Normality and Doability in Homosexual Cohabitation

We always associate normality with doability. All of us are aware that in everything there is purpose, and purpose is the normative blueprint of everything where the act and development of things, including humanity, are consigned. However, normality doesn’t follow functionality. Just because something is not normal, doesn’t mean that it is not doable and you are not allowed to do it.

One classic argument is homosexual cohabitation. Some arguments don’t allow them because it is not “normal”. For the survival and posterity of the species, it is natural for a male species to cohabit with a female to reproduce and thereby continue to rally the existence of humanity. And by the way it has served its purpose for the benefit of humanity, it has seemed to become the normative expression of human sexuality. And to turn it upside-down would have an untoward effect on human survival.

Now, as per argument that homosexual cohabitation should be treated as normal for it to be considered doable, is baloney.

Well, things don’t have to be normal for you to be able to do it. A normal purpose of a knife is to cut, doesn’t matter if you’re cutting fruits, veggies or meat. In fact, a sharp knife is so efficient at doing its normal job at cutting and slicing as it has been designed for that purpose. But in cases where I use the knife to hit a nail for a wood, then arguably the knife is not being used for its purpose anymore nor I was doing what is normal. But again, just because something is not normal, doesn’t mean that it’s not doable.

Yes, a knife is made to cut but it doesn’t mean that I cannot use it to pummel a nail or use it to pry a cog in a machine. But one thing for sure that I cannot do is to call it normal. As per material purpose, there is nothing normal to a knife hitting the head of a nail as compared to a hammer’s purpose driving the nail more efficiently.

Same goes true with my eyes. My eyes’ purpose is to see – quite simple. But what if I use my eyes to give a hint, quote somebody or give a signal. Now, I’m in violation of my eyes’ normal purpose. However, I was able to do it without bothering my thoughts if it’s normal for my eyes to do or not. In fact, all of us instinctively and inadvertently are doing it already as if it’s part of our eyes’ purpose.

Matters like this is elaborated well by Aristotle in his Mean of Virtue »

If we turn our gaze into homosexual cohabitation, we’ve already emphasized that same sex relationship in lieu to human sexuality and purpose, is not normal. But just because it’s not normal doesn’t mean you still need to draw license from the society for you to conjugate as homosexuals. In fact, for humanitarian equanimity, freedom and the so-called equal rights by all means you can do it.

But don’t call it normal.

Something that is not normal is exceptional, or maybe an exception to the rule. What is normal is when human species continue to foster through normal male to female cohabitation.

Let’s try to imagine that one day, all males decided to conjoin with his fellow males and all females to her fellow females species as well. Picture out what will happen next when normal human reproduction suddenly stops all over the world as a result of an atypical cohabitation. Good thing, statisticians and demographist might say, since the world is already overly convoluted with suckers and polluters of the environment. But why would that happen? Well, because it’s the new normal.

But frankly, this isn’t rocket science to understand.

For some reason that homosexual relationship hits a deeper note and want to call their union marriage, then this will send an atrocious rippling effect on some established norms of the society. By definition marriage is a legal and religious union between a man and a woman alone. Unfortunately, there is no side notes and annotations on this normative social and religious dogma.

If homosexual cohabitation were able to change the core definition and purpose of marriage, then how hard can it be to disarray any other things. Such as the outlook of the young about their normal sexuality, children thinking “is it normal for man to cleave to his fellow man?” Or this may send mixed disorienting signal to an unguarded young soul watching a man kissing his fellow man or a woman kissing her girlfriend. If a child gets morally mangled seeing and knowing his mom kissing and having relationship with a man next door, how much do you think it will do seeing both man or woman of the same sexual orientation smooching each other.

As per analogy that some species of the animal kingdom is coupling with the same sex and in fact rearing offspring as a result of the cohabitation, is actually digging a hole to muffle the brighter side of the argument. Well then, if you think you belong to the bottom part of the food chain, then by all means do it.

Just because some species of fishes and worms are doing it, doesn’t mean that we should do it too. If only these creatures can think and decide for themselves, they would for sure opt out of the discussion.

FIME

Author's Corner

Sweet, I blame you not, for mine the fault was, had I not been made of common clay. I had climbed the higher heights unclimbed yet, seen the fuller air, the larger day. From the wildness of my wasted passion I had struck a better, clearer song, Lit some lighter light of freer freedom, battled with some Hydra-headed wrong. – Oscar Wilde