmly in the pro-gay camp, and in the pro-anything camp, provided two (or more) adults consented: they should be left alone to do their business and they would leave others alone. One of the things that drove me out of that camp was that when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts offered to institute Civil Unions, which would have all the legal benefits of marriage, the highest Court of Massachusetts told the legislature that anything less than calling the Civil Unions marriage would be illegal and unconstitutional. And the Leftwing activists back this position. I heard not a single dissenting voice from that side of the argument.

The implication was clear. The pervertarians want the perversion to be given the honors and applause the a healthy society awards to the sacrament of marriage, and the mere fact that a homosexual pair cannot, in any real sense, have sex, copulate, reproduce, form a family, form a sexual dyad, or be anything more than a kinky mockery or take-off of real marriage is brushed away by a mental act of thought-censorship worthy of Orwell.

Even to bring up the topic of the biological impossibility to homosexuals forming the heterosexual dyad needed for marriage is greeting with screams loud enough to block out any further rational thought. This boycott against Card is part of that mechanism of screaming.

The homosexuals I know personally do not give a Tinker’s Damn about marriage. Nearly everyone behind this movement is a heterosexual, usually happily married, but one who thinks it is wrong for perversion to be discriminated against. They want to encourage and applaud sexual perversion because and only because it is perverse. They think this serves justice and creates peace and wellbeing. They are not perverts themselves, but they are pervertarians.

The pervertarians do not simply want to be left alone, to live and let live. They want society to pretend that perversion is normal, even though their five senses tell them that it is not. So they must block out what their senses tell them with a legal bit of make-believe.

Anyone, like a caterer or a wedding cake decorator or a wedding photographer or a Catholic Church who does not want to play along with the mockery (and I mean that in both senses of the word) of marriage must be punished soundly, so that no one will dare bring to the awareness of the poor victims a sexual dysfunction that they are pretending something will make them happy which only leads to misery.

And so every Leftist believes, and tells each other they all believe, that there is no difference between chastity and perversion, no difference between male and female, no difference between sane sexual drive and neurotic sexual drives, no difference between health and addiction, no difference between sanity and insanity, no difference between right and wrong.

This is the core of nihilism, which is the belief that there are no ultimate truths, no objective truths. The belief is that by eliminating all differences between right and wrong, sane and insane, chaste and perverse, male and female, all conflict will cease and utopia will bloom.

I am more than a presumably rational individual, I am a champion of atheism who gave arguments in favor of atheism so convincing that three of my friends gave up their religious belief due to my persuasive reasoning powers, and my father stopped going to church.

Upon concluding through a torturous and decades-long and remorseless process of logic that all my fellow atheists were horribly comically wrong about every basic point of philosophy, ethics and logic, and my hated enemies the Christians were right, I wondered how this could be. The data did not match the model.

Being a philosopher and not a poseur, I put the matter to an empirical test.

For the first time in my life, I prayed, and said. “Dear God. There is no logical way you could possibly exist, and even if you appeared before me in the flesh, I would call it an hallucination. So I can think of no possible way, no matter what the evidence and no matter how clear it was, that you could prove your existence to me. But the Christians claim you are benevolent, and that my failure to believe in you inevitably will damn me. If, as they claim, you care whether or not I am damned, and if, as they claim, you are all wise and all powerful, you can prove to me that you exist even though I am confident such a thing is logically impossible. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, John C. Wright.” — and then my mind was at rest. I had done all I needed to do honestly to maintain my stature as someone, not who claimed to be logical, objective and openminded, but who was logical, objective, and openminded.

Three days later, with no warning, I had a heart attack, and was lying on the floor, screaming and dying.

-Then I was saved from certain death by faith-healing, after which–

-I felt the Holy Spirit enter my body, after which–

[description of ecstatic visions and personal encounter with Jesus edited for space]

I was converted.

So I was prepared to say adieu to logic and reason and just take things on faith, when I then found out that the only people who think you have to say adieu to logic and reason in order to take things on faith are crackpots both Christian and atheistic.

Every non-crackpot thinks faith is that on which you rely when unreasonable fears tempt you to disbelieve that to which your reason has consented. If your father says you can dive off the high dive with no risk of death, and he has never lied in the past, and your reason tells you to trust him, it is rational to take his word on faith and jump, and it is irrational to let your eyes overestimate the danger poised by the height.

I then discovered that the Christian world view makes sense of much that the atheistic or agnostic worldview cannot make sense of, and even on its own philosophical terms, is a more robust explanation of the cosmos and man’s place in it, answering many questions successfully that atheists both claim cannot be answered, and then, without admitting it, act in their lives as if the question were answered, such as how to account for the rational faculties of man, the universality of moral principles, the order of the cosmos, how best to live, etc.

Turning to my atheist friends, I then discovered none of them, not one, could give me even so reasonable an argument as I was expert in giving in favor of atheism.

They reasoned as follows: “God cannot possibly exist. Therefore any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd. Since any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd, therefore none of your evidence proves God exists.”

I found their perfect, childlike faith touching.

No matter what they saw, no matter what they heard, no matter how the world was against them, they would go to the lions rather than look at the evidence, lest their faith in their faithlessness be shaken.