posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:25 PM
When a mouse is cornered, this animal will bare its teeth, to fight back and defend itself, timid as it is naturally is, even if it knows it is a
losing battle against mightier odds.
But mice are not humans. How more, would a fellow human behave?
Thus let us NEVER to push fellow humans too far, more so as we humanity have to take partial blame for their condition, with our greed, selfishness,
corruption and apathy for ages.
Let us not discrimanate against fellow humans, as long as they have not hurt or harm anyone.
The very essence of religion - civilisation guides for ethical progression and evolution - with regards to homosexuality, was basically that it would
end mankind if all adopts such lifestyle, and nothing to do with what goes on behind closed doors.
In order to be true to our faiths, such 'unions' between same sex would be thus frowned upon. But we need not discriminate against them for their
gift of free will no mortal can take away. We can accept them, but to counsel them on the responsibilities and joys of marriage and parenthood, by
logic and reason, instead of intimidation, fear, threats or worse-violence.
Power may be derive from the barrels of guns, fear and violence, but it will logic and reason that wins the hearts and minds of mankind. Homosexuals
are only fellow humans and not some distinct species of creation. They live, breathe, bleed and aspire as anyone else of us all.
Thus, religious faiths will unfortunately, not be able to sanction such unions, if they are to be true to the faith and evolution.
However, there is no sacred text against same sex bonding for friendship and companionship. Warriors, armies and even male dominated ancient
civilisations thrived on such. Today, even companies that merges are termed as 'marriages'.
Civil Unions are thus no different from companies merging. If same sex wishes the legitimacy of 'marriages' to protect both parties, 'civil
unions' are the solution way out. Their 'contracts' would be determine the way business 'contracts' are legalised and pursued upon.
And society will not tresspass upon those contracts. Whatever is kept behind close doors would not be intruded upon, unless legal actions warrants it,
such as report of loss, theft, or any other forms of civil cases.
Ultimately, homosexuals must ask themselves why would they want such solemnised marriages'. Is it for flaunting their status? If so, then it would
be against mankind's very survival, as much as we humanity have to take partial blame for their condition, setting onto a path of painful hurt and
conflict for all.
But if it is to protect parties, then would not a 'civil union' be enough, to protect parties?
As for outwardly display of affections, even heterosexuals are discouraged from such displays in our modern world, often with comments such as 'get a
room' by others.
Ultimately, homosexuality is not and cannot be the path to evolution, nor test tube baby robots the ethical answer. However, we need not discriminate
against those who are already who they are.
Mankind can only watch them and be reminded of our responsibilities, to spend more effort to ensure the innocent next generations would choose with
their own free will for heterosexuality, and know the joys and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
Live and let live.....