The Funny Gene

gene

If more than 30 percent of the surveyed people accepts it as norm for contemporary society then its not too far to  speculate that the percentage will decrease any less.  Imagine yourself in a mall full of people with different sexual orientation like heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual and asexual which sounds more like a waiter describing the food menu. What could be  your psychological reaction to such a variety ? By Praveen Raju.



My mind raced back to an  ‘out of  blue discussion,’ I had with a man (on the internet) who believed and practiced homosexuality to be “natural and therefore moral ”. This took place when I stared at the news informing me  that “a rainbow coalition of lesbian, gay and transgender groups in the city came together on Saturday (Kranti Maidan to Girgaum Chowpatty, Mumbai  on August 16,2008)  asking the British government to apologize for Section 377 (criminalizing homosexuality) of the Indian Penal Code. Frankly, it shook me psychologically to even think that this man would passionately desire to enjoy “Love and Sex” with a person of the same sex. At that particular moment of chatting, I felt unnatural but a bit safer  on the other side of the “ lake” (internet). Quite shockingly, few days back, the NDTV  and  Indiatimes poll  surveyed to inform us that more than 30 percent humans (inhumanly) voted to agree that homosexuality and gay marriages be legalized in India.  

The Gender  Choice :

Let’s picturize the following  conversation between a father and a son. 

Son : Dad, I want to get married.

Dad : Oh, That’s a good decesion son! Who’s the girl ?

Son : Girl ?  not a girl pop, that’s too old fashioned view.

Dad : what do you mean ? oh, you mean a woman, a female?

Son : Dad! Nor a girl nor a woman or a female.

Dad : You are getting on my nerve son. Either you marry a girl or a woman. You have any choice?

Son : Comeon dad, that’s a faulty dilemma ! There are more than one option today. I am talking about my male friend K. I love him and he loves me and mind you, no one can stop us to get married. 

 

The Gender Menu: If more than 30 percent of the surveyed people accepts it as norm for contemporary society then its not too far to  speculate that the percentage will decrease any less.  Imagine yourself in a mall full of people with different sexual orientation like heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual and asexual which sounds more like a waiter describing the food menu. What could be  your psycholigical reaction to such a variety ? (comments invited). Well, atleast I will not  quote with pleasure “variety is the spice of life”.  

 

Natural therefore moral  :

 

I sympathized deeply with the man who told me above that homosexuality was natural to him. But was it moral ? Now, that  didn’t make any sense to me. My gray brain cells overworked to inform me that something was wrong in that statement but couldn’t figure out  what it might be  due to my “ slow cerebral development”. I arrived in the world before the eight month without completing nine. Therefore my birth in a sense cannot be termed as fully natural, neither supernatural where  angels proclaimed my coming. I was born naturally as an immature infant or was it premature infant? Only God knows, I was caught down on earth under first heaven, in the hands of a physician and heard unspeakable words that I may or may not survive at that stage. Every corrective medical treatment was given, available in that era to clip or prevent any unnatural deformity and deficiency which is not “lawful” for me to describe here.  Finally, a normal, smart, handsome male (that’s me) began to  develop on the fourteenth day of the fourth  month  under the gestation period of  seven months. I know it was too early to arrive, like a lamb among the wolves, without completing nine months but I am what I am by the grace of God. I am still under the “chimera” that I am very special and  chosen one.  

 

Now, back to the argument the (un)natural man put forth : 

 

Premise 1 : All that is natural is moral

 

Premise 2 : Homosexuality is natural

 

Conclusion : Homosexuality is moral 

 

I took help from my  best male  friend (don’t get strange ideas in your uncircumcised head. He is  a monogamous heterosexual married man like me)  who also happened to be a good apologist. I assumed that logic helps to eliminate any nonsense in an argument and  I was right because he was right. My  friend put forth few questions that apologist dared to call it  as epistemological questions. The technical term is used to scare off laymen’s to avoid any treading in their premise. Simply, its described as theory of knowledge. In other words, “ How do we know what we know” or “how to arrive at the truth”  for what sounds to be logical need not necessarily be true like the above argument.  Ok, these are some of the questions  that my friend put forth in response to the above argument:

 

  • What do we mean by "natural"?
  • Is natural "what currently is"?
  • Or is "natural" what we ought to be?
  • Do we live in a perfect world? (if Yes, then he should accept a gay bashing but if no, then the world is not in a perfect state )
  • If the present world is in an imperfect natural state, then what is the yardstick to define what is natural ?
  • Which worldview is correct to decide the natural (and moral) ?
  • Can we do whatever we assume to be natural ? ( like one person
    raping another because of his "natural" instincts?)

 Genius! These questions perfectly leads us to  arrive  to the truth. See, how lengthy article I have written; I don’t want to go in details wasting ink and paper (here bytes and megabytes). For there are many articles on the same subject, written by many geniuses, in this site that will shed more light.

 

 The F-Gene :

 

Let me tie down, to conclude with my friend’s statement “If Christian theism is right, then the way we are is not the way we ought  to be. All of us need to change. Strictly, speaking none of us are fulfilling natural since we are not the way God intended us to be – perfect. (At the same time we must know that) the heterosexual sexual act is physically based on the design of  our bodies as male and female as well as the inherent potential for procreation”. It is possible to treat and correct the unnatural F-Genes– “ The Fallen Genes  and this begins when we submit ourselves to the lordship of Jesus Christ  and not to the “Fallen adamic Gene”.  

 

Oh! Was it C S Lewis who said this : “Good genes must exist, for no other reason, than that the bad genes needs to be answered” did he say that  or again its my funny gene(f-Gene), I wonder? “Help me Doctor, please!” 

 

{moscomment}  

Subscribe to Comments RSS Feed in this post

3 Responses

  1. If 50% of the world population are having cancer, does it make cancer natural and normal. No! It is a plague. Doctors must work round the clock to find a solution to cure the cancer. Homosexual is like cancer of the human race. Do you know that no animals have this problem? I have never seen a homosexual dog!

  2. Section 377 of IPC is specifically reffered to deal with “Unnatural Sexual Offences.” It identifies 4 different categories namely – Sodomy, Tribadism, Coitus per os & Bestiality. Not only is it rightfully stamped as unnatural but its also an offence making the accused liable for imprisonment upto 10 years, a term equivalent to culpable homicide. If what is unnatural becomes ‘natural’ & ‘moral’, what is truly natural will loose its naturality. In such a case true meaning of freindship between two people of the same sex will be lost. Homosexuality has a place among barbaric acts and if legalised then the time is not far when we would hear of marriages between a human and an animal.

  3. Thankyou Dr.Parvathy and bro.David.T for your feedback and comments.The problem seems to be more complex than merely terming it as unnatural or like cancer today.There seems or appears to me Three “types” of people giving in to homosexual behavior.One due to indulging in various forms of sexual lusts to get higher form of pleasure like drugs.second ,Due to relational causes such as shocking and hurtful relationships in early childhood. Finally, “sexual defect during birth or gene defect”. The pro-homosexuals would like to call it as “natural inclination to same sex” which is most complex and as real(argued) as its to heterosexuals to the opposite sex.Many argue for the latter than the former.In case of physical defects at birth like aids,congenital defects etc is easy to identify it as defective but in case of departure from normal sexual orientations, what’s the moral standard to disaprove it when it appears so real?

    Therefore the argument above is for the latter and we must raise important questions as mentioned in the article and maybe more:

    What is natural? How can we conclusively say what is natural? Does what is natural (instinct) considered as moral? etc etc. Once we answer these questions correctly using the absolute truth,we can conclude that homosexuality is wrong/evil/sin/cancer etc and help them to treat and cure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*