Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
I know right off the bat that this is a contentious topic that will probably cause me to lose a lot of 'friends' if internet acquaintances can be called such. If my previous MyTakes have caused controversy and offended sensibilities, then this one is bound to take the cake. It will probably remain the undisputed, most offensive MyTake I have ever written. But in light of the culture wars and my duty not only as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but as someone with common sense, I am compelled to take a stand even if it means effectively alienating myself from 90% of my demographic.
That said, if the tone of this Take comes off as angry, that is because it is. I am angry that in college I have to learn about HIV-positive sexual deviants like Matthew Shepard who have brainwashed my peers with LGBT rhetoric. I am angry that common sense and normality have been replaced with political correctness and insanity. But most of all I am angry that my future daughters and grandchildren are going to have to be raised in this perverse and Sodomite generation.
If you have remained with me thus far, then congratulations for not being an overly-sensitive, pansy assed college liberal. The rest of you can go cry me a river in your 'safe-spaces' for all I care. I imagine that those who will be the most offended by this article are ironically those who pride themselves on being the most 'open-minded' and 'liberal' about sexuality. In either case, my argument is simple and rests upon three topics that will be explored individually: a) the natural law, b) the role of government, and c) the disastrous results of when the two are not properly aligned
Thus my argument begins in ancient Greece, circa 400 years before the common era.
#1) From Aristotle to Aquinas: The Natural Law
The philosophy of a man who lived such a long time ago may seem irrelevant by our modern standards, as well as the topic of philosophy in general which we tend to associate only with academia. But understanding Aristotle and for that matter his greatest disciple, Thomas Aquinas, the pride of the Roman Catholic Church, is pivotal for understanding the foundation of Western thought and has enormous implications for politics and morality among other topics.
To quote Dr. Edward Feser, professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College, "Abandoning Aristotelianism, as founders of modern philosophy did, was the single greatest mistake ever made in the entire history of Western thought," (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism).
Thus we arrive at the law of nature, or as it is more commonly known as, the natural law. Starting with Aristotle and reaching its peak with Aquinas, perhaps it would be better to start off by explaining what the natural law is not. It is not synonymous with merely occurring in nature, so check your appeals to homosexuality in the animal kingdom at the door. Nor is it an appeal to Divine Command Theory, so likewise check your Euthyphro Dilemma at the door. Rather, the natural law is a part of what older philosophers called the teleological vision. In short, it pertains to meaning, purpose, and design. It is what enables us to recognize some things as normal and other things as abnormal.
For example, a tiger being a tiger in the wild and a tiger being cruelly paraded around in a circus (pun not intended). We know this because we know the form of a tiger, that is, tiger-ness for lack of a better term. We know that a tiger has claws and fangs among other taxonomic features that make it a majestic predator belonging in the wild. More importantly, we know that a tiger is a tiger and not a fish, which in turn has its own form. For Aristotle and Aquinas, this was not arbitrary speculation but a precise and objective science. Furthermore, it was a metaphysical necessity.
To understand this, you have to understand its basic premise and the metaphysical dilemma that it sought to resolve. The basic premise is that there are four causes: a) the material cause, b) the formal cause, c) the efficient cause, and d) the final cause. The metaphysical dilemma that it sought to resolve is the question of how change is possible if something cannot come from nothing yet nothing is the only alternative to something. Aristotle resolved this by positing a distinction between potentiality and actuality--that is, what can exist and what actually exists.
For example, a table from wood. The potential is there, but it cannot actualize itself unless an external force acts upon it ("Whatever is moved is moved by another").Thus the four causes come into the play. They are the external force that transform potentiality into actuality, as in the illustration above. And it is from these four causes and the relationship between them that meaning, purpose, and design find their grounding. Thus the natural law which enables us to recognize some things as normal and other things as abnormal becomes inescapable. Hence a metaphysical necessity.
And that brings us to the elephant in the room.
Homosexuality has no basis in the natural law whatsoever.
Zip. Nada. Nothing. The fact that it occurs in nature does not make it normal anymore than the presence of tigers in circuses makes the captivity of animals who otherwise belong in the wild normal. It violates their purpose, meaning, and design. And it does not take a philosopher to recognize this fact. It just takes some basic common sense. This is true not only on the metaphysical level but even on the Darwinian level as well. Our evolutionary purpose is the propagation of our genes via sexual reproduction between a man and a woman. The form (I refrain from using the term 'design' since it implies religion) of our genitals bears witness to this basic fact.
Simply put, a penis is not a vagina and a vagina is not a penis. The meaning of both is that men are supposed to have sex with women and women are supposed to have sex with men. Thus in the words of Dr. Feser, "the very idea [of same-sex 'marriage'] is a metaphysical absurdity" akin to squaring the triangle. "It is no more up to them [the courts and people] to 'define' marriage...than it is up to them to 'define' whether the Pythagorean Theorem is true of right triangles, or whether water has the chemical structure of H20" (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism).
The Left knows this. But they are in denial. So they try to cope with it in two ways. The first way is by denying that one or more of the four causes exist--primarily formal cause and final cause--in order to negate meaning, purpose, and design. But the problem is that they still utilize them whether they realize it or not. Again, a tiger is a tiger and not a fish. We know this only because of formal cause, because science allows us to understand the unique form of each. Furthermore, a formal cause implies a purpose or meaning. Thus a final cause becomes inevitable.
We know that the purpose of a tiger and a fish is to do whatever it is that a tiger and a fish do per zoology. The second way is by misrepresenting and/or deliberately crafting straw men of the natural law for the sole purpose of knocking them down. A common one is that it means infertile couples like the elderly are forbidden from having sex. This is false because it ignores potentiality and actuality. The potential for procreation is always there by nature of them being male and female, it is just that an external factor outside of their control (in this case, age) has prevented its actualization. The same cannot be said for same-sex 'couples,' where the potential is not even there because the very nature of their abnormal 'relationship' is contrary to it. It is wholly and unequivocally opposed to the natural law.
This has been but a crash course in Aristotle, Aquinas, and the natural law. My purpose is not to teach you philosophy but to teach you why I oppose same-sex 'marriage.' Philosophy just happens to be one component in my argument. For more information on this stuff, I would suggest reading any of Dr. Feser's books, particularly "Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide," "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism," and "Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction." Or just ask @ObscuredBeyond our friendly neighborhood Roman Catholic. Very smart guy.
#2) The Role of Government
Thus we move onto what Aquinas calls the positive law, that is, the 'law of the land' for lack of a better term. It means law as it pertains to government, the courts, and human institutions which most nations have at least to some extent (Somalia notwithstanding). In the United States we are a constitutional republic with a federal government divided into three branches: a) the legislature, b) the executive, and c) the judicial. On top of that, we also have various state and local level governments from city councils to governors like Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is within the context of positive law that the question arises of the role of government.
In a theocracy for example, the role of government is to uphold the precepts of a particular religion. Oftentimes the government is synonymous with the Church or other authoritative religious body. Most Islamic states like the former Ottoman Empire would be an example of this. Other times the government and authoritative religious body are separate but work in close harmony with one another. An example would be most Orthodox states like the Eastern Roman Empire and Russian Empire before the godless revolution. Long live the House of Romanov!
In either case, the role of the United States' government is pretty clear and well defined via the Declaration of Independence: "...to secure these [unalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men." That is, the role of government is to safeguard our rights. Notice it does not state to create, define, and/or 'make up' our rights, but to secure them. In order to be secured, something has to first exist. Thus our rights preexist government. And since they preexist government, they must come from somewhere else. Again the Declaration of Independence clarifies where: "the laws of nature and of nature's God." In other words, it comes from the aforementioned natural law.
Yes, you guessed it. It comes from the natural law.
In the words of Dr. James Stoner, professor of political science at Louisiana State University, "No public document gives more prominence to the idea of natural law, nor relies more crucially upon natural law as a premise, than the Declaration of Independence."
...the same natural law in which homosexuality has no basis whatsoever, and where same-sex 'marriage' is "a metaphysical absurdity" in the words of Dr. Edward Feser.
Thus we get to my main argument
Same-sex 'marriage' should NOT be legalized because it grants our government the power not only to 'secure' our rights, but to actually create and define them. Thus the natural law goes out the window and our rights become reduced to mere governmental decision which is arbitrary and subject to change.
In other words, same-sex 'marriage' undermines the very foundation of our rights as we know it.
#3) Tyranny of the Majority
A favorite book of mine is "I am Legend" by Richard Matheson. It was the inspiration not only for the Will Smith film of the same title back in 2007, but also the original 'Night of the Living Dead.' It singlehandedly created the modern zombie genre by isolating vampirism from its supernatural context. The ending of this book is terrifying not because it involves proto-zombies, but because it illustrates tyranny and the danger of when normalcy is determined not by nature but by the majority.
The protagonist Robert Neville--the last man on Earth--is executed by a new society of vampires who have found a way to stave off total infection like their reanimated counterparts, making them intelligent albeit still vampires nonetheless. What was once the monster to be feared has become the new normal while the normal has become the new monster to be feared. Why? Because in Matheson's own chilling words, "Normalcy was a majority concept, the standard of many."
Hence the danger of when the natural law is replaced with something as arbitrary as governmental decision. It means that our rights are no longer objective but subjective and prone to change depending upon the sentiments of the majority who influence the decisions our government makes. The same majority that decides to 'grant' one the freedom of speech could just as swiftly deprive it from one should they change their mind, and there is nothing one could do about it.
There is no higher, authoritative, and objective standard that one could appeal to when the majority and their government are wrong. In fact, wrong becomes right precisely because the majority and their government have decided that it is so. There is no foundation. And this is the reality we are destined for not only because of the LGBT movement's militant demand for 'marriage,' but from 'progressivism' itself which by its very nature is opposed to every and any sense of authority higher than fallacious human opinion. In other words it is a debate about the existence of Truth itself and the classical teleological vision of reality which makes purpose, meaning, and design possible, and the hollow mechanical view of the materialists which makes absurdity possible.
It is why, in their insane vision, a man can be a woman simply because he 'feels' like it and same-sex 'marriage' can be legalized, all because they dogmatically refuse to acknowledge purpose, meaning, and design despite the absurdities that their denial entails.
Well I am not drinking the Kool-Aid. A square triangle can never exist and a tiger can never be a fish. It does not matter what the majority thinks, its emotions, or how many votes it gets. The law of geometry cannot be changed. The same goes for the natural law. Neither the finest rhetoric in the world nor all of the appeals to emotion that the Left can muster will change a single iota of established scientific fact.
And I am not going to sit around and allow my rights to be undermined and reduced to mere governmental decision just because less than 5% of the population decided that the natural law is inconvenient to them. The objectivity of the natural law is absolutely essential for the security of our rights because it acts as the 'higher authority' that we can hold the government and the majority accountable to. And I am not ready to abandon it.
Some Final Thoughts...
This entire 'progressive' thought experiment is nothing but a petty act of rebellion against God and the divine. It is like younger siblings trashing the house and calling it 'progress' simply because it violates their parents' rules. Well I have been the oldest child for a while now and I can tell you that it is time to grow up and take responsibility.
This childlike rebelliousness is why the Left absolutely despises every and any source of authority beyond their own delusions, even the law of nature and objective Truth itself because it bears witness to its creator who is "the way, the truth, and the life," (John 14:6 NKJV). It would be like the fictional characters in one of my short stories having the audacity to think that he knows better than me the author who wrote him. But since the Left cannot harm God directly, they harm his creation and particularly humanity instead because it bears his image and likeness. Pathetic. St. John Chrysostom compares it to Roman citizens throwing stones at the statue of the emperor.
I have no desire to 'tolerate' the same inherently destructive, 'progressive' ideology that would just as soon throw my ideology out like yesterday's coffee grounds nor do I have any desire to 'coexist' with the same radicalized little Robespierre turds who need 'safe-spaces' because they find the very existence of a viewpoint other than their own threatening. My goal is to utilize my keen intellect and every fiber of my being to refute this 'progressive' ideology on sight and try to salvage some semblance of normality for the sake of my future descendants.
The great irony about all of this is that despite how much the Left hates objectivity and authoritative standards higher than their own, they will still have the audacity to accuse me of homophobia, intolerance, and bigotry unaware of the fact that their narrative admits no basis for such terms. It is like when atheists deny the metaphysical yet claim that we have a 'moral duty' to pursue scientific endeavors.
You cannot promote an anything-goes ideology characterized by the Manichaean notion that there is no Truth while simultaneously condemning homophobia, intolerance, and bigotry as objectively wrong. Morality loses its meaning because it is reduced to mere arbitrary opinion. Thus why should I care at all about what you think of me or the labels that you demonize me with? Does the lion think twice about hunting the zebra? Say what you want about Dr. Peter Singer, the bioethicist who argues that parents should be allowed to euthanize their disabled children, but at least he is logically consistent with his materialism.
That is the inevitable destination of the Left as the countless failed utopias, violent revolutions, and wholesale genocides since the 'Enlightenment' bear witness to. My Orthodox people encountered the Left and its product was the gulag.
But...
In Conclusion,
We cannot hate LGBT people as people no matter how much we may rightfully hate their lifestyle for the gross perversion of nature that it truly is and rightfully oppose same-sex 'marriage' for the metaphysical absurdity that it is.
In fact, since the Left which allegedly cares for the plight of LGBT people has not had the spine to speak up and say it, I the 'homophobic, intolerant, bigot' will be the first one to speak up on behalf of the LGBT community and say what should have been said a long time ago.
Radical Islam is the single greatest threat in the world to LGBT people. It is wholly and unequivocally opposed to their very existence as human beings. How and why any 'progressive' moron thought it would be a good idea to combine the two is beyond me. And the fact that the Left refuses to acknowledge this fact for what it is means that they have the blood of the 50 LGBT victims of the Orlando Shooting on their hands.
Cliche I know, but "hate the sin and not the sinner" as St. Augustine of Hippo is believed to have wrote. St. Isaac the Syrian wrote the same thing in his Ascetical Homilies, and it is from his version that I believe the underlying theology is better made known.
"Do not hate the sinner," he writes. "If for the sake of God you are moved to oppose him, weep over him. Why do you hate him? Hate his sons and pray for him, that you may imitate Christ who was not wroth with sinners, but interceded for them," (Homily 51).
Blessed Seraphim Rose above was gay, but bearing his Cross, he became a monk and battled his passions for the rest of his life. The result was that he is now recognized as a literal Saint by many Orthodox people including myself, because the grace of God was made manifest through him.
We cannot hate LGBTs because as people they are still icons made in the image and likeness of God. They have the potential to be the next Seraphim Rose. But we absolutely have to speak out against the abomination known as same-sex 'marriage' and condemn it on sight for the disastrous implications that it has for our rights. The natural law must be upheld. I do not expect to change anyone's mind, but merely to prove that there are legitimate reasons for opposing same-sex 'marriage' apart from "The Bible condemns it!" and inspire a greater sense of respect for the classic teleological vision of Aristotle and Aquinas, which has unfairly been ignored by ignorant 'analytical' philosophers for the modern materialist vision.
#SeeMyWork
Most Helpful Girl