Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader thinks this argument is going to peter out soon. There is just no point in continuing. (Save, of course, the constant amusement of our readers.)

In the ongoing discussion of the biological nature of homosexuality our argument, as it always does, boggs down in the details. The Smallholder is happy to go with a lower threshold of scientific certainty in this matter than is your Maximum Leader.

But as your Maximum Leader continually brings up, but the Smallholder never addresses, at what point does genetic predisposition trump free will? Who gets a free pass for their behaviour due to their genetic makeup? If the Smallholder is convinced that genes trump free will is he willing to accept the societal consequences (these are consequences beyond homosexuality) that flow from that decision?

An underlying teme in this talk is also morality. The Smallholder feels strongly that homosexuality is an acceptable choice to make regardless of the science of homosexuality. Your Maximum Leader feels that there are strong moral considerations that argue against the acceptablity of homosexuality. The Smallholder wants your Maximum Leader to jettison his moral beliefs if there is scientific evidence that shows that homosexuality is natural.

This is the root cause of the problem. Just because something can be found to exist and be normal in nature doesn’t make it acceptable. On this point the Smallholder and your Maximum Leader continue to talk cross purposes. (Because contrary to his assertions to the contrary, the Smallholder is only looking for the middle ground on certain issues about which he is not passionate. Like the Smallholder, your Maximum Leader just can’t resist the jab…)

Now as your Maximum Leader has said. He does not support homosexual marriage. He is willing to continue with the status quo. But there is a lot more subtlety to your Maximum Leader’s positions on this matter than the Smallholder has ever cared to investigate in this blog (we have talked about it personally).

For example, your Maximum Leader doesn’t see why individuals can’t designate whomever they want to inherit property or recieve benefits. (If people die without wills or other directives that is their fault.) The same goes for hospital visitation and medical powers of attorney. Indeed, most of the reasons cited by homosexuals for wanting marriage are perfectly possible and attainable outside of marriage. There are plenty of companies that offer “same sex” benefits packages. Frankly your Maximum Leader doesn’t see why your company should care who you want to put on your health-care plan. It wouldn’t change the cost.

In most cases your Maximum Leader doesn’t see why the government should have any say at all, or care at all, in many of the sub-issues involved in the gay marriage debate.

But when homosexual advocates start to demand recognition of same sex marriages, then your Maximum Leader draws a line. He’s happy to give a considerable amount of personal freedom to all people (not just gays), but he’s not happy to have a lifestyle to which he objects included in the definition of an acceptable lifestyle to make a few people feel better about themselves.

Carry on.