WHY NOT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

by Dr. Lawrence Wilson

© May 2015, L.D. Wilson Consultants, Inc. 

 

America and Europe are now debating the question of whether to sanction homosexual marriage.  Between 1% and 2% of the American population is homosexual.  Many people believe the numbers are much higher, but this is incorrect.  The perception that more people are homosexual is fostered by the mass media, however, where homosexuals have a lot of control, especially in Hollywood.

To answer the question of whether to endorse homosexual marriages, one must ask what is marriage all about?  I contend that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman for their mutual benefit, but also for the benefit of society.  I think this is too often overlooked.

I know this article will seem uncompassionate and pig-headed to some people, but I hope you will keep your mind open and view the issue as it affects the larger society. 

 

Warning:  This article may sound anti-homosexual.  That is not what it is.  The question of whether to sanction homosexual marriage is a legal and practical matter for society today.  This question must be separated from all personal views or prejudices concerning the homosexuality issue.  I hold no personal animosity toward anyone, or toward any group, so long as they follow the principle of the Golden Rule, to treat others as they wish to be treated.

 

IN FAVOR OF HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE

 

The reasons given to approve homosexual marriage are based on:

1. Fairness.  On the surface, it seems unfair to not give homosexual people all the same rights and privileges as others.  However, this argument only applies if homosexuality is “equal” as a lifestyle to traditional marriage.  This article discusses this hypothesis.  

2. That marriage is a civil right.  Therefore it should be open to everyone.  However, marriage is not a civil right.  A civil right is a right conferred by the government.

Marriage is an ancient arrangement between a man and a woman that long predates the American government, or any existing government.

3. That homosexuals should be given financial, inheritance and other benefits equal to those given to heterosexual couples.  This is related to the two reasons above, but is a purely economic reason.  This argument is again based on the idea that homosexuality is “equal” to heterosexual marriage, and should thus be rewarded by society in the same way.  This is not clear, however.

 

THE RANGE OF POSITIONS ON THIS ISSUE

 

The possible positions on this issue are widely varying.  They range from:

 

1. Changing the definition of marriage to allow homosexual marriage.

2. Leaving marriage alone, but setting up a separate legal category of same-sex partnership with some or all of the financial and other benefits as those of heterosexual marriage.

3. Leave the situation basically as is, with homosexuality a marginal lifestyle that does not get government rewards given to married couples.

4. Some religious people want older laws against sodomy, for example, enforced and a return to Biblical religious values in America and elsewhere.

 

ARGUMENTS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE

 

These include the following:

 

1. Weakening society by damaging the institution of marriage.  Most large societies on earth use the institution of heterosexual marriage as the most stable mechanism by which to organize society, satisfy and control sexual needs, produce and successfully raise children as the future members and leaders of society, promote peace and harmony, and satisfy other human needs for companionship and protection.  Heterosexual marriage is thus one of the most sacred and basic institutions of society.  Anything that weakens it is a serious problem for that society.

Sanctioning “alternative” marriages of any kind weakens traditional marriage in at least three ways:

1. By diluting and changing the meaning of the word marriage.

2. By intentionally confusing the people about the meaning of the word.

3. By rewarding other arrangements by granting them government or other benefits previously reserved only for those who enter a heterosexual marriage.

 Some argue that approving homosexual marriage does not weaken the traditional family, but this seems like an obvious falsehood.  It certainly weakens the traditional family because it sends the message that the traditional family is only one of several ways to organize the family and the society that are presumably equal.

 

2. Weakening society by harming children.  It is vital for society to protect and promote lifestyles that result in the best environment to raise children.  This should be obvious and a matter of common sense.  Otherwise, society puts its future in grave danger.

Many scientific studies show that the standard family with one man and one woman is best for raising a child.  Other arrangements result in more mental and physical problems for children.  Therefore, society should protect and promote heterosexual marriage and the traditional family, and not other arrangements, no matter what other arguments are raised.  All other arguments can be seen as just a matter of selfishness and disregard for the next generation.

 

3. Weakening society by sanctioning a less healthful adult lifestyle.  Healthy societies only support lifestyles and behaviors that benefit its members the most.  Heterosexual adults live longer than homosexuals, and heterosexuals have lower rates of disease, violence, and domestic violence.  It makes little sense for society to sanction a lifestyle that causes more violence and a shorter lifespan. 

 

4. A hygienic argument.  This argument is related to the argument above.  For male homosexuals, it is well known that sodomy or anal sex is not as clean as heterosexual sex.  Sexually transmitted disease is already a serious problem, and sanctioning sodomy worsens this problem.

 

5. The religious argument.  The main Western religions, as well as all the other major religions on planet earth, forbid homosexuality.  It is called an abomination in the Hebrew Bible.  I believe society should be extremely careful about going against a basic teachings of the world’s major religions.

All public servants in the USA take an oath to uphold the US Constitution, and that document is firmly based on Biblical law.  Unfortunately, that is not stated clearly enough, perhaps, in the founding documents.

Today, a process is underway called secularization.  This is a progressive discounting and degrading of things that are taught in traditional religious and spiritual texts, supposedly in favor of what is called scientific inquiry.  In fact, the latter is not necessarily scientific, even if it appears that way.  The problem with “science” is that it has its own biases, and is always based upon incomplete knowledge.  Often, it is also corrupt, meaning that special interests influence it heavily.

Some will say, but there must be “separation of church and state”.  However, this specious legal doctrine is found nowhere in the US Constitution.  It is nothing more than a perversion of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from setting up a state religion.  All or most of the American founders were religious men and women, who insisted that their religious convictions be carried forth into the political arena.

 

6. The flawed “civil rights” argument.  Recently the United States Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples should have the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples in states that permit homosexual marriage.  This is based on an argument that marriage is a “civil right”.  A civil right is a right granted by the government to the people.

However, no such right is found in American law.  Civil rights must be granted by an act of the Congress of the United States.  This is the case with other civil rights, but not with homosexual marriage.  Therefore, the Supreme Court just invented it!  This is quite outrageous and clearly an overstepping of their authority. 

In fact, there is an act of Congress called the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, which specifically says that marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

7. The protection of women argument.  One reason society promotes heterosexual marriage is to protect women.  Society benefits greatly from the protection of women, and traditional marriage is one of the best ways to do this.  This does not mean that every woman is protected in a traditional marriage.  Some are abused, of course.  However, the great majority of women do receive protection in a traditional marriage.

Relationships between two men or between two women do not provide this same protection for women.  It is not wise for society to approve an arrangement that puts women at greater risk.

 

8. The family protection argument.  The family unit – one man and one woman – is the basis  for our modern civilized society – socially, psychologically, legally, sexually, and in other ways.  The family fulfills all these roles, and perhaps others in society.  So far, no other social arrangement has been found to be as powerful, satisfying and helpful for society.

The traditional family unit is under severe attack by those who don’t like it, namely world communist and world socialist organizations who seek to destroy Western civilization by stealth.  They seek to replace modern Western society with the old autocratic and monarchical societies.  To do this, they must destroy the family unit in Western society.

The family is under attack by the tax laws, the public school system, the welfare laws, and much more.  These attacks are very deliberate, of course, and the push for homosexual marriage is just the latest attack.

Weakening the traditional family unit by not supporting it wholeheartedly is dangerous for the future of civilized society, and very foolish unless and until we have something to replace it with that is better.  Homosexual marriage does not fill that requirement, so it is best to leave marriage alone at this time. 

 

9. Opening the door for unusual arrangements.  A final important problem with allowing homosexual marriage is that it opens the door for other “marriage arrangements” that studies show are not wholesome.  For example, if we want to be “fair” and “unbiased”, then why not approve polygamous marriage?  And why not marriage between four or five people?  Why not marriage between a man or woman and their dog, which often is a best friend?  There are few limits to what some believe is “fair”. 

Studies show that the one man-one woman arrangement works best, not these others.  In fact, whenever an advanced society has endorsed homosexuality and gay marriage, its destruction soon follows.  I am not sure of all the reasons for this, but it is the truth of history.

 

OTHER, MORE ADVANCED SCIENCE ARGUMENTS

 

Several of these arguments exist.  However, the science is advanced and not yet acknowledged by most authorities on earth.  These arguments are:

 

10. Metabolic differences.  These are very clear on hair mineral charts of men versus those of women.  For example, men tend to be higher in zinc and lower in copper.  We say they are zinc-dominant creatures.  Women are the opposite, and are more  copper-dominant.  As a result, they complement each other, since each of these vital minerals lends different traits to each one.

Also, men tend to have faster oxidation rates than women, and again, this tends to help them to blend and assist one another in various ways.  This blending cannot occur with homosexual relationships.

 

11. Energy field differences.  For example, the seven main energy centers on a man generally spin in the opposite direction to the energy centers in women.  When they come together, they reinforce each other.  This cannot occur when two men or two women come together intimately.

Also, on men, the first, third, fifth, and seventh energy centers spin in an outward-moving direction.  These centers spin in an inward-moving direction on women.  They blend and enhance each other in subtle ways.  This blending does not occur with same-sex couples.  For more on this topic, please read The Aura on this website.

 

12. Soul differences.  Souls are born and love to live as male and female twins.  When healthy, they do not desire a partner of the same sex. 

Also, most homosexuals are not composite souls.  When souls become composite souls, they do not tend to want or enjoy homosexual relationships.  For more on this topic, please read Composite Souls on this site.

Male souls usually, but not always, inhabit a male body.  Female souls usually, but not always, inhabit a female body.  Souls move from body to body, as is taught in some religions and which used to be taught in early Christianity, as well.  Sexual identity confusion arising from moving from body to body is one cause of homosexuality.  It is not a reason to encourage it, however.

 

13. Nutritional balancing observations.  Practitioners of nutritional balancing observe that in most case, the sexual preference of their homosexual clients changes to heterosexual when they follow a complete nutritional balancing program.  This requires no counseling or special effort of any kind.

I do not understand why this occurs, but it is a consistent finding among our clients.  It may have to do with hormonal balancing, trauma release, or something else. 

Based on these observations, it would seem that homosexuality has to do with poor health, and that it is not “genetic” and “irreversible”, as many claim.  If that is true, then the answer is not to change the definition of marriage.  it is to assist people to improve their health.  More about this is in the article entitled Homosexuality on this site.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Marriage between two men or between two women, in general, does not work as well physically, sexually, or energetically as marriage between a man and a woman.  It is also not at all recommended by the Bible, a text that is the basis for the Western legal system and indeed much of Western morality and law.  It is also not as good for children, according to current studies.  Based on this, I do not think it is wise for society to endorse or support homosexual marriage, and certainly not wise to change the definition of marriage.

If a homosexual couple wants insurance coverage or other financial benefits that accrue to traditional married couples, they need to go to work for companies that offer such benefits.  However, I feel it is wrong for our government to grant the same privileges and rights to a living arrangement that benefits society less than traditional marriage.

For more on this topic, please read Homosexuality on this website.

 

 

Home | Hair Analysis | Saunas | Books | Articles | Detox Protocols

Courses | About Dr. Wilson | The Free Basic Program