The ‘Bridge’ between two mathematical worlds, at 60 (6) (HCN graphs) Click on graph once to magnify once, then again to magnify more

HCN1_1-120 bluecoat2msj HCN1b, 60-120 HCN1_60-120 Abluecoatj HCN1full, invert color3j

Advertisements

Without the Stars: Richard Dawkins and the Secrets of Personal Autonomy in Family and Society

(A given reader may find either that some or all of the following is ambiguous, or that it is ‘perfectly clear’ while not realizing that the ‘clearness’ is not the kind I intend. You may misinterpret while taking for granted that you have interpreted correctly. Or, you may struggle to figure out what point(s) I even might be making, if any.)

The deepest, most abiding, and by far most important, kind of personal autonomy for a person is his or her sexuality. This normally means, especially for someone like me, his or her sense of feeling validated as a sexual being; both in a) and b), following.

a) in the sense of being respected in one’s wish to withhold whatever sexual feelings one might in a particular context or to a particular person wish to withhold, including such feelings’ personally concomitant behavior,

and

b) in the sense of being fully approved for existing as as much of a sexual being as one at any time either happens to feel or has the ecological and eco-social right to express (including expressing offense at being treated in a way which effects oneself adversely either in a) or in b)).

Congruently—and contrary to what it may seem that Richard Dawkins meant in his comment about the indifferent drive of our genes to reproduce themselves—the genetic instinct of humans to produce offspring through sex is not a drive to produce offspring as such, but a drive to produce sexual human beings which are at once adored and successfully assisted to attain to sexual maturity.

And, to hope to be clear, by ‘sexual maturity’ I here do not mean sexual potential, as if the sexual maturity of a person has attained its own end in mere potential. Rather, what I here mean by ‘sexual maturity’ is that which consists in nothing less than the ideal to which the socio-sexual act itself may generally aspire. As someone like the Buddha would put it, ‘the universe loves sex.’ If I were limited to putting it in those same terms, I would say:

The universe loves persons’ autonomy, in which the central purpose of that autonomy is sex and sexuality—like the two sides of a coin. Or a tornado of stars. Even empty space is not indifferent: it is lost without the stars.

.

.

.

.

.

 


…One More Time: Principles and practices of mate selection in humans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-u5WLJ9Yk4

The degree and manner of young people’s mate-selection behaviors depend on the degree and manner of their information of the persons and processes involved. This information is a factor of the behaviors of the persons involved, and it is those behaviors that determine the processes.

Many Fundamentalist Christians today are under the impression that the reason young people in the unfallen world would have had no sin in the matter of mate selection is because unfallen young people would willingly be in submission to their parents regarding mate selection. In other words, unfallen young people would be sinless in sexual matters by virtue of possessing the restraint which young people in the fallen world so often lack. But, this impression presupposes, at least in effect-and-sentiment, that the socio-sexual dynamic which is most natural to humans was not designed by God, but is directly and inherently wicked.

This sentiment, on the part of parents and other elders, naturally drives young people toward the very things which then seem to prove the truth of the sentiment. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. So, normal young people, under such a burden, tend to choose whatever combination of these two damnations which they individually can best abide. Some parents tend to be vicarious, but others end up being vicarious by their very non-vicariousness. You can’t win, and you can’t lose, unless someone in position of authority says so: “I shall encourage everything before it’s time, for sake of my own naive good will, but I reserve the right to say no if it all goes to hell.” Too late, you fool. Too late every time. There is no honor to prophets in their own city; and no one, on any side, has any true knowledge, nor any true culture, left.

In a socially and physically unfallen world, young people’s God-given nature as socio-sexual beings would not have found disharmony, thus would not have had any need of civil restraint. But, in the fallen world, this restraint is necessary—like all civil government—to prevent the unwholesome disharmonies which result without it.

The reason these unwholesome disharmonies result is because the fallen world is one of disharmony in the states-and-processes between, and within, every thing. By contrast, the reason the unfallen world would have had none of these unwholesome disharmonies is not because of civil restraint, but because civil restraint was unnecessary. [not to do with general human nature as God created it, nor with human socio-sexual ] The unfallen world would have been in total, natural harmony within itself, including each person within him- and her-self physically and spiritually, and each person and group with others, and with the ground, and with all other life on the planet.

But, in the present, fallen world of disharmony, there is a need to work not just for basic material wants (other than, say, atmospheric pressure, gravity, and breathable air), but for social and socio-economic harmony. This means that only a mentally and physically mature, and socially and materially wise, person is able to sustain the costs of supporting and defending self, mate, and any eventual children.

So, in the present world, when, either for cultural or age reasons, young people lack critical cautionary information regarding mate selection, their selection behaviors tend to lack the civil restraint required to establish key compatibilities, maturity, and wisdom, which together, aside from rare luck, are what constitute a stable foundation for engaging socio-sexually (as ‘sweethearts’ ‘dating’, etc.).

The social dimension of the human parent-child relationship is primarily for fostering the social half of the immature human. And, this is for future relation to a mate, and for future parenthood.

Parenthood is a product of the totality of the human creature as a social-sexual being. But, in the fallen world, people easily can get the impression that conception is most essentially an inconvenience. But, many people even today know that conception is essentially an ultimatum directly of the attraction between mates, not something opposed to their attraction by the burden it poses on the biological parents and their community. Children, as such, are not a burden. Fallen children in a fallen world are, with the emphases on the ‘fallen’.

As in the beginning, so even in the fallen world: the matter of long-term harmony in a potential marriage ought to be inspired by a consideration of the full range of natural mate-love. But, even as they were created in the beginning, so much more in the fallen world: the validity of a potential marriage ought not to be established by way of sexual attraction. This is because, even as it was in the beginning, such attraction normally has sufficient power to tend to itself. And, in the fallen world, in which there usually is anxiety to obtain a mate in the first place, the dynamic of that attraction is not a reliable guide to long-lasting love, or to commitment. Commitment is not an instinct, regardless how much it may be motivated by instinct. Commitment is a civil act in face of burden.

The ‘harmony’ of mutual romantic attraction is not at issue when it does exist. And, it normally is not the real issue for a potential couple even when one of the pair is met with a lesser or non-existent interest from the other. While it is natural for the more attracted person to use their own attractiveness to try to inspire an attraction in another, such behavior is not civilized. [manipulate, natural thing for the more attracted person to do in such disparities, is not the civilized thing.

When their continually naive efforts meet too much negative experience, most young people adopt as wisdom whatever ‘lowest common denominator’ they individually can tolerate given both the positive and negative potentials of pairing behaviors. And, not all of them have an equally low denominator.

In the fallen world, what needs tending are the deeper things upon the harmony of which the requisitely civil union ultimately depends.

Seven young men consecutively fostered the heart of, then rejected-for-‘someone-better’, a certain young woman named Andrea.

I was the eighth young man, though I never fostered her heart. Her good Christian parents had naively wished I had, since it’s only natural. Me, Superman, in their world of natural kryptonite. A world they didn’t know was so naturally bad, partly because they had no concept that a Superman can be injured at all, much less by what to themselves in their non-super-ness is a harmless green rock.

“This is Mission Control. All systems are Go.”

.

Not if I’m flying this thing!

.

In terms of a legacy of progress and its necessary civil moderation, no rat ever won the Rat Race. Marx, Rand, and everyone in between, are all idiots!


Why the Torah is silent about Abraham’s true elder

At Aish.com is an article titled Abraham’s Discovery (http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48909077.html), in which it says:

And God said to Abram: ‘Go out from your country, from your birthplace, from the home of your father, to the land which I will show you …’ [Genesis 12:1]

This Torah portion begins with the Divine directive to Abram (later to be known as Abraham) to leave his home for a destination unknown.

Who was this man Abram and why was he chosen for this special directive? How had he merited God’s attention? Why was he, of all people, destined to become the first of the patriarchs, the father of many nations?

Regarding all these questions, the Torah is silent.

Of course, the Midrashic literature ably fills in all the gaps, recounting Abram’s many trials and tribulations as a child and young man. We are told of his lonely spiritual quest and eventual discovery of the One God. While we have no question about the authenticity of the Oral Tradition, why does the Torah itself not share these details with us?

Of course, such a question could be posed about any section of Midrash, but, in this instance the complete lack of explanation of Abram’s special status in the Torah leaves us especially puzzled.

The article goes on to note that Abr(ah)am got metaphysical inspiration about ultimate origins from observing that his brother, Nahor, was named after their father’s father.

The article seems to imply that this was the source of Abr(ah)am’s initial metaphysical inspiration. Perhaps it was, but the seed which sprouted into becoming that inspiration was planted at some point prior to that actual inspiration, likely in Abr(ah)am’s childhood. As even a Roman Catholic source (http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/melchizedek.pdf) points out about the long lives within the geneology of Abr(ah)am:

the sacred author…wants us to be able to see the connection between Shem/Melchizedek and Abraham; otherwise this genealogy which gives all these [long] ages would not have been included.

No revelation is recored as having been given to Shem, and his name is not expressly connected to the name ‘Melchizedek’. The reason the Torah is silent about where Abr(ah)am got his inspiration is because Abr(ah)am was to be the father of a new world order, just as Adam had been the father of the old. This meant that Shem was more onlooker than participant, seed-planter than waterer, tiller than protector-guide, in Abr(ah)am’s story. The main thing Shem did was to bless Abr(ah)am, and he did this while having entirely down-played his own role in it, by having it recorded that Abr(ah)am was blessed by a title: Melchizedek. In other words, Shem was a humble man, not only despite his god-like long life relative to those then living, but in light of his own somber sense at how feeble was the one he blessed.

To Shem, his own long life was a trivial fact. But, he knew that its express connection to Abr(ah)am could only end up becoming a greedily worshipped legend—the sort of greedy worship which he knew could only take limelight from the role which Shem’s title must play for Abr(ah)am’s own, far greater, story. The title, and its connection to the life-span of its owner relative to Abr(ah)am’s own short duration, was that role.


Aish.com explains Why the Twilight saga is so popular

http://www.aish.com/j/as/The-Twilight-Saga–Abstinence.html


Non-heterosexualites: Disabilities and Beyond

Basic equality of humans does not make being crippled equal to being fully bipedal.

But, the state of being crippled is not itself a motive. To be motivated toward something that inherently causes oneself or others to become crippled is an aberrant motive. How crippled is too crippled to bear it? Is there no possible such thing as an aberrant sexual orientation? And, even assuming there is, is even it not a consequence of something committed in the past by someone else? And, if it is, how aberrant could that ‘something’ have been?

 

The only way same-sex marriage is a human right is if same-sex ‘coitus’ has no inherent epigenetically adverse consequences, at least not when compared to normal heterosexual…marriage. 

And, unless it already scientifically is known that same-sex ‘coitus’ has no inherent comparitive epigenetically adverse consequences, then the jury is very much out as to whether same-sex marriage is a right of any kind. It is easy to agree with a smiling face and a civil manner. But, gambling borrowed genetic capital is bad enough as it is, because Mother Nature owns not only all possible capital but every possible gambling establishment. And, given Mom Nature’s normalization of heterosexuality as the only natural, and by far most efficient, means of ensuring the maintenance of Her investments, same-sex attraction at best borrows from the microbiology of the Her heterosexual hegemony.

In fact, it is the rare heterosexual who finds nothing remotely epigenetically wrong with the idea of him- or herself engaging in ‘coitus’ with persons of his or her own gender. And, such ‘coitus’ is what gay ‘marriage’ presupposes. So, if such ‘coitus’ is not a biological crime against the local biological ecology on which the biological health of a local community depends, then, at the very least, such ‘coitus’ is a kind of dead-end borrowing upon the only kind of society in which Mother Nature clearly prefers to invest all Her capital.  

Moreover, sexual attraction for one’s own gender, rather than for the opposite gender, is the absence of the initial key factor for reproduction, and thus the absence of a key cohesive force of progenitive society. Short of external regulators informing the need for heterosexual mating behavior, a population consisting entirely of individuals who lack opposite-sex attraction would, at best, simply die off. In other words, imagine a functionally isolated population made up entirely of purely same-sex attracted persons, and imagine that none of those persons has any hint of the fact that humans have the power to procreate: such a population would, at best, simply die off if none of those persons ever was informed of that power nor of the means by which that power is exercised. By this account, moreover, if sexual attraction were likened to nutritional appetite, then same-sex-attraction would be like appetite for rocks instead of for food.

So, if, (and only if) there is any inherent progenitive shortfall in same-sex attraction, then there may be an even deeper, if more complex-and-subtle, inherent problem with same-sex ‘coitus’: it may strictly be genetically and epigenetically adverse. It may be a kind of gambling with borrowed biological capital, in which the capital is the microbiological health of heterosexuals, and thus of natural progenitive society. The gambling of that capital, as the act of homosexual ‘coitus’, is in face of the fact that Mother Nature owns the metals, the coin, the bank, and the casino. It is one thing to welcome gambling addicts as friends. It’s another to believe, for their smiling faces and confident manner, that they know what they’re doing with money.

Given that dimorphic social organisms are partly geared to reproducing themselves (namely by a sexual bond between the two forms), it seems to me obvious that the most straight-forward kind of perception-preference regarding the agency of reproduction among such organisms has the natural hegemony among such organisms. So, it seems to me that heterosexuality in humans is, if nothing else, the most cost-effective, and otherwise purpose-driven, human sexual orientation in terms of the reproduction of humans.

So, if ‘human civil rights’ is like Checkers, then the biological foundations of a sustainable society is like Chess. People are free to think Checkers is the most profound game, but they are not free to believe that Mother Nature thinks so. Despite their presumption that they are playing Her at Checkers, She may, in fact, be playing them at Chess. In other words, to think Mother Nature is just a ‘secular business woman’ with no political opinion is to think that the microbiological ecology on which our individual and collective health depends is essentially random. Relative to the congruent naivety, some corners seem far more justifiably cut than others. This is especially the case for those corners that, to those who are all-but-insensible to them, seem not to be there at all.

The full range and depth of worldly benefits for observing the humble sacred Truths always seem to eclipse those Truths. That’s how powerful the Truth is. That’s also how humble the Truth is.

The problem is when Truth’s humility is over-emphasized, or its power de-emphasized. Always this is done out of a secular ignorance of the form of the Truth, under the impression that the form is trivial, even unjust.

Of course, the form of Truth without the Truth is oppressive, to say the least. But, this in no way invalidates its form; it re-emphasizes it. The consummate marriage act has a form, and its form is inherently present with its truth. This, despite that that form can be so divorced from its truth as to make that form into one of the most unjust acts imaginable. So, it is admitted that such an unjust act, rather than invalidating the form, cannot help but re-emphasize the natural mutual necessity between that form and its original Truth.

What if one were born with that aberrant motive? Or, what if one were born with an uncommon vulnerability to acquiring that motive? Then one would be disabled.

But, in regard to some kinds of disability involving aberrant motives, to claim that that disability is equal to its congruent ability is, in effect, to claim that anyone who thinks that that disability is a disability is being bigoted. Worse, it is, in effect, to claim that that disability is superior to the congruent ability, since that disability tends to be accompanied by a greater willingness to ‘experiment’ outside its own sphere of ‘preference’.

Of course, sexual-diversity advocates don’t claim that homosexuality is a superior sexual orientation, since they don’t think it is more ‘adaptable’ than heterosexuality. They claim, rather, that homosexuality should be thought of by heterosexuals as principally undifferentiated from heterosexuality: that it doesn’t, or shouldn’t, matter what anyone’s sexual orientation is, including the full expression of that orientation.      

But, if it shouldn’t matter what anyone’s sexual orientation is, then what about a human’s sexual orientation to non-human animals instead of to humans, or to that human’s biological parent or child? Does this sexual orientation make persons with this orientation more, or less, abled in constructive terms. Destructive ability is certainly an ability, and, so long as aberrance is a valid concept, there must logically be admitted to exist possible destructive abilities the possessors of which do not necessary perceive them as principally destructive, but may perceive them as principally constructive.

For example, assuming that some sex acts are aberrant, a person who genuinely has an aberrant sexual orientation (and principally no other sexual orientation) genuinely has that orientation. This is a trouble for everyone, including for that person. Among other things, that person may rationalize that anyone who finds that orientation aberrant is bigoted: that anyone who is repulsed by that orientation wants to take away their right to be sexual beings, to have sexual feelings, and to express those feelings.

So, aberrant ‘alternative’ sexual orientation must be framed either as a most tragic kind of disability, or as not a disability at all. If it really is a disability, then to frame it as not a disability is to allow, if not to force, a philosophical reframing of normal heterosexuality as the inferior sexuality (as less adaptable/less adapted/less willing to experiment with alternate sex acts). But, if aberrant ‘alternate’ sexualities are not a disability, then they are not really aberrant, which automatically reframes heterosexuality as inferior.     

But, again, equality between the basic kinds of humans (male/female, black/white, introvert/extrovert, etc.) does not imply equality between ability and disability. So, the first question regarding pro-active non-heterosexual orientation (unlike a-sexuality, which, while a disability, is not aberrant) is whether there are any such orientations which properly are understood as disabilities (and thus as aberrant per their pro-active nature). The second question is whether all pro-active non-heterosexual orientations are properly so understood.

A principle tragedy of some of the most tragic kinds of disabilities is that persons with those disabilities are treated by normal persons in ways that are at odds with the well-being of those disabled persons. For example, many persons with autism are sometimes treated under the assumption that they have normal perceptual faculties and so whose actions are presumed principally to be motivated by the kinds of motives which a perceptually normal person would have to be motivated by in order to act that way.      

But, if we wish to insist that born a-sexuality is not a disability, then at least we admit that it is the absence of a principal kind of motive for action in a progenitive society. Persons born genuinely lacking any sexual interest can no more feel prevented from acting sexual than can a person born fully blind feel prevented from painting en plein air. But, to be blind in a sighted world is to be prevented the fuller range of socially cohesive perceptions, so that to be especially socially inclined while blind is to feel some loss for being somewhat left out of all the social things that occur by way of sightedness.

But, blindness is not itself either an alternate perceptual motive nor an absence of other, normal perceptual motives: the perceptual hyper-lucidation of hearing, smell, touch, etc, which develops in persons deprived of sight does not socially repel sighted persons, but tends to socially compensate for the blindness.

But, the existence of automatically deeply socially compensatory disabilities such as blindness does not mean it is impossible for there to exist disabilities that lack much of such compensation. Being crippled is one example.      

But, then, there are disabilities that have directly socially repelling features, including those caused by perceptual abnormalities rather than by a simple loss of some of the perceptual panoply (as in a-sexuality or blindness).

Given that dimorphic social organisms are partly geared to reproducing themselves (namely by a sexual bond between the two forms), it is obvious that the most straight-forward kind of perception regarding the agency of reproduction among such organisms has the natural hegemony on such perception. Heterosexuality in humans is, if nothing else, the most cost-effective, and otherwise purpose-driven, human sexual orientation in terms of the reproduction of humans.


Instinct, Society, and Civilization: The Microbiology of (un)Sustainability

Believing it to be the most profound

game, a man greedily thinks he pits

himself

against Mother Nature

at Checkers,

only to find, too late, that

She has been playing him at Chess.

The man who believes Checkers to be the most profound game, when he pits himself against Mother Nature at The Board Game Of Life, not only assumes the rules of Checkers, but thinks Her moves are shallow.

Within every realm of human life, whether the medical, nutritional, educational, social, sexual, etc., there are wrong things and right things. And, some of the wrong things are abominably wrong, worthy of death for the severity of natural adverse consequences to others by such wrongs.

But, hhumans are not omnipotent in their physical makeup. Which is why they die and get disease. Further, in line with ‘Murphy’s Law’, there is not even one human sense about the right things which is exempt from being distorted. Ask Hitler.

I feel deeply comforted that homosexuals can value marriage and family as much as anyone.

But, for me to appreciate that homosexuals revere marriage and family is merely for me to appreciate that there is a certain equality between humans: regardless of sexual orientation or sexual practice, a more-or-less socially sensitive person easily appreciates the value of family and marriage.

So, here’s a question: Is society a bunch of disembodied psyches? Not on your life. And, it should go without saying that the physical world of which we all are a part is not strictly random. Rather, despite is variables, that world is highly ordered. Finally, basically, that order is made of, by, and for, life. Your life. My life. Everyone’s life. There are no shortcuts.

In fact, any ‘corner’ of the natural order that we ignore, we tend to ‘cut’. To our detriment. To all of our detriments. And to some of us more detrimental than to others.

It’s fairly easy to see that any weakening, distorting, or misdirecting of the social fitness of progenitive pairs, and of the individuals that potentially comprise such pairs, is just another way of saying ‘the weakening of society’. But, it may not be quite so easy to see that any weakening, distorting, or misdirecting of the microbiological fitness of these pairs likewise means the weakening of society. The central social instinct is about mating and reproduction. So, homosexual acts, regardless of the sexual orientation of its participants, at best borrow upon the microbiological capital of a reproductive community.

This begs another question: What are the physical connections that comprise a sustainable society? For one thing, we are connected by a common air. If each of us lived always-and-entirely in our own separate little bubbles, we might all claim near-innocence in terms of everyone else’s diseases, disabilities, and dysfunctions. But, we don’t live as a bunch of Bubble Boy’s, so we can’t rationally make such a claim.

Another way society is physically connected is that everyone has physical parents. This connection has to do with epigenetics: the ability of a fetus’s relative genetic integrity to be effected by its environment, and by the prior health-style of its physical parents.

But, all of the basic kinds of human social instincts are driven by―and, in turn, inform―human microbiology. Sex most of all. After all, that’s how we all got here. So, society is actual, physical people, sharing every kind of physical connection. And, while we can’t practically hope to avoid a general physical connection, we generally shouldn’t want to avoid it. Society is, after all, the function of mutual benefits. All the way down to the microbiological level.

However, as with those benefits, any potential problems likewise go all the way down to the microscopic. And that microscopic is a very ordered world. So, society is not just physical people, society is contagion―for better and worse. The fact that we are chemically mutually beneficial makes possible the introduction of mutual chemical detriment.

It may be obvious to scientifically ‘enlightened’ persons that to share a common physical environment tends to inoculate them against many diseases. But, it should be well-understood—by a deeply open sensitivity―just how sharing that environment also can put them at risk of other diseases.

You see, the potentially adverse half of our common physical connection is, in effect, the far more complex half. This is because we take the mutually beneficial half so over-simplistically for granted. For a really atrocious example, in the Middle Ages it was commonly thought that ‘licking a plate clean’ was just as good as rinsing it with fresh spring water; or, that drinking from a cup did not add anything to its contents. In other words, that, regardless that anyone had a ‘subjective’ sense to the contrary, the Middle-Age’s level of official scientific knowledge of contaminants was obscenely primitive. And, to top it off, they had virtually no clue that air is a prime means of contamination.

But, as atrocious as was the level of official biological science in the Middle Ages, only in the last century has anyone’s subjective sense about the ill-effects of second-hand smoke been ‘scientifically proved’ justified. And, absurdly, it was long prior to that official justification that it was well-known that one could contract a lung disease even without the aid of smoke, by a senseless, or even accidental, proximity to persons who, for unascertained reasons, clearly were ill in their breathing.

So, even if we never come in direct contact with anyone, or with any solid surface that others have touched, society is connected, for better and worse, by the air that surrounds us all. And, short of some relatively advanced technology, society cannot even hope to live as a bunch of Bubble Boys.

Even with the new appreciation of epigenetics—that realm of genetics in which the potential rubber for health and disease meets the actual road―people today love to think that the plain old genetics still easily determines 90% of the health/disease balance. As if it actually ever did. Just like licking your plate clean.

But, there once were no genes on Earth, while there always has been an environment that could act on genes, to shape them—even distort them. So, just the principle of ‘biologically detrimental substance’ is complex: there is no simple difference between a detrimental one and a helpful one. As a simple example, water is good for humans to intake, but not too much, and not down the wrong tube. The microbiological level of human health is vastly more complex, and in terms of many more substances, than just water. And, now, with their ‘basic’ knowledge of epigenetics, too many people today think as if they deeply understand, in terms of ‘scientific fact’, the physical connections we share.

Again, the plain old genetics is where the potential for health and disease reside, and epigenetics where that potential gets its cue to act. Yet, no one really knows more than a very few of that actor’s words, much less an entire sentence.

Again, society works precisely because people are mutually beneficial. That’s what society is. But, the more people’s habits counteract that mutual benefit, the more society dissolves, and even families fall apart. And, that ‘dissolution’ and ‘falling apart’ is not a simple fading away and crumbling. It’s more like chaos: a chaos of disease and dysfunction. We all learned that much in grade school, if not in kindergarten. The question is how well we really care to understand it.

For example, it’s one thing to accept a person who is addicted to smoking. It’s another thing to make them feel there is nothing wrong with smoking. And, if you’re so uniformed, or so willfully senseless, as to believe that second-hand smoke is harmless, then at least don’t try to make your version of ‘harmless common air’ legally compulsory on the rest of us. In short, given a world full of every kind and degree of bad habit, there is no such thing as a free ride to the mutual benefits of society.

The reproductively normative bi-gender-ness of humans means there are basically two directions possible for a person’s ‘subjective’ sexual orientation. We’re fairly exempt from be sexually oriented toward an entirely new, imaginary third gender―or, for that matter, toward crude oil and rocks. But, if ‘evolutionary’ fitness involves the potential to reproduce, then, notwithstanding the normal mechanical option, a ‘reversal’ of one’s sexual orientation may very well be a class-A social disability. Possibly the class-A social disability.

You see, sex is a social instinct, and the most deeply social one. And, that instinct is so deep not simply because of the intensity of our ‘subjective’ drive toward it, but because of the very-real-and-concrete microbiological exchange which takes place within it. Even with a condom. Your brain exercises it, and so it becomes strengthened, ingrained, in you. We’re sexual beings because we are conceived by sexual beings.

The question is whether a disability ought to be exercised as such, or, instead, worked through. No one wants to practice a limp that much. No one wants be that realistic in pretending to have no arms.

There are all sorts of disabilities possible, and many co-occurrences of different disabilities in an individual human. But a disability in terms of a basic instinct seems pretty serious to me. One wouldn’t want to wake up to find oneself hungry for asphalt instead of oatmeal. Some science fictional creature may ingest your neighborhood roads for sustenance. But, we humans don’t have science-fictional digestive/nutrient-uptake systems. And, the microbiological exchange which is the process of digestion-and-assimilation is an example of what really, most deeply, goes on in sexual attraction and sexual activity:

We live in a common, organized soup of the microscopic world. So, the more chaos we input into that world, the more chaos it gives back. Sex is such a deeply microbiological power, so the question is whether deliberately practicing a disabled version of it causes that disabled version to be reproduced (and, or, a host of other microbiological problems which present as disease and dysfunction). No one in their right mind wants to eat soup that has had petroleum products mixed into it, and there’s a reason the dinosaurs became extinct.

Don’t get me wrong. I know too well what it’s like being disapproved of for being a sexual creature-for having a sexual orientation of any kind. And, for those who think that’s bad, it was a disapproval not by intent, but merely by effect. I’m that sensitive. So, believe me when I say that I empathize with the wish, on the part of homosexuals, to be simply accorded what a heterosexual society already simply accords its heterosexual members: the natural and, therefore, civil right to be married to whomever with whom they share a most deep-and-broad kind of attraction.

To my mind, for a person to be homosexual in a heterosexual world is for that person to be oppressed, even if the whole world were ‘Ok’ with homosexuality. It’s an aberration of the microbiology governing the most basic social-and-reproductive instinct. Most of the more empathic or otherwise open heterosexuals know this (which is why Social Liberals are morally liberal towards homosexual acts).

But, knowing that to be homosexual is to be oppressed in a normatively heterosexual world does not say in which direction to prosecute the case for the sake of those who find themselves either sexually attracted to members of their own gender or born with a blended gender. Compulsive gamblers can be very friendly people, but you wouldn’t trust your money to them. As anyone with a libido knows, sex is most deeply powerful force in the human psyche. So powerful that, if allowed, it may easily overrun its rightful bounds: not in all individuals at the same time, but in a population over time and generations. It’s all about how much society is willing to reduce itself to its lowest common denominator.

So, it is not irrational to suppose that homosexual sex, and same-sex marriage, is bad for the ‘social’ and legal fabric of our civilization. Is it irrational to suppose that sexual relations between heterosexuals of the same gender might necessarily have some long-term adverse microbiological consequences, both to themselves and to others???

It is not irrational to suppose that some of those adverse consequences can be so ruinous to some others’ microbiology’s as to make some of those others wish to end their own lives. In fact, to reject out-of-hand the possibility of such consequences to such relations is, in effect, to reject that such consequences necessarily ever obtain in regard to any human action no matter how instinctively repulsive some possible human actions may be.

The microscopic environment is a complex continuum with which a properly functioning human individual’s microbiology has a mutually beneficial relationship. But, the possibility of mutual benefit between organisms makes possible a deep imbalance between them. And, once such an imbalance exists, their mutual benefit makes possible a short-sighted act which compounds any deep imbalance already present. So, the reason why ‘Anything that can go wrong, will’, is because ‘Bleep adds up so long as people keep doing bleep.’

Social Liberals rightly abhor economic greed for the disease and dysfunction that such greed causes both to the human and non-human parts of the Earth. But, in how many of the basic features of human life is it possible to cause disease or dysfunction to others? Surely, the sexual feature of human life cannot be one of the least.

It’s fairly easy to see that any weakening, distorting, or misdirecting of the social fitness of justifiable actual and potential progenitive pairs means the weakening of society-at-large. What may not be so obvious-at least until you think about it―is that any weakening, distorting, or misdirecting of the microbiological fitness of progenitive pairs means the weakening of society-at-large. The problem, of course, is tracking any such social or microbiological weaknesses to their sources.

But, all ‘merely‘ social actions are very much microbiological actions. And, some kinds of social actions are the most deeply microbiological. For better or worse.