On Sodomy and the Restrictions of the Right to Reproduction

Submitted by Jim Sinclair

Before I begin this discussion surrounding the topic contained within the title of this essay, I would like to bring forth a couple of key points which are essential to my argument. For starters, this essay does acknowledge new advancements in gender and sexuality starting with the theories proposed by Sigmund Freud and does not attempt to do away with knowledge that we have expunged from recent centuries. The stance taken in this essay is that sexualization constitutes the developmental process for any living organism. This process of sexualization begins at birth and continues into adulthood where it ultimately solidifies a gender identity. The focus in these next couple of paragraphs though is not on gender identity at large but on value formation, which I believe to be a key part of a person’s gender identity. To explain the rise of sodomy I will be examining the novice value of a “chosen family” and how this value damages citizens Right to Reproduce.

A rising and incredibly impactful value that is being taught in universities and other educational institutions is that now as modern citizens we can choose our own families, unbeknownst of our genetic relations. This value is entirely ahistorical and theoretical to human society yet, it has become a beacon of hope for many in today’s world. The main question to be asked though is how did such a novice value come into the fold? Where do its origins lie?

My answer to this is sodomy or the act of non-procreative sex. Sodomy, because of its lack of procreation subverts normative heterosexual sex acts and replaces them with something new. This makes sodomy the original act behind this novice value of a chosen family, and its procreation is the breeding of a new value, a value for arousal. This value for arousal is often signaled through the act of choosing a family. By changing the traditional family structure from one of a survival mechanism into one that is a representation of self-expression, procreation cannot be separated from the value of arousal. What else lies in this act other than a person’s own enjoyment?

Sodomy’s proliferation of the value of arousal poses an incredible danger to many countries as it underestimates a human’s capability of developing arousal addictions, which have become rampant in countries like the United States. For the most part, societies have only identified addictions which come in the simplest form, addictions which do not change form sporadically like arousal addictions. Arousal addictions are based upon the variety of sex or the surprises that will follow from a sex act. For example, drugs and alcohol are addictions because a person is addicted to coming back to those things in which they find comfort in habitually consuming. Arousal addictions in contrast are inherently sexual and are based upon a person habitually choosing sex acts that will lead continually to more exotic arousals in the future. What is dangerous about these addictions is that they threaten the individual Right of Reproduction as they pervert sex acts into something of which they aren’t, non-procreative. This perversion has gone so far as to allow for reproductive rights to mean something entirely different from the Right to Reproduce.

Reproductive rights and the Right to Reproduce are legally considered to be the same right but for this essay I will distinguish between the both of them, as I believe that reproductive rights have done hindrance to citizens legal Right to Reproduction. My reasoning for this is that reproductive rights give certain citizens priority over others. For example, there is now the right to contraceptives and clinics, which is completely ignorant with regards to equality as it is defined within the constitution of the United States. By stating that citizens have the right to a contraceptive object or medical facility, it gives credence to those who are part of these medical facilities and public health organizations over other citizens whose occupation is not considered the right of a citizen. In other words, once we acknowledge reproductive rights as something more than simply meaning that our government will protect the Right to Reproduce, not only do we have a negligent government, but one that unfavorably benefits certain citizens over others. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that everyone has the right to a podiatrist or to a psychiatrist or to any particular kind of health clinic. This is because it would create inequality between doctors. Once we start to give out condoms to everyone and state that this is a Right in the constitution then when can we stop? Is every citizen now entitled to own an iPhone as well?

The dangers do not stop there though. Once the doors to sodomy have been opened, they are difficult to close. This is because those who feel the heaviness of its oppression the most are those who will inherit society, its youth. If young people have the security of reproduction ripped from under them before they have even fully developed, then their world may be warped and delusional, caused by the megalomaniac pursuance of constantly new surprises. What is simply an arousal from a surprising instance they mistake as something that they need for survival. They will confuse wants with needs and their minds will be plagued with unnatural motivations that continue to spread discordance among citizens of a state.

Without the Right of Reproduction being properly protected by the coercive force of a government, humankind will become flung back into a state of nature where quality of life will degrade into the basest of human instinctual capacity. It will ultimately be the burden of the youngest generation whether they accept sodomy into their society or not, but they will have no teacher with regards to this matter and will have to come upon a solution only through grit, hard-fasting and genius legislature. No ethical system can be salvaged from the previous generation once arousal addiction has gripped its elders, for they are the ones blindly allowing for laws to be changed without a real coherent regard for the future. All eyes gaze upon the young generation in hesitation, hoping that a redeeming voice can be heard from the crowd. Unfortunately though, the voice is not within the crowd to begin with. Instead it is buried deep within some forgotten countryside that is waiting and waiting until the city poisons itself to death. Within this countryside is a man who sits by a river, still stuck in contemplation at how his brothers and sisters separate one another with symbols, tools and buildings. All he can do is regret how his fellow humans have squandered their time on earth looking for more than what they need. For him, everything he needs is located by the river and so he has never moved from there, all the while retaining the original spirit of what makes him human in the first place.