In the limit (as in mathematics), with regards to the natural biological function, and if births were strictly by [natural] procreation then there are two extreme cases:
Case 1:- If everyone were strictly heterosexual, then the human race should continue to exist.
Case 2:- If everyone were to be strictly homosexual, then the human race would necessarily have ceased—completed when the last person died.
Mathematicians use this method among others to investigate functions and their properties. And it isn’t necessary that the limiting situations occur or be feasible.
We can, from this viewpoint say, considering case 2, that promoting homosexuality could be an assault on humanity and unfair to human existence.
While it has been said that there’s a scientific evidence to support homosexuality as ‘natural,’ there’s still sufficient evidence and questions to prevent it from being given the regard of scientific law or principle. It appears to have been given this status by the media and public emotion—which are hardly bases for good legislation.
One could say that, homosexuality, at best, should be left as one of the very many permissible anomalous behaviours, even though it makes a fundamental statement against humanity.
What might one say about the confusing and paradoxical idea, homosexual marriage? It neither follows from our essential biology nor from natural law, works against the idea of evolutionary biology, and is diametrically opposed to nature and natural law. Any enabling law for it is so naturally unlawful and should be itself illegal. Any laws against it isn’t thus unlawful.
It’s for individual peoples to decide how their society would be on this. Ireland recently, and the US supreme court, this week, decided for same sex ‘marriage’—ignoring, I think, that insight mathematical thinking provides.
If the constitution of the United States of America provides for homosexual marriages, then it must certainly provide for a lot more abnormal things. It is likely that we hear more questionable cases in the near future.
To promote an aberration isn’t a just ideal.
‘Mathematical thinking’ applied to socio-philosophical issues.
Making the exception the norm requires great PR—with a dose of irrationality.
Why are we irrational on some points?
How do we get irrational?
Wouldn’t ‘preventing’ irrationality require some sort of tyranny?