"A real Christian church"http://www....

Image via Wikipedia

Well, all I have to say is Star Trek + Sleeping + Dreams about issues facing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people makes for an interesting mix when one wakes up in the morning.  On this slightly chilled fall morning I find myself making moral treatise with myself as I abnegate again from the acculturated dogma of western civilization.  For as advanced as we are it still shocks me that we are so morally backwards in one area, but advanced in others.  But, now the advancement is something of an illusion, because our American culture isn’t as morally advanced as we are told, in fact just is accepted as such without challenge far too often.  At one point we may have been the moral leaders of the world, but our predecessors and fellow societies have taken our model and surpassed us by leaps and bounds.  The American’s dreams were sold and paid for with our own blood, sweet and tears, the carpet literally yanked from under our feet.  We are not quite the land of the free, but the now a land of the tyrannical majority who seeks to stifle and erase our natural diversity for the sake of a bronze-aged fiction (Christianity).

Our nation has stopped growing morally and will continue to stagnate as long as select minorities are persecuted, ostracized, denied rights, and forced to undergo normalization therapy to receive public acceptance for immutable behaviors without intrinsic harm.  Forced to conform their very nature against their will to gain reprieve from the fear that someone will persecute them, maybe even murder them over inborn fundamental differences.  The negative moral position on homosexuality and transsexuality is completely a cultural phenomenon, one which has been given this “moral value” through bigotry and cultural expectations not through real science.  I recently learned about a place called the Claremont Institute.  Sounds like a school but it really is a secular, conservative, anti-gay, right-wing group that essentially is training and facilitating future generations of bigotry.  In their credo is the assertion that they are advocating for a “Natural Morality“, which also happens to not include homosexuality or transsexuality extracting the right for “natural” for only a select few.  They put forward a good face, hide their ultimate divisive agenda, and try to prove their anti-homosexual pseudoscientific agenda declaring natural as according to their own prerogatives.  It is no longer natural morality (just another jazzed up cover word) when people intercede in declarations outside of the reasonable conclusions drawn from the bodies of evidence about nature itself.

Chimpanzees. According to evolutionary biologists are one of our closest cousins in the animal kingdom. Also just one of many mammals that has confirmed homosexual behavior.

If animals do it in nature, and natural (either be it adaptive or maladaptive change) processes bring about this change without an intercession from humans then it is demonstrably natural.  Applying moral code to adaptive and maladaptive is entirely subjective, as the same behavior could be considered both adaptive and maladaptive depending on perspective.  If your going to bring “Nature as Law” forward as your defense for the anti-gay/trans mindset, then you immediately shoot yourself in the foot considering that homosexuality is confirmed in at least 100 species and transsexuality in many mammals not to mention being biologically contiguous in humans .  Early study in zoology apparently is quite rife with culturally motivated judgments of the animal kingdom, and one of those things was homosexuality.

Humans imposed their morality on the animal kingdom which is why there is so little about it in text books even to this day.  Additionally, it’s why many in the non-scientist demographic don’t know about it.  Some people may argue, “Well, we are not animals” to evidence that homosexuality arises naturally in humans and other animals, but that argument also shoots itself in the foot.  Some animals have sex for fun, humans have sex for fun.  All sexually dimorphic animals have sex, so by that argument to “be above animals” are clearly contradicting, arbitrary and selective.  Technically, sex is no longer required for humans to procreate, does this mean sex should be abolished?  So the proponents of “Natural Morality” seem to me to only be advocating morality that doesn’t affect their own moral conditions; it makes laws to which the lawmaker is not applicable.

Its one of many positions, that just being a notable one.  It posits a system of institutionalizing homosexuals and transsexuals for a “social disorder” which needs “corrective measures” but only selectively addresses this issue when its arguments are contradictory.  Homosexuality and transsexuality cause no intrinsic harm and therefore moral arguments against them are entirely of prejudice based motivations.  Furthermore, to snuff this natural diversity with overbearing, unconscionable motivations simply because it doesn’t jive with social acceptance is the truly morally reprehensible act being perpetrated between society and the GLBT community.  This is how we naturally are by birth, and it is immutable even if we can cover it up with therapy to a degree.  No one makes heterosexuals resist their natural urges to want to have sex with members of the opposite sex, so this mentality is oppressive by nature.  It asserts that only certain natures are valid and all others are not.  If we support and advocate this type of behavior we are essentially saying it’s okay to “Socially Program” people so that everyone is alike, with no diversity and ultimate social conformity.

" 'Social Order' at the expense of liberty is no bargain" Marquis de Sade (Image via Wikipedia)

If we allow that what else could they ask us to “relinquish for the benefit of social order“; guns, certain hobbies, color preference of clothing?  I know liberty is infringed upon by forcing transgender and homosexual people to repress their inner nature as is demonstrated by human nature itself, behaviors of animals, and the evidence of the self-destructive nature of repression and oppression.  We know it’s traumatic to repress or oppress in such a way, so reparative therapy is counter to moral behavior.  Declaring deviance from social norms as “perverse” says nothing about whether it’s morally wrong to do so, or harmful to individual or society.  Declaring something is harmful does not make it harmful on its own.  If we allow this mentality of social normalization prevail then it will be our hobbies that will be under attack next.  Skateboarders tend to be delinquents, therefore social order is impaired by skateboarding; therefore, skateboarding should be illegal, and corrective therapy is required for all with the propensity for skateboarding.  Totalitarian social order is problematic, oppressive, morally contradictory and pointless.  It doesn’t support social order, only increases social stress facilitating other forms of disorder.  Why deny what it is your nature to be, as long as it causes no intrinsic harm?

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers also believed in a concept of individual freedom. He was not the only founding father to speak out about the nature of true liberty and justice.

Understanding the wider implication of reparative or conversion therapy is important, as it serves to outline the moral implication of advocating such measures.  Evidence does not support that homosexuality and transsexuality are damaging to society any more than any other form of sex/gendered behavior demonstrates.  Abolishing the bigotry will prove far more beneficial to social order and moral progress than forcing us into social norms, silencing opposition and normalization therapy.  Because that is what it really is, normalization therapy.  Your different, so take this pill, therapy, treatment so you can be just like the rest of us.  If it were that simple life would be very different, and we’d likely have already done it on our own.

If we only composed 15% of society in the GLBT community then that is 45 million people in the US alone.  Raising dissent, and oppression of such a group is more than enough to tear a nation to pieces and to hell with social order. The “social hierarchy” can not stop it any more than therapy can, and it invites chaos to suggest that we should control harmless human natures with force.  It fails every time as every totalitarian society of the past as fallen.  It invites the woes of civil war to endorse this form of religious or ideological totalitarianism, and for what purpose?  To repress that which is irrepressible?  Not only that, but it isn’t morally correct for the majority to oppress the minority; gay/trans rights really are an issue of majority verses minority (tyranny of the majority).  There in lies part of the assertion of why we should “adapt” to society, though no such ability exists.  It’s morally wrong to make law against that which causes no harm, and ability to adhere to it is not present (like expecting paraplegics to walk unassisted).

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." - James Madison

It would be like outlawing sex, and trying to enforce it.  Repression doesn’t stop people from hypothetically doing X if it is natural to do so, it just makes them hide X, so it is of no social benefit to do so likely even harmful.  Evidence proves this to be the case and its high-time as a culture we came to realize the truth of this and stop standing in the way of progress.  You can’t cure human nature otherwise it wouldn’t be human nature.   It’s okay to wish to be in control of our baser instincts but foolish to repress them unless they pose danger to others, but I’d argue that it’s instinctive to protect greater interests through empathy and compassion via mutually ensured survival.  I have yet to see a valid argument for harm from variations in human sex and gender, and all the proposed arguments drip with “I don’t like it, therefore it should be wrong nay illegal to do so”.  Restriction of natural behaviors should be done for the greater good of society, not just because one feels it should, religion feels it should, or because other people’s habits and natures bother you/differ from your opinion.  Therefore, freedom to commit violence, or cause harm is not an entitlement, whereas consensual displays of affection, and laws to protect that right are an entitlement.

It’s impossible to control with law human behaviors which are intrinsic to human nature, that cause no harm, and are expressly consenting behaviors without that law crossing the line from ethical to unethical.  It is not an entitlement as a human being that you live in a world that agrees with your sensibilities to the denial of all others.  It is not your entitlement to be able to go to public places without seeing gays, or transsexuals.  It is not your entitlement to restrict the rights of another because of your opinion.  It is not your entitlement to infringe upon the individuality of another by dictating what they can and can’t feel.  You are only entitled to the rights to your own person, and all those necessary rights that enable you to thrive so long as they don’t infringe upon others; thus we are also applicable to this principle entitlement.  This entitlement is essential to morality, and is derived from empathy and compassion which is notably eroded towards homosexuals and transsexuals in conservative groups and with reparative/conversion therapy advocates.

For if they had true empathy and compassion for us, then they wouldn’t subject us to the torture they do for the sake of a lackluster, unnecessary, normalization treatment which is dangerous and ineffectual in the long run.  They claim to empathy and compassion for the sake of their beliefs but exist in a state of blindness of the harm they cause, and this contradicts the meaning of their claims.  Conversion therapy is infringement upon individuality, and individual rights which could constitute a violation of our constitution and is intrinsically morally wrong to do so.  It isn’t done for the safety of society, but for the preservation of a totalitarian bronze age belief system (Judeo-Christian Religions) and a  biased, and unscientific version of a 19th Century ideology (Natural Morality).  It is not their entitlement to infringe upon our rights because of their backwards ideologies, and this is founded in our own constitution in America.    Thus reparative/conversion therapy is and will always be morally wrong.

Science fiction, comedy, and media can sometimes acutely point out the nature of things to us that are morally and objectively wrong.  This does not mean television, media and music should be our moral guides, but that moral lessons can be found in the most obscure places.  In this episode of Star Trek a gender variant member of a race of androgynes is forced to undergo therapy to make her into an androgyne like everyone else because bi-gendered behavior is deplored.  However, outside of fiction there is no cure for homosexuality or transsexuality, and the practitioners tend to be apathetic to the long-term effects of their “treatments” or their implications.  Watch the entire episode for better insight.