La question de l'homoparentalité est sous-jacente à celle du mariage homosexuel.

Il n'est pas question en Droit libertarien d'interdire l'adoption à des couples homosexuels dès lors évidemment qu'il n'y a pas violation des Droits légitimes de chacun, ceux de l'enfant notamment.

Il n'est pas surprenant que des études, dont je ne saurais remettre en doute le sérieux, montrent que l'homoparentalité ne nuit pas au devenir de l'enfant. En effet, nous ne pouvons douter que la nature humaine regorge de ressources pour faire fonctionner au mieux les relations entre individus sains d'esprit. La capacité de dépasser quelques parties instinctives de notre nature fonctionne aussi quand il s'agit d'élever des enfants.

Voici quelques liens sur la question.

Le débat sur l'homoparentalité
Association réformatrice des homosexuel(le)s et de leurs amis
Présentation juridique

2 commentaires

Anonymous Anonyme a écrit...
or or
The Case Against Homosexual Activity

Some of the most emotional and divisive issues in our society, specifically issues such as homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexuals and other "gay rights" issues, revolve around one central and critical issue. That issue is: is homosexual activity moral and "legalizeable" or immoral and "illegalizeable"?

If we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is moral and that it should be protected via legislation, then by logical extension we must also conclude that such things as homosexual marriage and adoption should likewise be legal.

Conversely, if we can rationally conclude that homosexual activity is immoral and "illegalizeable," then by logical extension we must also conclude that homosexual marriage and adoption should be illegal.

In an effort to bring clarity to these issues and to help unify us around truth, rather than keep us divided by untruth and confusion, what follows is a rigorously logical analysis of that aforementioned central homosexual issue.

For centuries, the position of "traditional value" people re homosexual activity essentially boils down to this: homosexual acts are physiologically (if not also psychologically) unnatural deviations from the reasonable heterosexual norm; and if we condone homosexual deviations then we must fairly allow other aberrant people their own particular deviations from other reasonable norms. In short, legal homosexual acts are bad and absurd legal precedents.

Can we justly discriminate in favor of some unreasonable deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate deviations from other reasonable standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

For example, many towns have ordinances restricting what people can do with their homes and yards. These towns want to prevent slums from forming and ruining their environments. Now, what if someone wants to move into a picturesque section of such a town and wants to have a yard of mud with paper littered around it and wants to have a house which has the exterior's coating of paint badly chipped up? We should tolerate that if we tolerate homosexual acts.

To those "freedom-loving" liberals who disagree with that last sentence, we can just ask them if they would outlaw any action that lowered someone's property values. And if they would, we could point out that an openly homosexual person moving into a conservative area would likely lower property values in that area since many conservatives might decide to move out of that area, just like black people moving into certain predominantly white areas can unfortunately cause "white flight" and lower property values. Does that mean liberals would agree to outlaw homosexual behavior in that geographic area? Or would they outlaw black people moving into certain white areas of the country? This gives the reader an idea of the kind of legal swamp liberals are wont to create. (Let us remember that trial lawyers, who are big contributors to liberal Democratic politicians, thrive when our laws are confusing and contradictory. Do liberal politicians intentionally create confusing laws which help keep trial lawyers busy as a payback for campaign contributions by those lawyers?)

And if liberals would not outlaw actions that lower property values, then if they tolerate homosexual deviations they would fairly have to tolerate other deviations (as the aforementioned pig sties) which lower property values. In either case, whether "freedom-loving" liberals would choose to outlaw actions that lower property values or not outlaw, the consequences are very messy for them and their ideology.

Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to discriminate against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g., people who have sex in public) and incestuous couples and necrophiliacs, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren't hurting anybody; but it is NOT okay to discriminate against homosexual and bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by saying things like "Exhibitionists offend people." We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity. We don't want to depress homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to anyone NOT in denial about reality.

Incidentally, we should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual deviations is an absurd legal precedent.

Homosexuals like to say, as part of their defense of homosexual acts, that they are not hurting anybody when they engage in such acts (though, because they do tend to be more promiscuous than "normal," they do spread more sexual diseases per capita than more sexually "normal" people). Well, people who live in an ugly pig sty like the one described above can say the same thing about that pig sty--it does not hurt anybody. That does not carry much weight. Many actions are wrong that do not "hurt" anybody.

If we tolerate such deviations we will wind up with an ugly, confused, and sick society. Let us learn from the decay and fall of the great Roman and Greek societies, which came to value debauchery. Once people depart from decent moral standards it is frequently all downhill after that because it is harder to be moral than immoral, generally speaking. This is because being moral requires some effort (self-restraint or self-denial), and people tend to take the "path of least resistance."

Indeed, over the last 30 years or so, as our society has become more accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, as has the out-of-wedlock birthrate and teen suicide rate, we have seen the rise of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. etc.

Thus, we should ever try to see to it that morality is the path of least resistance by creating inhibitions to immorality, by at least attaching serious social stigmas to immorality and preferably by illegalizing immoral behavior. (To those who say that we cannot legislate morality, we can reply that outlawing murder, rape, theft, racist behaviors, sexist behaviors, indecent exposure, disturbing the peace, etc., etc., is legislating morality and is obviously proper.)

Ultimately, all the rules or laws against homosexual activity, bestiality (human-animal sex), normal or deviant sex in public, indecent exposure, obscene literature and videos, the utterance of certain swearwords in public or using them in newspapers and magazines and on TV and radio--all the rules or laws against those things rest on the same basis as the laws or ordinances against the existence of such things as ugly, unkempt houses and yards. What is that basis? Nothing more than this: a large number of people find such things unpleasant or offensive or repugnant, etc., etc.

It is a matter of maintaining high standards at the least, and at the most of slowly raising those standards as we make society better. Allowing people to lower our standards, to take us down toward a more animalistic state of being, is to allow people to slowly ruin our advanced and advancing society.

Sure we can survive (after a fashion) if we allow (for examples) public heterosexual or homosexual or human-animal sexual activity, but what kind of life would that be? Sure we can survive in a muddy, unkempt, littered, ugly neighborhood (as opposed to a grassy, flowered, neat neighborhood), but what kind of life is that?

The fact is, in a democracy, if enough people find a certain behavior (not orientation or belief) disagreeable they can pass laws against that behavior. And behavior is the key word. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of natural characteristics as race, gender, or age. Generally speaking, we cannot discriminate on the basis of belief or speech. We cannot violate fundamental rights like freedom of speech or religious belief or political belief. But behavior, unpleasant, repugnant, degraded behavior, can be rightly illegalized.

(I believe it is fairly clear that our Constitution does not even come close to granting a fundamental or inalienable right to aberrant sex like consenting human-animal sex, adult-child sex, or, to address the topic at hand, homosexual sex. And having mentioned "race" in the preceding paragraph----homosexuals love to compare their status with the status of racial minorities like black people. The comparison is absurd. Many blacks and other racial minority members are understandably offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity.)

Homosexuals try to "naturalize" their behavior by saying that such behavior can be found in nature. Even if that is true, homosexual behavior is the exception rather than the rule. Nature makes mistakes all the time. There are mutations, genetic defects, etc. Just because something can be found in nature does not make it good or right. If every person was homosexual the human race would die out because there would be no reproduction. That is just one of the drawbacks to homosexual behavior. Others will be discussed later.

(There does exist quite a bit of seemingly homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. For examples, in cattle and dogs and monkeys, a male will occasionally "mount" another male as he would mount a female for sex; except there is no sex between the males, the act being an asexual communication of dominance and submission. Also, some sexually deprived animals [as pet dogs] will try to mate with practically anything that moves, like human arms or legs or same-sex animals. But that does not indicate homosexual desire, just orgasm desire.)

As to whether homosexual desire is natural or instinctual or genetic in some people (homosexual acts are always physiologically unnatural even if psychologically natural): in people with some natural physical abnormality in their brains that may be true for them, but it is irrelevant. We all, being imperfect creations, occasionally have immoral desires (as, for examples, to cheat, steal, etc.). Immoral desires obviously should not be acted upon, whether they are natural or instinctual or in a way man-made. (What if some poor guy felt a "natural/instinctual" desire to have sex with a consenting sheep--are we supposed to allow a human-animal sexual relationship? Preposterous. And what about necrophilia? Having sex with dead people doesn't "hurt" anyone. How ridiculous and bizarre are we supposed to allow the world to get?) And if homosexual genes ever actually existed, it seems logical to conclude that they would have died out a long time ago since homosexuals tend to not reproduce.

"There's a big difference between engaging in homosexual acts and having sex with a sheep," I've heard multiple times from homosexuals, as if that difference is very relevant. There is a big difference between stealing five dollars and stealing a million dollars, yet they are both obviously wrong--stealing is stealing. Homosexual acts are unnatural; bestiality is unnatural; both are wrong, differences or no differences.

Also, if homosexuals are going to place much emphasis on such differences, then they ought to start with the most significant of such differences--the differences between man and woman, between heterosexual and homosexual sex. They want to point out the differences that are most "convenient" to them and their rationalizations; but they want to ignore, conveniently, the differences between man and woman. Hypocritical.

"But it's love," homosexuals say. Irrelevant. If you love your baby and your pet dog are you going to have sex with them? Different types of love-objects and different types of love entail different behaviors, but not homosexual acts or bestiality or pedophilia.

And in addition to homosexual partners being unnatural and setting bad legal precedents, homosexuals contract certain diseases fairly regularly (details on this point can be found in the section of our website called On The Disease-Ridden Homosexual Lifestyle). Some of the diseases are hepatitis B, genital herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, anal cancer, and AIDS. These diseases are nature's way of telling people that something is wrong with their behavior, that they are abusing or misusing their bodies. These diseases are other good reasons to not engage in homosexual acts.

Homosexuals point out that many unnatural (i.e., man-invented or artificial) things are valued by human beings--from things like cars and airplanes to complex entertaining actions like contortionist feats to things like purple hair. They rightly say that just because homosexual acts may be unnatural does not necessarily mean they are immoral.

The response to that is: allowing "unnatural" things like airplanes or physical acts like contortionist feats is fine because they are not bad legal precedents; they are either good legal precedents (e.g., despite occasional accidents airplanes can help a society run much more efficiently) or are essentially neutral legal precedents (e.g., while purple hair is not all that valuable to society, it does not have negative ramifications for society, generally speaking, and one can say the same for contortionist feats). On the other hand, homosexual acts are bad legal precedents because they--as physiologically unnatural sex acts--can lead to other deviant unnatural sex acts, such as sex with consenting sheep. (A misguided Princeton University professor, one Peter Singer, has actually and explicitly defended consenting human-animal sex.) And let us not forget there is a group of homosexuals, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), organized to push for the legalization of unnatural man-boy sex.

"Who are you to judge others?" I have actually been seriously asked by homosexuals. If we stop judging others we have to legalize murder, rape, theft, etc.--obviously ludicrous things to do. One can feel perfectly free and right to rationally judge others.

And if homosexuals do not believe in judging others, then they should not hypocritically judge people like yours truly and tell us we are wrong and "homophobic" for being against homosexual activity.

Then there is the argument that homosexual acts are effective population-control measures and so are justified. Hey, murder is an effective population-control measure. So what. Too, any sex act that a man can do with another man and not make anyone pregnant (like oral sex), that man can do with a woman and still not make anyone pregnant. We do not need to go to ridiculous lengths, like homosexual acts or bestiality, to control our population numbers.

Then there is the "consenting adults" argument: that, generally speaking, anything that happens between consenting adults is fine, including homosexual acts. But first of all, it is obvious that nobody has the right to do wrong, even consenting adults (and homosexual acts are wrong). If two so-called consenting adults choose to rob a bank, we would not legalize bank-robbing.

Secondly, society has better things to do with its people and resources than treat diseases that homosexuals bring on themselves by consentingly or voluntarily engaging in unsafe sex acts. (Resources would be better spent finding cures for diseases people do not bring on themselves, do not "ask" for, as diseases associated with the involuntary aging process. We also could spend that money feeding the starving children of the world. In a very real sense, children are starving because some people think they have the right to engage in unsafe sex and spread disease. If that doesn't outrage you you may have lost your humanity. Homosexuals should apologize for that, and for setting bad examples for our children.)

And third, two people engaging in immoral sex acts in absolute privacy is one thing; coming out of the closet with one's vices and demanding equal rights is quite another and should be frowned upon to say the least. When someone's behavior becomes public knowledge, when it thereby affects the public, it becomes the public's business and the public acquires the right to legislate against that behavior should the public decide logically that it would be advisable to do so.

Homosexuals like to especially point out that people of the same sex can understand each other better than they can understand the opposite sex, because people of the same sex are naturally more similar to each other.

There is some truth to that, but when homosexuals conclude from it that homosexual relationships are therefore better than heterosexual ones they go too far. While men and women have their differences, they have many things in common. Let's build on the things we have in common. Let's unify the populace, not sexually segregate and disunify it as homosexuals apparently would prefer. Besides, people of the opposite sex can be much more attractive and exciting, naturally.

It should be stressed that numerous homosexuals and bisexuals have a large number of sexual partners, many of whom are essentially perfect strangers. These people just use others for sex and have a difficult time loving. They are contributing to making the world a colder and more exploitative place. (Incidentally, promiscuity says basically this: I do not think you are worth marrying but I'll use you for sex. Promiscuous sex is actually somewhat of an insult to thinking people. It's just sexual exploitation.)

Homosexuals have told me that I (a man) must have sexual hang-ups and inhibitions because I do not sexually desire other men. Well, it is evident that anyone (like a homosexual) who cannot or will not desire/love/marry/enjoy the opposite sex must also have some big hang-ups and inhibitions. Too, since many bisexuals tend to prefer their own sex when it comes to sexual partners, those bisexuals must have the same hang-ups and inhibitions afflicting homosexuals, though to a lesser degree. (If bisexuals fully enjoyed the opposite gender sexually, they wouldn't waste their time on same-sex partners. Something, some sexual inhibitions and hang-ups, must be interfering with bisexuals' enjoyment of the opposite sex.)

Moreover, if I am hung-up and inhibited because I will not have sex with a dog or other unnatural sexual partner, then so be it. Would everyone had the same "problem."

Also, as a review of the numerous studies done through the years on homosexuals bears out, it is a fact that many many homosexuals were sexually abused when young (for more info on this fact see the section of our website called Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?). That abuse is what has so disoriented the sexual desires of many homosexuals. In other words, many homosexuals were not born homosexual and so can choose to be what they were born to be--heterosexual. Such a choice may not be easy and may require therapy, but for many disoriented people it is a viable option. And for these people to choose to remain homosexual just lets the degenerates who abused them have too much power over them--the power to determine their unnatural sexual orientations.

Modern psychology knows that people can be conditioned to be practically anything. The environments we grow up in can make us tyrannical or meek, generous or selfish, loving or hateful, etc., etc. Identical twins can grow up to be very different people, with one even being heterosexual and the other homosexual. Homosexuals are not trapped in their homosexuality any more than identical twins are trapped in their sexuality by their genes. Homosexuals should be able to become enjoyably heterosexual if they concentrate and "train" themselves to. They cannot justify not doing so. Let's go forward, not back thousands of years to Sodom. Let's progress not regress. Homosexuals should not be afraid of change, should not be afraid of becoming heterosexual.

Males are attracted to females by chemical substances (pheromones), just like dogs in heat, and are attracted by flirtatious behavior and perhaps by physical traits like breasts. This is how nature works. Even lower animals flirt. This natural "programming" is why normal men are attracted to women and vice versa.

Being what we are, i.e., fulfilling our natures, within reason, makes us happiest. Being heterosexual is within reason, engaging in homosexual activity is not within reason. That is just the way it is. Just like we should not eat poison ivy or bask in the sun to excess (getting sunstroke and/or severe sunburn) or lay naked in the snow too long (getting hypothermia). That is just the way it is. Our natures entail limits.

It would be wrong for society to allow homosexuals to impose their "morality," their be-tolerant-of-unnatural-sexualities "morality," on us. It would be wrong for us to allow homosexuals to dictate to us what we will and will not tolerate. It would be wrong for us to yield to their unreasonable demands for toleration and legalization of homosexual acts. Like it or not, that is reality. That is just the way it is. Most people can easily accept that. If homosexuals do not want to appear irrational or prejudiced they also ought to accept that.

Indeed, any honest and logical homosexual has to admit that the decisive argument against homosexual acts, the argument that legal homosexual activity is a bad legal precedent, is a perfectly valid argument. This is because homosexuals and their liberal supporters use the same type of argument to try to defend their values. Liberals like to ask those who want to censor some book or some smutty rock and roll: "Where will the censorship stop? What's next on your list?"

If homosexuals and their supporters recognize the validity of the bad-legal-precedent argument, the "slippery slope" argument, and they do, then they have to admit that such an argument demonstrates that homosexual acts are immoral and illegalizeable.

Before we close this section, some words on the mean-spirited use of the term "homophobic" by those who love to call people like yours truly pejorative and inflammatory names. Homophobia doesn't really exist. Are people who are morally opposed to theft or rape or whatever, theftphobes, or rapephobes, or whateverphobes? Obviously not. Principled opposition to homosexual activity is clearly not a phobia, is clearly not a pathological fear. People who label others "homophobic" are just revealing their ignorance and naivety.

To conclude: penalizing people for engaging in homosexual behavior is clearly not discrimination, just like penalizing people for having sex with babies or animals is not discrimination. Penalizing people for immoral or illegal behavior is simply the right thing to do. That is a truth homosexuals (and bisexuals) should be able to understand. And with all the genuinely serious problems in the world that need our attention, don't homosexuals and their supporters have anything better to do with their time than struggle to legalize immoral sexual activity? They should get a life.
à 10:31 PM
Blogger pourceau d'Epicure a écrit...
Ce texte démontre qu'il est possible d'avoir une fine plume et une réflexion à l'avant-dernier degré de la bêtise. Ou alors c'est une parodie de grande qualité.
à 12:00 AM

Enregistrer un commentaire

<< Retour à l'accueil