Clarification of my position on homosexuality.

Let me clarify my position on homosexuality. Two points: 1) It is very poignant. These people are to be granted no less comfort through their own effort than anyone else. This is an individual right. 2) It is unfortunate, and needs to be ended. Beyond comfort, I don't see any rights stemming from a perversion of the cultural provisions for procreation. Gay couples are an abuse of those provisions. I don't care whether religions condemn them or not. It's impossible for gays to contribute to the sexual equation. I don't know why it happens. I wish I did. It would help form understandable policy. As it is my policy will be considered contrary to many people's conception of rights. There is too much about homosexuality we don't see that would probably raise objections if we did. It seems they are using the closet to produce a secret institution. Obviously we have to find a different solution than the closet. They should be assured of due comfort as individuals and not forced into hiding by discrimination as individuals. But the cultural provisions for couples are more important than the Constitution provides. Either legal opinions must confront this fact or the Constitution must be amended to state it explicitly, and if that doesn't work, then it's time for another revolution. I will not sit idly by and watch this species go to the dogs.

on homosexual policy

The purpose of my policy regarding homosexuals is not to punish them. I am not a believer in retribution. The policy of a death penalty for the first offense of a homosexual having contact with children is a measure of discouragement from that conduct, not punishment. Under this policy it is necessary to strengthen the provisions for individual rights of homosexuals--the prohibition of discrimination primarily. Gay bashing is contrary to a solution to the problem posed by homosexuality. I suspect it is done only because no prior policy based on understanding of both the crisis and the poignancy of homosexuality has existed.

The distinction between individual rights and mating rights is critical. Under my policy, which may or may not be endorsed by the ruling elite of the United States, homosexuals will get no mating rights, none whatsoever. This means not only that they cannot marry, but that public displays of affection, which is a de facto mating right rather than an individual right, is prohibited to them. It is my interpretation that the rights of consenting adults in private, which allow homosexuals to conduct their sexual affairs, are an extension of individual rights and are not actually mating rights. The right to take a coupling anywhere in society, as certified and regulated by marriage, is a mating right, and it is not to be extended to homosexuals. This is a deviation from present laws and will not be easy to achieve in actual manifestation.

Homo sapiens is a compassionate species. This is why leniency with homosexuals is currently a winning proposition. Compassion will yield to understanding when understanding reaches a state of greater persuasiveness than compassion. Understanding and compassion are both eonic processes and both their effects, including leniency for homosexuals, are to be respected. I believe the transition from leniency for to elimination of homosexuality will be similar to the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism. Great weight is enjoyed by the forces lenient to homosexuality, just as it was enjoyed by the church on the matter of the earth being universally accepted as the center of the universe. Only time will tell whether the crisis of homosexuality is to get equal attention as does its poignancy.