An open letter to President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni

[Mama Amon]

1. PREAMBLE

Dear Yoweri Kaguta Museveni,

The President of the United Republic of Uganda:

On 28 February 2023, one Reverend Fr. Charles Onen, a former Catholic Priest, and who is a member of parliament of Gulu East, prepared the motion seeking leave of parliament to introduce a private member's bill entitled "anti-homosexuality bill of 2023" in the Ugandan Parliament, and he was allowed to do so. I have issues with this decision and the proposed Bill, as I proceed to show what I dispute below.

But, before unleashing my arguments at length, I prefer to summarize them under an executive summary, as I hereby do.

Pace the pre-scientific Biblical narrative, which portrays heterophilia as an exclusive nature of humanity, modern science has revealed that, there are four sexual orientations, namely: heterophilic, homophilic, ambiphilic, and neutrophilic sexual orientations.

On this view, an anti-homosexuality law, as proposed by the Ugandan Parliament, is a strategy of imposing compulsory heterosexuality upon non-heterosexual human persons. Nevertheless, Reverend Onen and his followers argued in its favour as follows:

(1) That, for an action or practice to be morally wrong, it must have some wrong-making feature, namely the violation of some basic human good of several basic human goods.

(2) That, apart from ovulative days copulations, which are sexual acts that are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), all other sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), such as non-ovulative days copulation, homosexual pedication, heterosexual pedication, fellatio, tribbing, cunnilingus, armpit sex, thigh sex and inter-breast sex, between two mutually consenting adults, do have some wrong-making features that make them morally wrong.

(3) And that, therefore, they concluded that, all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), even if occurring between mutually consenting adults, are morally wrong.

In order to show that there is something morally wrong with sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), which include homosexual pedication, the target of Ugandan Parliament, they amplified the claim, under premise two, by formulating various arguments to show that homosexuality has wrong-making features.

In this regard, the Ugandan Parliament invoked seven main reasons to justify their position. They claimed the following:

(1) that, "homosexuality ... poses a threat to the stability ... of the [heterosexual] family";
(2) that, "homosexuality ... poses a threat to the ... survival of the [heterosexual] family";
(3) that, "homosexuality contravenes the order of [heterosexual] nature;
(4) that, "homosexuality contravenes ... religious [heterosexual] norms";
(5) that, homosexuality is incompatible with African culture;
(6) that, homosexuals are disgusting;
(7) that, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of congenital "homosexuality."; and
(8) that, homosexuality violates the Kantian categorical imperative; and
(9) that, homosexual conduct entails perverted axiology.

All of these arguments are invalid and unsound, and have far reaching effect to the modern civilization, as I will soon show below.

Reverend Onen and others proposed a Bill whose content comes with a number of challenges to modern civilization. First, its definition of "homosexuality" is equivocation laden, as it uses a disjunctive definition that lumps together a homosexual condition and a homosexual conduct, without any clear legal distinction. In effect, it suggests that all persons who have a heterosexual condition, should be punished because they can engage in a heterosexual conduct called heterosexual rape.

The definition of the "offence of homosexuality" is based not on a principled criterion, as it prohibits homosexual sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (homosexual SAEBIT) but silently permits heterosexual sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (heterosexual SAEBIT).

It promotes compulsory heterosexuality to non-heterosexual persons by implicitly asserting that, any heterosexual or homosexual person who performs a sexual activity which does not terminate into hetero-genital contact, as required by the order of heterosexual human nature, commits an offence.

It entails an unreasonable penal system in that, it claims that "aggravated" pedication between two persons deserves a bigger punishment than aggravated embezzlement of huge public funds, which may affect millions of people.

It blurs the constitutional wall of separation between religion and state, by invoking Biblically sanctioned punishment against homosexual pedication.

It promotes religious fundamentalism that singles out the sin of homosexual pedication and neglects other sins which are more harmful to individuals and society.

It ignores scientific evidence, according to which, human sexual orientations, are determined by human genetics and hormones and not personal choice.

And, it violates the constitutionally protected rights such as the right to life, right to privacy, the right of assembly, and the right of association.

On my view, if the Bill is signed into law, it will have the following consequences to Uganda. The first is a charge of intellectual incompetence against the Ugandan Parliantarians.

The second is that, Ugandan history will be rolled back to the times of Germany holocaust which was sanction by the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler, where the non-Jewish victims of the holocaust included homosexuals.

And the third is that, the Ugandan history shall be rolled back to the times of Inquisitional holocaust which was sanction by the Catholic Church, where the victims of the holocaust included heretical homosexuals and witches.

Therefore, in view of the above thought process, I call upon you, Mr. President, to make sure that the proposed Bill is adjusted so that, the following changes are made:

One, unambiguous definitions should be removed from the Bill, so that a distinction is made between a homosexual condition and a homosexual conducts.

A truly homosexual person is someone who has “a condition characterized by an emotional and psycho-sexual propensity towards others of the same sex”.

Two, the name of the proposed act, "Anti-homosexuality Act," is misleading and unreasonably promotes hatred against persons with a homosexual condition, and who do not engage in homosexual acts of pedication and the like, and so it should be changed to "Sexual Activities Regulation Act (SARA)."

Three, the definition of "the offence of homosexuality" should be revised by making sure that, “any person, who is medically certified as having a heterosexual human nature, as opposed to a homosexual human nature, and who performs a sexual activity which does not terminate into hetero-genital contact, commits an offence”;

Four, the definition of "the offence of homosexuality" should be revised by making sure that, "any person, who is medically certified as having a homosexual human nature, as opposed to a heterosexual human nature, and who performs a sexual activity which does not terminate into hetero-genital contact, does not commit an offence.”

And five, given that any law is a public teacher, the proposed law should define the term "sexual activity" as any sequence of performances engaged in with the intention of securing orgasmic sexual satisfaction for one or more person doing or participating in the activity, which includes copulation, pedication, cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus, armpit sex, thigh sex, inter-breast sex, contracepted sex, or the penetration of any object into the genital of another person’s body."

It is only after such an enumeration, should a sexual activity be classified as moral or immoral, legal or illegal, depending on whether it is voluntary or involuntary, exploitative or not.

An involuntary sexual activity includes activities such as rape and indecent assault which are now classified as "sexual assaults" where the ingredients of physical harm, violence or threats of violence are considered at least as important as the sexual element.

And voluntary sexual behavior is hereby understood as sexual acts to which the parties, particularly females, are factually consenting.

However, the third millennium is no time for plunging a nation into the Victorian era ethics which were based on the "non-criminal marital sex versus criminal sex dichotomy."

This is where, the self-made eunuch, having no practical experience in sexual matters, one Reverend Onen and others want to take Uganda without warrant.

The Victorians were very concerned about sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) and made endless attempts to eradicate it while at the same time, the middle class man was being told that his wife was not interested in sexual activity except for purposes of procreation.

The respectable matron and her daughter were instructed in sexual matters to act as shrinking violets who at all times should be chaste and decorous and would be likely to blush or even faint at the merest mention of anything vaguely sexual.

The Victorian woman was idealized as a mother, home-maker, and helpmate to her busy husband, no more no less. Today, the world has changed, and we can't rewind the clock.

That having been said, I now proceed to summarize and criticize the above mentioned arguments, as proposed by Reverend Onen and others.

2. INTRODUCTION

Mr. President, eight times in the past two millennia some daring men have held "major meetings" to reorder the world, namely:

• At Nicea in 325 after the Arian Trinity Controversy, where the Paradoxical Trinitarian Doctrine was partially formalized for the first time;
• At the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 after the Thirty Years War, where the wall of separation between religions and a secular state was erected;
• At the Congress of Vienna in 1815 after the Napoleonic Wars, where new political borders were drawn and decision on methods to keep the peace in Europe after Napoleon Bonaparte's disastrous reign made;
• At the Berlin Conference in 1884 after the scramble for Africa, where Africa was partitioned into small European colonies;
• At Paris in 1919 after World War I, where the League of Nations was born;
• At San Francisco in 1945 after World War II, where the United Nations was born;
• At Rome in the Vatican City in 1965 when the Second Vatican Council concluded deliberations on the fatal clashes between competing modern worldviews and their impact on Orthodox Christian doctrines;
• And at Krakow in Poland, in February 1968, when the five-person committee which was formed by Carol Wojtyla released her study report, hereby dubbed the "Poland Manifesto," in response to the Contraception controversy, as it related to "The Unitive and Procreative Functions and Significances" of sexual acts.

The agenda for some of those "major meetings" has finally come to be the forcible globalization of alien worldviews, some of which promoted, and still promote, economic injustice, social injustice, political injustice, religious injustice, sexual injustice, and epistemic injustice.

In the final analysis, this phenomenon entailed, and still entails, reducing some segments of the human population to bystanders in the making of human history, and hence, the denigration of their human personhood.

This was achieved, and it is still being achieved, through such processes as racialization of human population, enslavement, stigmatization, brainwashing, colonization, and manipulative evangelization of the indigenous communities through such processes as paradoxicalisation and dogmatisation of human knowledge, which ultimately create paradoxical dogmatists.

The latter is a category of citizens who have acquired epistemic negligence that closes their minds to new evidence because of their willingness to accept externally imposed dogmatic mental frames along with paradoxical mental frames. That is, their thought processes are mainly governed by dogmatic and paradoxical mental frames (Dzhengiz and Hockerts 2022).

On one hand, I propose to define a dogmatic mental frame as a mental frame which assumes that present truth claims and future truth claims are mutually exclusive assuming a win-lose relationship between these truth-claims.

Thus, according to Rockeach (1954:195), dogmatism is “a relatively closed cognitive organization of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, organized around a central set of beliefs about absolute authority which, in turn, provide a framework for patterns of intolerance and qualified tolerance toward others.”

The more open-minded an individual is, the lower that individual is said to be in terms of dogmatism. Conversely, more closed-minded individuals are higher in dogmatism.

Dogmatism is strongly opposed to criticisms. Thus, dogmatism is a kind of closed-mindedness which entails an unwillingness to engage seriously with relevant alternatives to the beliefs one already holds. Generally, closed-mindedness is an unwillingness or inability to engage seriously with relevant intellectual options. Thus, closemindedness, as opposed to the virtue of open-mindedness, is a vice.

A cognitive organization is considered to be closed to the extent that there is (a) isolation of parts within the belief system and between belief and disbelief systems, (b) a discrepancy in the degree of differentiation between belief and disbelief systems, (c) dedifferentiation within the disbelief system, (d) a high degree of interdependence between central and peripheral beliefs, (e) a low degree of interdependence among peripheral beliefs, and (f) a narrowing of the time perspective.

Associated with dogmatism is the conditional acceptance and rejection of others based on belief content. Not surprisingly, dogmatism has been found to be related to a prejudice toward a variety of groups, particularly blacks and homosexuals. Dogmatism is also linked with antifeminist sentiments. Dogmatic beliefs, based on absolute authority, may only appear as prejudiced in that others who believe or behave in ways at odds with the absolute authority must be rejected.



And on the other hand, I propose to define paradoxical mental frame as a mental frame that simultaneously accommodates tensions arising from multiple conflicting truth claims, simply because a superior with some authority promotes them.

But, closing off inquiry often results in the loss of rational belief since the origins of one’s belief are continually fading from view, which requires that one’s current evidence play a primary role in rational belief.

In effect, paradoxical dogmatists manifest epistemic performances which are violative of the basic human goods of rationality and knowledge. This is the case because, one can not reasonably end future inquiry regarding some proposition which he believes when one knows such a proposition now.

European "anti-homosexuality" laws, such as, the Buggery Act dated 1533 as passed during the reign of Henry VIII (1509-1547), which were premised on an ideologically charged phrase "the order of nature," and which actually refers to "the order of heterosexual human nature," as opposed to "the order of non-heterosexual human nature," were exported to the colonized world by European missionaries and colonists, who were paradoxical dogmatists, whose minds were closed to new scientific basis for "the order of non-heterosexual human nature."

As such, by cooperating with the neo-colonial powers in the post-colonial world, the Ugandan Parliament is acting as an enemy of "The project for Decolonizing the New World Intellectual Landscape," which was inaugurated by leading decolonial thinkers, theorists, and activists from the Global South as Cheikh Anta Diop, Aime Cesaire, Albert Memmi, Frantz Fanon, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, Anibal Quijano, Samir Amin, Kwame Nkrumah, Enrique Dussel, Walter D. Mignolo, Ramon Grosfoguel, Steve Bantu Biko, Lewis R Gordon, Nelson Maldonado-Torres, and many others.

The phrase, "intellectual landscape" refers to social institutions of knowledge production, such as schools, colleges, universities, the Parliament, the family, the media, religion and the arts; where, the decolonization of this intellectual landscape will result in the decolonization of the individual human minds.

Under the influence of Carol Wojtyla's "Poland Manifesto," Pope Paul VI, the Head of the Catholic Church, who presided over the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), was very instrumental in the colonization of the human mind in so far as the sexual sphere is concerned.

He rightly concluded that, "when man gives himself to the various disciplines of philosophy, history and of mathematical and natural science, and when he cultivates the arts, he can do very much to elevate the human family to a more sublime understanding of truth, goodness, and beauty, and to the formation of considered opinions which have universal value. " (Gaudium et Spes 57).

Specifically, according to modern knowledge of human sexuality based on the “natural science,” as reflected through the Kinsey Scale, the "universal value" of sexual orientation is defined as a person's relatively enduring sexual attraction to the other sex, the same sex, both sexes or neither sex. These sexual attractions are generally referred to as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality, respectively.

Again, through paragraphs 11 to 12 of encyclical called Humanae Vitae (1968), Pope Paul VI observed that, biological facts, based on human heterosexual experience show that new life is not the result of each and every act of heterosexual sexual intercourse.

Instead, the Pope said, they show that biological laws of nature which regulate fertility operate in such a way that successive births can, and are often, naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these biological laws.

Thus, he rightly concluded that, each and every sexual act of copulation during female ovulative days entails an intrinsic and necessary connection to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, he said, is based on the necessary causal link, which is naturally established between the unitive function and the procreative function which are both inherent to the heterosexual sexual act of uncontracepted fertile copulation.

Recalling that, semiology distinguishes between a symbolic sign, an indexical sign, and an iconic sign, where, an antecedent is an indexical sign of its consequent, the Pope reasoned that, since heterosexual sexual act of uncontracepted fertile copulation is a cause of procreation, and since it is a cause of the inter-personal unity between the copulating pair by reason of the subsequent bonding hormone called oxytocin which is produced during and after the act, then it follows that, every heterosexual sexual act of uncontracepted fertile copulation is an indexical sign of an effect called procreation, just as it is an indexical sign of an effect called interpersonal unity, the latter being premised on the said bonding hormone.

From all this, it rightly follows that, a heterosexual sexual act of uncontracepted fertile copulation has both "unitive significance and procreative significance," where, in this case, the term "unitive significance" refers to "intrinsic unitive significance," as opposed to "extrinsic unitive significance," which obtains through sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

However, while these sexual functions and significances are etiologically, semiologically and morally separable, the Pope intentionally rejected these conclusions, and, instead, chose to embrace a "contradiction," and hence an authoritatively coercive and Machiavellistic strategy of evangelization.

The contradiction promoted by Pope VI is the following: (1) Sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) are signs of both procreation and interpersonal unity; (2) Sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are causes and signs of interpersonal unity but not causes or signs of procreation; (3)Therefore, all sexual acts of copulation, regardless of whether they are performed during the ovulation phase of the menstrual cycle or otherwise, are causes and signs of both procreation and interpersonal unity.

From the first two premises, the logical conclusion is clear, that: (4)Therefore, only sexual acts of copulation which are performed during the ovulation phase of the menstrual cycle, as opposed to sexual acts of copulation which are performed during the non-ovulation phase of the menstrual cycle, are causes and signs of both procreation and interpersonal unity.

A set of these four statements constitutes a contradiction, also known as a paradox, which, Pope Paul VI, his successors and their present agents, including, Cardinals, Bishops, Priest, Fraters, and Catechists, allover the world, continue to promote sophistically by claiming that it is a constant teaching of the church, which is premised on what is referred to as "the order of nature," the latter concept now being used as a warrant of colonial anti-homosexuality laws, while disregarding the compelling scientific evidence concerning the congenitality of non-heterosexual orientations.

This is an intellectual insult to the modern world which is scientifically, philosophically and theologically enlightened. It is a morally bad evangelization strategy, which now the Ugandan Parliament wants to forcibly enforce by using criminal laws.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to note that, from the Pope's first two premises, noted above, the following logically follow: that, the fundamental nature of the heterosexual sexual act of copulation, while extrinsically uniting a man and a woman during female non-ovulative days, in which case it only has extrinsic "unitive significance," by reason of its incapacity to render them capable of generating new life, it also unites a man and a woman intrinsically during the female ovulative days, in which case it has an intrinsic "procreative" function, and therefore an intrinsic "procreative significance." These alternativeand comolementary arrangements are a result of biological laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman.

In effect, the analysis of Pope Paul VI divides all heterosexual sexual acts of copulation into two broad classes, namely, (1) sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) and (2) sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

Sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) include hand to genitals sex, genital to female mouth sex (irrumation), mouth to male genital sex (fellatio), genital to thighs sex, genital to armpit sex, genital to anus sex (pedication), and sexual acts performed by using artificial genitals.

And as a matter of normal inference, each of these can be marital or non-marital. In effect, we have four categories of sexual acts, namely: (1) marital sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (marital SAIPIT); (2) non-marital sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (non-marital SAIPIT); (3) marital sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT); and (4) non-marital sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (non-marital SAEBIT).

From this taxonomy of sexual acts, it follows that, heterosexual sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are tolerable since, in heterosexual marriage, they can, and do, complement heterosexual sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), by promoting intra-personal and inter-personal unity, both of which are basic human goods.

The same logic of tolerance can, and should, apply to non-heterosexual sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (non-heterosexual SAEBIT) amongst human persons who are congenitally not heterosexuals. The reason motivating such acts is the basic good of intra-personal unity.

Intra-personal unity is a synonym of psycho-somatic unity while inter-personal unity is a synonym of inter-personal friendship. Both psycho-somatic unity and inter-personal unity are reasons which motivate both heterosexual and homosexual acts of sexual intercourse, both marital and extra-marital including sexual acts of fornication and adultery.

But, we do not criminalize heterosexual fornication and adultery simply because such a criminal law is not practically enforceable. The same logic applies to homosexual fornication and adultery. So, they may remain sins within the context of some faith communities, though not all faith communities.

The constitutionally protected right to freedom of worship excludes coercive methods of faith propagation, where the latter includes state laws which are coercively enforced by law enforcement organs. Reverend Onen and others know this principle very well.

Yet, they have misled the Ugandan Parliament in proposing a "Sexual Activities Regulation Act (SARA)," which is the proposed "The Anti-homosexuality Act," by its official homophobic name, and which seeks, without moral warrants, to arbitrarily and selectively criminalize all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) amongst homosexuals, but without saying anything about sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive in type (SAEBIT) amongst heterosexuals.

The Parliament seeks to push Uganda back to the Victorian Era of Sexual Ethics, when the only sexual norm was the dichotomous principle according to which, "either intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type sexual acts or criminal sexual acts and nothing in between. This Victorian Era principle totally overlooks the unitive functions, and therefore the unitive significances, of human sexual acts, which are mutual, consensual and just.

Thus, although article 79 of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda empowers Parliament to make laws on any matter for the peace, order and good governance of Uganda, the Parliament of the Republic of Uganda has disquietingly exceeded her constitutionally defined powers by attempting to make a law which entails constitutional challenges in so far as the principles of a Democratic and Republican Constitution are concerned.

As a matter of fact, the reasons which forced the Ugandan Parliament to refrain from criminalizing heterosexual fornication, equally apply to homosexual fornication, namely: the practical difficulties of conspiracy between fornicators against self-disclosure which accompany the exercise of enforcing such a law.

The philosopher of law, Professor Lon Luvois Fuller, identifies eight requirements of the rule of law. Specifically:

(1) Laws must be general, specifying rules prohibiting or permitting behavior of certain kinds. (2) Laws must also be widely promulgated, or publicly accessible. Publicity of laws ensures citizens know what the law requires. (3) Laws should be prospective, specifying how individuals ought to behave in the future rather than prohibiting behavior that occurred in the past. (4) Laws must be clear. Citizens should be able to identify what the laws prohibit, permit, or require. (5) Laws must be non-contradictory. One law cannot prohibit what another law permits. (6) Laws must not ask the impossible. (7) Nor should laws change frequently; the demands laws make on citizens should remain relatively constant. (8) Finally, there should be congruence between what written statute declare and how officials enforce those statutes.

On his view, the eight criteria of generality, publicity, non-retroactivity, clarity, non-contradiction, constancy, and congruity specify necessary conditions for the activities of lawmakers to count as lawmaking. I suggest that the proposed Bill is violative of some or all of these principles.

Accordingly, I hereby write to explain to you why this decision is disquieting by critically discussing the following issues:

1. Preamble (previous part)
2. Introduction (this part)
3. A theoretical and empirical literature review
   1. A theory of personalistic morality
   2. A theory of mereological unity and diversity
   3. A theory of sexual reproduction
   4. A theory of old natural law
   5. A theory of new natural law
   6. A theory of causality
   7. A theory of subsidiary-spherical sovereignty
   8. A theory of sexual development and differentiation
   9. A theory of disorders of sexual development
   10. A theory of human communications
   11. A theory of binary sexuality according to religious scriptures
   12. A theory of sexual human flourishing
4. A methodological framework
   1. Research philosophy
   2. Research questions
5. Study findings
   1. Analysis and critique of an argument from religious norms
   2. Analysis and critique of an argument from a broader old natural law theory
   3. Analysis and critique of an argument from a thinner old natural law theory
   4. Analysis and critique of an argument from a new natural law theory
   5. Analysis and critique of an argument from disgust
   6. Analysis and critique of an argument from family instability and extinction
   7. Analysis and critique of an argument from African traditional culture
   8. Analysis and critique of an argument from the lack of scientific consensus
   9. Analysis and critique of an argument from Kantian categorical imperative
   10. Analysis and critique of an argument from perverted axiology
   11. Analysis and critique of an argument from the personalistic norm.
6. Discussion, conclusion, recommendations, warnings, disclaimer and distribution list
   1. Discussion
   2. Conclusion
   3. Key recommendations
   4. The costs of ignoring this advice
   5. Disclaimer
   6. Suggested distribution list
7. Key References

The drafting of this letter is guided by the following conceptual and theoretical framework: a theory of personalistic morality; a theory of mereological unity and diversity", an old natural law theory, a new natural law theory, a theory of causality, a theory of sexual reproduction, a theory of sexual determination and differentiation, a theory of disorders of sexual development, the principle of subsidiarity, and the principle of sphere-sovereignty.

Ultimately, guided by the Principle of Subsidiarity, along with the Kuyperian Principle of sphere-sovereignty which distinguish between the authority of the state, the civil society, the business sector and the individual, I shall defend the following thesis, through this letter:

That, in the modern democratic republican states, as opposed to the old totalitarian theocratic /imperial states, all mutually consenting adult persons have a fundamental constitutionally protected right to participate in sexual activities, where this right goes beyond sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), and is broader enough to include all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), partly, though not exclusively, based on the congenital sexual orientations of the participants.

3. CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

However, in order to facilitate an easy reading of this letter, before proceeding any further, I am obliged to define the underpinning conceptual and theoretical framework.

The drafting of this letter is guided by the following conceptual and theoretical framework: a theory of personalistic morality, a theory of mereological unity and diversity", an old natural law theory, a new natural law theory, a theory of causality, a theory of sexual reproduction, a theory of sexual determination and differentiation, a theory of disorders of sexual development, a theory of human personhood and the use of human persons, and a theory of subsidiary-spherical sovereignty. I proceed to summaries them below.

A theory of personalistic morality: Human sexuality is a dimension of human persons. And sexual libido can force human persons to communicate, intermingle, and finally commune together as friends, sexual partners and marriage partners. Each of the couple is an acting and living agent endowed with emotions, intelligence and free will. These attributes directly interact with the human sexual libido in a human manner, and the latter is governed by reason, as opposed to animal instincts.

Given that human personhood is an embodied center of consciousness, intentions and intelligent actions, a school, of thought called “personalism” is sometimes used as a framework for moral guidance in sexual relations and beyond. I want to summarize it here based on what Kant (1959), Wojtyla (1993), Soble (2002) and Rickert (2009) have said about this school.

According to philosophical anthropology, every human being is an embodied entity which is a center of biological life, feelings, conscious, intentional and intelligent actions, which is called a "person," as opposed to an unconscious, unintentional and unintelligent entity, which is called a mere "thing" or an "object."

Given that, means are usually entities that are meant for utilization, where, a means is subordinated to an end, and, at the same time, it is also to a certain degree subordinated to the actor, when one uses some means, one usually asserts their control over them and "willingly" and "knowingly" uses them for a certain end or goal, usually only important to the person using the means.

Thus, it is often argued that, since we humans use objects, and given that, human persons are above things, in that, we are subjects as well as objects, then: whenever a person is the object of your activity, remember, that you may not treat the person as only the means to an end, as an instrument, but must allow for the fact that he or she, too, has, or at least should have, distinct personal ends. This principle is called the personalistic norm.

This norm means that, while it is not absolutely wrong to use one person as a means to an end for another person, one person can use another person for realizing one's goals, provided that, these two different human persons have consciously, knowingly and willingly, chosen together an end and the means to realize it, since, this cooperation makes them equal to each other, thereby excluding subordination of one person to another.

Now, we know that, all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), plus sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), belong to a class of human acts which entail using one person as a means to an end for another person.

Therefore, it follows that, all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), plus sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), will be violative of the personalistic norm, if they are performed in such a way that the other persons are merely used as a mere means to one’s ends, without regard for their capacity for self-determination.

And since, every human act which violates the personalistic norm is said to be morally evil; it is usually concluded by personalists that, all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), plus sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), are morally evil, if they are performed in such a way that the other person is merely used as a means to one’s ends.

The point I want to emphasize here is that, it is not the case that, all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), belong to a class of human acts which entail using one person as a mere means to an end for another person, without regard for the basic human good of body-self integration.

The proponents of this claim, which I deny, argue as follows: Any immediate contact between a woman and a man is always the occasion of a sensory experience for both of them. Each of them is a body, and is therefore exposed to senses of the other and creates some impression. Sensuality is directed to the enjoyment of the other as a body.

It is a consumer oriented contact, they say, since it is directed primarily and immediately towards a body. It touches the person on indirectly, and tends to avoid direct contact. When sensuality and love as attraction are allowed to progress unchecked and in a disintegrated fashion, a person is not loved but only objectified.

In other words, the proponents of premise four argue that, the desire which a man has for a woman is not directed toward her because she is a human being, but because she is a woman; that she is a human being is of no concern to the man; only her sex is the object of his desires.

Even when casual sex involves the mutual satisfaction of the partners, they still insist that, each of them dishonors the human nature of the other, since, they make of humanity an instrument for the satisfaction of their lusts and inclinations.

Analogously, they use this argumentation strategy to oppose markets in bodily organs such as, kidneys, teeth and blood. They consider these practices a violation of human dignity. A person is not entitled to sell a limb, not even one of his teeth, since, to do so is to treat oneself as an object, a mere means, an instrument of profit, they say.

Similarly, they find adultery, fornication and prostitution objectionable on the same grounds. To allow one’s person for profit to be used by another for the satisfaction of sexual desire, to make of oneself an object of demand, is to make of oneself a thing on which another satisfies his appetite, just as he satisfies his hunger upon a steak, they reason.

On their view, human beings are not entitled to offer themselves, for profit, as things for the use of others in the satisfaction of their sexual propensities, since, to do so is to treat one’s person as a mere thing, an object of use.

They conclude that only sex within marriage can avoid “degrading humanity,” since, only when two persons give each other the whole of themselves, and not merely the use of their sexual capacities, can sex be other than objectifying; and that, only when both partners share with each other their person, body and soul, for good and ill and in every respect, can their sexuality lead to a union of human beings.

Thus, more important than the details of his argument is the intuition that sex is wrong because it involves using another person as a mere means to an end. Their worry is premised on the fact that, as soon as the person is possessed, and the sexual appetite sated, they are thrown away, as one throws away a lemon after sucking the juice from it.

This way, they conclude that, as an object of the other’s appetite, a person is in fact a thing, whereby the other’s sexual appetite is sated, and can be misused as such a thing by anybody.

So, the litmus test for their argument is then this: what makes marital sex, as opposed to non-marital sex, morally permissible? For this test to make sense, we need to note carefully the following taxonomy of sexual acts.

First we have marital sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (marital SAEBIT), non-marital sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (non-marital SAEBIT), marital sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (marital SAIPIT), and non-marital sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (non-marital SAIPIT).

In light of this taxonomy, the litmus test question now reads as follows: what makes marital SAEBIT and marital SAIPIT, as opposed to non-marital SAEBIT and non-marital SAIPIT, morally permissible?

In other words, how does marital SAEBIT and marital SAIPIT, as opposed to non-marital SAEBIT and non-marital SAIPIT, eliminate the possibility of sexual use between a marital copulating pair, as opposed to a non-marital copulating pair?

The proponents of premise number four, argue that, a legal institution is required to preserve humanity in the face of the dangers of sexual use. This institution is marriage, which is understood as a contract between one man and one woman in which they exchange rights of bodily possession over each other.

On this view, the marriage right is a right to a person akin to a right to a thing, so that if one of the partners in a marriage has left or given itself into someone else’s possession, the other partner is justified, always and without question, in bringing its partner back under its control, just as it is justified in retrieving a thing.

For this reason, they argue, each spouse must hold equal rights over the other, a norm which rules out morganatic marriage and polygamy, for these arrangements involve giving oneself totally but receiving in return only half or less of the other person.

So, does marriage, thus defined, solve the problem that sex treats the other person as a thing? That is, does marriage allow spouses to make direct use of a person as of a thing, as a means to one’s end, but still without infringing upon his/her personality?

Given our understanding of the sexual response cycle, the answer is a clear no. The sexual response cycle has four steps: excitement, plateau, orgasm and resolution phases.

Phase one is the excitement phase, in which, for the man, the penis becomes erect due to the flow of blood into the penile tissues and, for the woman, there is moistening of the vagina, enlarged breasts, and tensing of the muscles with increased breathing and heart rate.

Phase two is the plateau phase, the entry of the penis into the vagina, further quickening of the heart and breathing, mounting erotic pleasure, and the appearance of a flush on both bodies.

Phase three, the climax, discharge of semen by the male and a number of orgasmic muscle spasms by the female, is the moment of greatest pleasure and ecstasy, the moment sought in every act of intercourse. This pleasure is, of course, quite individual.

Phase four is the resolution phase, in which the couple relax and blood pressure and respiration return to normal. A unifying component of these various physical stages of the sexual act is physical pleasure.

That is, this sexual response cycle is a common denominator between sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) and sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), regardless of whether the copulating pair is marital or non-marital.

Then, the truth of the matter is that, both sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), plus sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), belong to a class of human acts which entail using one person as a mere means to an end for another person, in a way that, ultimately promotes the basic human good of body-self integration.

This is to say that, there is no way by which, marital SAEBIT and marital SAIPIT, as opposed to non-marital SAEBIT and non-marital SAIPIT, can eliminate the possibility of sexual use between a copulating pair, regardless of whether the copulating pair is marital or non-marital.

The truth of the matter boils down to this: for some reason, rather than transforming the objectifying nature of sexual intercourse, marriage permits sexual objectification, under a context where, such objectification appears to be for the good of the couple as a stable social unit.

Moreover, even if sexual use persists, both in marriage and outside marriage, just as it is the case in both sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) and sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), not each and every instance of sexual use violates the personalistic norm.

Specifically, from a natural law point of view, the key determinant of morality is not in the dichotomy of use of a person or non-use of a person, but the factors which are not mentioned on the personalistic norm, as understood by Wojtyla, Kant and others.

Instead, in moral philosophy, the determinants of morality are three, namely: the object (what is done), the intention (why something is done), and the circumstances under which something is done (when, where, with who, and how).

From this framework alone, it follows that, in the moral analysis of an action involving the use of a person, the relevant moral factor is not only what is done (using a person to achieve one’s goal), but how, when, where, and why that person is used.

The mere fact of “using a person” does not necessarily confirm the immorality of an action. Let us consider an example of prostitution, and show how the application of the “use versus non-use distinction” fails to deliver the intuitively intended conclusion, that “prostitution is morally evil.”

According to the personalistic norm, prostitution is morally wrong because the prostitute is treated by one’s clients as a means to their own ends. The clients want pleasure, and they use the prostitute, male of female, as a mans to their ends.

But in this case, the clients’ ends are also, in a way, the prostitute’s end. The prostitute directly wills the clients’ ends, and in freely choosing to will their ends, the prostitute makes those ends her own. Unlike seduction or rape, where the perpetrator’s will is imposed by trickery or by force, the ends or goals of the clients in prostitution are freely, knowingly, and implicitly, if not explicitly accepted by the prostitute.

The clients’ ends become, in an important respect, the prostitutes ends. The prostitute will those ends as proximate ends, which in directed in turn to her further end, namely, the reception of payment. Just as the clients will her end as a means to their own ends, the prostitute wills their end as a means to one’s own end. Both parties accept and incorporate each other’s ends, to some degree, as their own.

As in the case with any other business deal, they agree on a “common deal,” namely, the satisfactory trade of goods and services. The proponents of the personalistic norm would have to say that “violence” is done in treating the person as a means, but in this case, no violence can be found with respect to this particular distinction, that is, with respect to imposing one’s ends.

On the contrary, we find, as we do in any legitimate business deal, a harmony of mutual cooperation. Neither party is being used as a “blind tool” by the other party. The reason for this conclusion is this: when two different people consciously choose a common aim, this puts them on a footing of equality, and precludes the possibility that one of them might be subordinated to the other.

On this view, the key factor indicated by the personalistic norm, which accounts for the moral evil of using another person as a means, does not seem to apply to this situation.

To explain further, why the application of the “use versus non-use distinction” fails to accurately identify moral evils in particular human actions, let us now consider the comparison between prostitution and massage therapy.

In the case of massage therapy, the client pays the therapist to rub parts of his body in order to fulfill his own desired end, namely, to improve blood circulation, relax tension, and so on. Both the client and the therapist agree to use the therapist’s body and subordinate the therapist’s body to the client’s own individual ends in exchange for money.

If one can assume that there is a significant moral difference between prostitution and massage therapy, or any other legitimate business deal, that difference does not rest essentially on the means-to-end analysis which is informed by the “use versus non-use distinction.”

In short, the two examples, of prostitution and massage therapy, do not admit of the means-to-end analysis which is informed by the “use versus non-use distinction” in which a moral distinction can be found.

Generally, we rarely pass a day without treating someone as a means to an end, and yet such instances would be prohibited if it were morally wrong for everyone, everywhere, and every time, to treat another person as a means to an end.

Contraception is another case in point. Promoters of the personalistic norm woulf argue that, it is immoral because, by the mere intention to contracept, spouses are thereby reducing themselves or their spouses to merely a means. But, in no way does it follow, of necessity, that a contraceptive spouse does not will any further end whatsoever for himself or his partner.

While it may be true that contraceptive spouses intend to use each other as means to the end of pleasure, it does not follow that they must, at the same time, exclude all other ends.

Some of the natural ends of the marital act are, partially or fully, thwarted by contraception, but this does not prove that such ends, and others as well, are not in any way intended by the people involved. That is, the contraceptive act does not necessarily entail using a person merely as a means to an end.

The same can be said of fornication and adultery. In none of these acts is it necessary that one use the other merely as a means to an end. Each involves some degree of use, but there is no reason to conclude that people involved in these acts do not intend goods or ends benefiting, belonging to, and willed by the other.

It simply is not true to say that every fornicator is using his partner merely as a means to his own ends. He may very well be willing the other’s consciously intended end, while enjoying his own benefits that happen to be attached. There certainly is evidence that some fornicators place the act within altruistic intentions.

A young girl, for example, may agree to subordinate her own ends, goals, and purposes to those of her boyfriend. In this case, she is obviously not treating him merely as a means to an end.

Part of what separates fornication, adultery and fornication, to some degree, from rape, in fact, is that the other’s ends are not completely subordinated to one’s own. The other is not merely used for one’s own ends. On the contrary, each agrees to cooperate and act for the other’s distinct personal ends.

The discriminating fornicator will not accept just any means merely as a means to his end of pleasure. He prefers, instead, a partner that shares his ends as her own, as he shares hers as his own.

In other words, he would prefer a partner who actually likes him and freely wills to please him. Their mutual use, in contrast to rape, emerges precisely as a kind of use that does not reduce either one to merely a means to an end.

If acts such as these are truly cases of moral evil, they certainly are not morally evil on the grounds that they are instances of using a person merely as a means to an end. A better argument is needed.

For all these reasons, regardless of the formulation of the prohibition against using a person as a means to an end, the distinction, by itself, fails as a universal moral standard. The fact is that, we can, in good conscience, use a person as a means to an end. The means-to-end distinction, by itself, cannot hep one to differentiate good from evil (Rickert 2009: 663).

A theory of mereological unity and diversity: A copulating pair, is a system of two actors who are “unified” by a common action of copulation, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual copulation.

The two actors form a unity, and each actor is a part of that unity, the latter being a whole, having a clearly identifiable boundary.

As such, we need a theoretical framework that will allow us to speak intelligibly about different types of sexual unity. I propose that, such a framework is provided by “mereology.”

Let us first define mereology. According to Salzillo (2021), mereology is a a study that deals with the relationship between unity and diversity within individual compound things. The key premise of mereology is that, nothing is truly a whole if it is not divisible into parts, and nothing is truly a part unless it is, in some way, united with other things to form a whole.

Crucial to this conception of mereology is an understanding of “unity” as “undividedness.” Something is unified insofar as it lacks division within itself.

Simply stated, mereology is a philosophical study that deals with (1) the relation between the parts of a whole and the whole of which they are a part, (2) the relations between the parts within a whole, and (3) the boundaries which separate that whole from other wholes.

In English language, the word “part” signifies any portion of a given entity. The portion may itself be attached to the remainder or detached; it may be cognitively or functionally salient or arbitrarily demarcated; self-connected or disconnected; homogeneous or otherwise well-matched or gerrymandered; material or immaterial; extended or unextended; spatial or temporal.

Also, the word “part” is used to designate the relation of material constitution, or the relation of mixture composition, or the relation of group membership; and so on.

The parts are said to participate in the whole, and they possess a property of parthood. In principle, the mereological relata can be as different as material bodies, events, geometric entities, spatio-temporal regions, or abstract entities such as properties, propositions, types, or kinds.

For example, the handle is part of the mug; the remote control is part of the stereo system; the left half is your part of the cake; the cutlery is part of the tableware; the contents of this bag is only part of what I bought; that area is part of the living room; the outermost points are part of the perimeter; the first act was the best part of the play; the clay is part of the statue; Gin is part of martini; the goalie is part of the team; rationality is part of personhood; the antecedent is the ‘if’ part of the conditional; the letter ‘m’ is part of the word mereology; and Carbon is part of methane.

Next, let us discuss mereological relations. For any pair of distinct objects, x and y, the following the following mereological relations are possible. Either x is part of y; or y is part of x; or x and y properly overlap, meaning that, they roughly share some but not all of their parts; or x and y are disjoint, meaning that, they roughly have no shared parts.

Also, the concepts of standard mereology include proper parthood, improper parthood, overlap, and disjointness. Proper parthood between x and y obtains when x is a part of y and y is not a part of x, meaning that x is identical to y. And improper parthood between x and y obtains when x is a part of y and y is a part of x, meaning that x is not identical to y.

Objects can overlap each other if they have a proper or improper part in common. Although this may imply only spatial overlap, it applies to other cases that are not spatial, such as processes.

The mereological binary overlap relation obtains when there is a region z such that z is part-of both x and y. And underlap is a relation of two objects x and y, when there is a larger region z, that includes both x and y.

If two objects do not overlap, they are said to be disjoint. This means that they do not share any proper or improper parts.

Concrete examples of parthood and disjointness include: any composite object will provide for an example of the former; any two unconnected objects will provide for an example of the latter. Concrete examples of proper overlap are perhaps less obvious.

But intuitive ones may include: conjoined twins; intersecting roads; a mountain and a nation with a border that cuts through it; and so on. In such cases, there appear to be both parts that are shared by, and parts that are exclusive to, each object involved.

Now, we can talk about metrological rules. The three defining rules of a participation relation are Transitivity, Reflexivity, and Antisymmetry.

Transitivity means that, parts of parts are parts of the whole, that is, If A is part of B and B is part of C, then A is part of C; Reflexivity means that, Everything is part of itself, that is, A is part of A; and Antisymmetry means that, two distinct things cannot be part of each other, that is, If A is part of B and A ≠ B, then B is not part of A. These are called mereological axioms.

After these preliminaries, we are now in a position to explain the concept of mereological unity, as it relates to compound things.

The unity of a compound thing refers to the unity of parts. Their unity is a state of their being "unified" or a state of their being "united." The terms "united" and "unified" are adjectives that describe a property possessed by a group of entities of a certain kind.

Generally, a group is “unified” if and only if all its members have something in common that accounts for why these, and only these members, are members of the group.

Depending on what we mean by the phrase “something in common”, groups can be unified either extrinsically or intrinsically. For this distinction to make sense, one need to understand the difference between extrinsic properties, as opposed to intrinsic properties.

The distinction between Intrinsic properties and extrinsic properties is a distinction between the properties that a thing has in and of itself and those which it has at least partly in virtue of its ontological relationship between it and other things in the world external to it.

For example, an egg may have a certain mass and be the first egg that a young hen lays in her life. It has the first property (mass) just in virtue of how it is, while the second property (birth order) depends on its relation to other eggs and the hen.

Thus, a property P is an intrinsic property of an object x just in case x’s having P does not depend on the features of x’s environment, but only on what x is like in itself.

You know what an intrinsic property is, since, it is a property that a thing has (or lacks) regardless of what may be going on outside of itself.

The intrinsic properties of something depend only on that thing; whereas the extrinsic properties of something may depend, wholly or partly, on something else.

In short, Property P is intrinsic if and only if, for any possible individual X, if X has property P, X has P in an intrinsic fashion, where X has property P in an intrinsic fashion if and only if (i) Property P is independent of accompaniment and (ii) for any property Q, if x has Property P in virtue of having property Q, then, property Q is also independent of accompaniment.

This analysis suggests the “interior-exterior” notion, in which, necessarily, for any property P, an ascription of P to a thing, X, is entirely about that thing and its parts and not at all about other things.

On this view, intrinsicality and extrinsicality are exclusive in that a property cannot be both intrinsic and extrinsic.

Accordingly, there is "intrinsic unity" between entities which are group members if and only of they are "united" by an "intrinsic property. And, there is "extrinsic unity" between entities which are group members if and only of they are "united" by an "extrinsic property.

Accordingly, on one hand, a group is extrinsically unified if and only if all its members have something extrinsic in common that accounts for why these, and only these, are members of the group.

Think of the group “clothes I wear at the moment”. All members of this group have something in common that accounts for why these, and only these, are members of the group: The fact that these clothes, and these clothes only, are currently covering my body.

This is an instance of extrinsic unity since what all the members of the group have in common is something extrinsic to the things themselves: a specific relationship to my body.

It could be objected that all members of the group “clothes I wear at the moment” can also be measured according to an intrinsic property, such as mass. Mass is an intrinsic property, since even if there were nothing else in the universe, a thing could still retain its mass. Mass, moreover, is a quantitative property: it exists in terms of more and less.

This is insufficient to make “clothes I wear at the moment” an intrinsically commensurable group, however, since it is not in virtue of having mass that certain things belong to the group “clothes I wear at the moment”.

For the group “clothes I wear at the moment” to be an intrinsically commensurable group in the sense relevant here, it would have to be commensurable according to its state of being the “clothes I wear at the moment.”

And on the other hand, a group of entities is intrinsically unified if and only if all its members have something intrinsic in common that accounts for why these, and only these, are members of the group.

From the components of an atom such as oxygen and hydrogen, to water molecules, to plants and animals as living creatures, to the human person, these are all examples of unified beings revealing themselves within an intrinsic unity of simpler components of being.

This kind of unity cannot simply be broken down into individually expressive units of being because there is a greater integration of the relations causing the unity, such that bodily loss of intrinsic unity means complete destruction of the whole.

Loss of the intrinsic unity of living bodies causes the life of each and every component of a unified, living body to break apart the relationships and disassemble the components of the body and so to kill the body.

Obviously, to break a human body into its individual components, each of which expresses itself in its own unique ways, would forever destroy the intrinsic wholeness of the human body, because there is no way to put all of the parts back together again to attain what had existed originally.

Intrinsic relations, therefore, differ from the external relationships formed as illustrated by parts of an engine that could be completely disassembled and then put back together again to form a functioning engine.

We can now intelligibly talk about extrinsic unity and intrinsic unity in sexual acts. And here, a good example, in the present context is "biological parenthood" as opposed to "surrogate parenthood." Both of the "biological parents" and the "surrogate parents" are united by some "property," in this case, "being parents of a certain child."

For "biological parents," "being parents of a certain child" is an "intrinsic property," since their child resulted from their mutual act of copulation, which is the first step in the sexual reproduction cycle, which includes ejaculation, fertilsation, implantation, gestation, delivery, and parenting.

This process is a property which is intrinsic to the copulating-cum-parenting-pair, since, with respect to sexual reproduction, male and female sexual reproductive organs constitute one reproductive principle, which is impossible otherwise.

However, for "surrogate parents" "being parents of a certain child" is an "extrinsic property," since their child resulted not from their mutual act of copulation, which is the first step in the sexual reproduction cycle, but from an external donor of gametes, either sperms or eggs. They are only "united" to the child via an act of parenting.

By using the same logic, it is now easy to see that, copulation can promote both intrinsic and extrinsic unity. Extrinsically, it cause spatial unity, tempotal unity, intentional unity, and surrogate procreative unity.

And intrinsically, it can promote biological procreative unity, if performed during ovulative days without any contraception, and other causally relevant circumstances are conducive to conception. I shall refer to this sexual conduct as a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT).

In effect, a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) is opposed to all other sexual acts, namely a sexual act which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT). They include, hand to genital sex, genital to mouth sex, genital to breasts sex, genital to thighs sex, genital to armpit sex, genital to anus sex (pedication), and the like.

However, we need criteria for us to make clear distinctions between extrinsic unity and intrinsic unity. The reason is simple.

It is sometimes difficult to comprehend the differences between intrinsic and extrinsic unity, as these concepts pertaining to speculative reason, and not every one is well equipped at such a mental exercise. So, I will re-state what I have discussed above, by using chapter four in the book authored by Willian Norris Clarke (2014).

One of the fundamental attributes of every thing that can be perceived by using human senses is unity. The "countability of a thing" and the "unity of a thing" are very simple notions to understand.

The words "one thing,", in the common way of speaking, refers to an undivided being and the "unity of a thing" refers to the non-division of that thing. Hence, one thing is undivided in itself and divided from other things adjacent to it in its environment.

The unity of a thing, therefore, asserts two points. First, non-division of being in itself; and secondly, division of being from every other being.

In the first part of this definition a thing is taken entitatively or as entity, and signifies that a thing has the whole of its entity at once or as not divided and separated into parts.

In the second part of the division a thing is taken numerically, and signifies that being is not multiple. A thing is first and foremost one being, and not a loose collection of parts; secondarily, a thing is one being and not two beings, or three or more beings.

Accordingly, for every thing to be recognized as a being, it must be internally one, its parts must cohere together to form an undivided whole.

Since this notion is so primary that it cannot be defined in terms of anything else clearer than itself, we have to get at its positive meaning negatively, by contrast: as that which is undivided in itself.

As such, the closest we can come to a positive description of unity is to say that it means the internal cohesion of a being.

So, ontological unity as a property of a thing signifies the inner cohesion of something by which it constitutes an undivided whole. The term "undivided" does not mean "indivisible," but only at present actually undivided, though potentially divisible; where, when actually divided the thing would lose its unity.

And as we examine how we use the notion of unity to speak of the world of our experience, we find that we use it not only to refer to individual beings but also to collections, compound things, and systems, such as one army, one family, an anthill, a city, and so on.

As such the "unity of a compound thing" refers to the unity of many things, or the unity of a multiplicity, such as a car, a human body, a football team, a molecule, a copulating pair, or a pedicating pair.

As suggested above, a compound thing either has extrinsic unity or intrinsic unity. On one hand, intrinsic unity refers to the unity within the very being of a single real being, such that it exists with a single act of existence and acts as a unity, controlling its actions from a single center of action.

Examples include: atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, a water molecule, a plant, an animal, a human being, an angel, of. Every being is not just the sum of its parts, but exists and acts as a distinctive whole, manifesting characteristic properties belonging to the whole as such that are not merely the sum of the properties of the parts by themselves.

The only examples of such intrinsic unities are natural beings (formed by nature); humans cannot create new ones by our own powers.

On the other hand, extrinsic unity refers to the unity not within the very being of a single real being but rather between two or more distinct real beings, each with its own distinctive act of existence and center of action but joined together by bonds of relations.

Examples include (1) relations of common purpose; to be obtained by collaboration of the members (army, football team, college, bank, congress) (2) relations of common location (herd of cows on farm, a classroom, a city, a country) (3) relations of common time (hour, day, year) (4) artifacts (created principally by human beings but also by many animals, collection of simpler beings joined together to serve a common purpose imposed by an outside agent for its own ends.

The basic criterion for distinguishing between the two types of unity is thus: whether the datum we are trying to understand manifests by its action that it acts as a unit from a single controlling center of action. It can only be discerned by an act of intellectual reflection on the evidence and an interpretative judgment which may be mistaken.

And a crucial test is this: if the parts are removed from the whole being, examined do they: continue to act in the same way or exhibit the same properties outside the whole as they did inside? If former, unity is extrinsic, if latter its intrinsic.

It is important to note that, real beings such as humans, butterflies, dogs, and human persons, are intrinsic unities although their being is clearly constituted by a large number of other real beings, which they integrate. These integrated real beings then become semi-autonomous beings.

Water is a good example. In a cup, water is a fully-autonomous real being, but once it is consumed by human beings, it is taken up into the systemic unity of the entire human being and the water therefore becomes a semi-autonomous being, retaining some structure of its own but yet subject to the structure of the whole body.

Specifically, then, when it comes to “sexual unity,” we have "intrinsic sexual unity" as opposed to "extrinsic sexual unity."

Here, "intrinsic sexual unity" is premised on the existence of a "sexually reproductive causal process," which is exclusively triggered by ovulative days copulation. Hence, uncontracepted penis in vagina sexual acts of ovulative days copulation are properly called sexual acts which are "procreative in type."

Thus, a sexual act which is "procreative in type" is a sex act between a man and a woman, when done, during ovulative days, and in such a way that pregnancy can result, unless circumstances beyond human control frustrate the physiological processes subsequent to copulation.

This type of a sexual act is the first step of a sexually preproductive causal process, such that, the bodies of a copulating pair become one "reproductive unit," first, by reason of the sexual preproduction process which is triggered by ovulative days copulation, and secondly, if all goes well, the bodies of a copulating pair become one "reproductive unit," by reason of the resulting new pregnancy.

The sexual preproduction process is a single process that is made possible by the reproductive complementary nature of the male and female reproductive systems.

This is to say that, a copulating pair is a "single procreative organism," which is composed of two "organs," namely, the male body and the female body, which together form an “intrinsic sexual unity” by reason of the resulting sexual reproduction process.

In other words, “intrinsic sexual unity” is a type of unity that results from inseminatory penis-in-vagina sex which is done without any intentional human intervention to prevent pregnancy, if circumstances allow it, and which takes place during ovulation days.

According to this view, uncontracepted ovulative days copulation has three functions. First, ovulative days copulation extrinsically unites the mating pair spatially, temporally, psychologically, physiologically, praxiologically, intra-personally, and inter-personally.

A theory of sexual reproduction: During many years, the opinions of doctors on the subject of the periodic fertility of the woman were contradictory, which was owed to the imperfect methods of the researchers.

So, in 1966, under the leadership of Cardinal Karol Wojytla, Metropolitan Archbishop of Krakow, in POland, a group of five moral and scientific theologians from Krakow, were given the task to examine the problem of the scientific and theological foundations of the Christian ethical norms of conjugal life (Wojtyla & Others 1969).

The research continued until February 1968, when it was concluded after documenting the folowing medical insights:

In the human person, the male organism under normal conditions never stops producing gametes of great quantity. The woman, on the other hand, is only fertile in intervals. Her gonads release ovules, in principle, one by one, and after the lapse of relatively fixed periods of time. The woman is therefore only fertile when a free ovule is found in her organism.

Their conclusion was based on several scientific studies. One, in 1827, K.E. Baer published the results of his research concerning the feminine gametes of mammals and of man, hence leading the science of reproduction into new pathways. Very quickly the world saw the relationship between the sexual cycle evidence in the woman and the preparation in the organism of the woman of a gamete ready to be released.

Two, in 1924, Kyusaku Ogino published in Japan the results of his work concerning the fertility of the woman, supported by a considerable number of data. His work was published in 1930 almost simultaneously with that of Herman Knaus in 1929, which independently of Ogino, had arrived at the same results. The study team summarised these scientific results as follows:

That, the gametes are released in the organism of the woman in cyclical periods in the final phase of the sexual cycle; and that, the woman can be fertile therefore only when the ovule as been freed from the ovulesry; and that, accordingly, taking into account the limited vitality of the ovule and of the variations in the duration of sexual cycles, one can, by means of statistical methods, fix the period of fertility of the woman and from there, when she can become pregnant or otherwise. In effect, they concluded that, medical science admits today the following:

(1) That, the release of the ovule (or ovules) occurs in the woman at a given stage of her sexual cycle.

(2) That, if there is, rarely, more than one ovule released, they are released at the same time.

(3) That, a phase of preparation of the genital system precedes the release and after it the system remains fit for a nidation of the ovule eventually fertilized.

(4) That, after the release of the ovule the genital system undergoes transformations which inhibit the release of any following ovules;

(5) That, since the vitality of the released ovule lasts only a little time, after ovulation, a phase of physiological infertility commences in the woman.

(6) That, the release of ovules and the transformations tied to the sexual cycle remain dependent on endocrine changes which provoke different symptoms that permit one to take
account of the functional state of the genital system of the woman;

(7) That, the end of ovulation can undergo fluctuations, although these physiological variations do not surpass 5 days, which depend on several factors.

(8) And that, the subsequent ovulation of two or more ovules in the course of one and the same cycle does not exist.

All these findings permit the researchers to deduce that from the medical point of view, abstinence from sexual relations in the course of the fertile cycle, that is, during the phase of ovulation, and taking into account the period of the vitality of the ovule and eventually of the spermatozoa in the body of the woman, is a sure process of regulating births.

But, according to Koner (2013:186), the causal factors which are relevant and essential for conception are many. They include:

(1) Being heterosexual, meaning that, there should exist a heterosexual mating pair, where, one party has an androphilic sexual orientation and the other party has a gynophilic sexual orientation, hence the existence of heterosexual libidos which are complementary (implicit in Koner's narrative).

(2) Being above pre-puberty age and below menopause age (age factor);

(2) Healthy spermatozoa, in terms of a normal sperm count of above 20 million/cubic centimeter, should be deposited high in the vagina at or near the cervix (male factor);

(3) the spermatozoa should undergo changes (capacitation, acrosome reaction) and acquire motility (cervical factor);

(4) the motile spermatozoa should ascend through the cervix into the uterine cavity and the fallopian tubes;

(5) there should be regular ovulation (ovarian factor);

(6) the fallopian tubes should be patent and the oocyte should be picked up by the fimbriated end of the tube (tubal factor);

(7) the spermatozoa should fertilize the oocyte at the ampulla of the tube;

(8) the embryo should reach the uterine cavity after 3–4 days of fertilization;

(9) the endometrium should be receptive for implantation; and

(10) the corpus luteum should function adequately.

These scientific facts well explain why some of the uncontracepted inseminatory vagina in penis sexual acts do not cause pregnancy.

They are sufficient to explain the concept of a sexual act which is procreative in type. They show that, given sex acts which are procreative in type, still, procreation is a question of probability that is greater than zero and less or equal to one.

But, under no known circumstances, can a sexual act which is extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) cause pregnancy. Hence actual procreative unity between the mating pair is impossible via SAEBIT, as no pregnancy can result. I want to explain this difference scientifically.

A sex act that is procreative in type belongs to the class of acts by which children come into being. These are inseminatory vaginal-penile sex acts, when performed against a causally relevant background context that involves a ripe female egg, passable fallopian tubes and health sperms, and when they are performed without doing anything intentionally to prevent conception.

Still, not all sex acts that are causally procreative in type, as described above, will be procreative in effect. There are many reasons to explain why some sex act that are causally procreative in type do not become causally procreative in effect.

Specifically, gynecologists such as Koner (2013:186) have confirmed that, eighty percent of the couples achieve conception if they so desire, within one year of having regular intercourse with adequate frequency of 2-3 times per week and especially during the 4-5 fertile days and especially the day of ovulation.

Another 10% will achieve the objective by the end of second year. As such, 10% remain infertile by the end of second year.

Furthermore Koner (2013:186) notes that, conception depends on the fertility potential of both the male and female partner.

The male is directly responsible in about 30–40%, the female in about 40–55% and both are responsible in about 10% cases. The remaining 10%, is unexplained, in spite of thorough investigations with modern technical know-how.

Thus, we can divide all heterosexual sexual acts into two broader classes. First, we have sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT). These are sexual acts which are uncontracepted and are performed during the ovulation phase in the female fertility cycle. When these sexual acts are performed, the probability of conception is greater than zero.

And secondly, we have sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT). These are sexual acts which are performed during the non-ovulation phase in the female fertility cycle.

On this view, they are similar to hand to genital sex (manual masturbation), mouth to male genital sex (felatio), male mouth to female genital (cunnilingus), male genital to female mouth (irrumation), male genital to thighs sex, male genital to breasts sex, male genital to armpit sex, male genital to male anus sex, and male genital to female anus sex. When these sexual acts are performed, the probability of conception is zero.

Mathematically speaking, we may say that, a fact, an action or an event C causes a fact, an action or an event E if and only if: (a) C is temporally prior to E; (b) there is a fixed causal background context K, which forms the circumstances which are causally relevant to the causal process in question; and (c) for some fixed causal background context K, the probability of event E given that event C has occurred is greater than the probability of event E given that event C has not occurred.

Here a cause increases that probability or chance that its effect will occur. Mathematically speaking, this is to say that, P(E/(C and K)) > P(E/(not-C and K))>0. This is the meaning of a cause when understood in terms of probability.

On this view, if the probability is zero, then there is no causal relation that exists between the factors under consideration (Gallow 2017:17). This etiological probability theory explains why sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are not, and cannot be, procreative in type, although the advocates of sexual acts which are said to have been performed in a "human manner" sophistically insist that they are procreative in type.

This fact explains why the Catholic Church’s canon law number 1061.1, which states that, heterosexual marriage is said to be “ratified and consummated if the spouses have in a human manner (humano modo) engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring,” invalidates all heterosexual marriages which are consummated through non-ovulative days copulation.

Otherwise, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church must concede that very few heterosexual marriages are consumated by sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) while most of heterosexual marriages are consumated by sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), where the latter belong to the same class as do homosexual and heterosexual pedication, homosexual and heterosexual fellatio, homosexual and heterosexual manual masturbation, and the like.

This is the case because, the phrase “apt for the generation of offspring” describes the penetration of the penis in the vagina and the depositing of male seed there, regardless of whether the woman is in her ovulation phase or otherwise. So, such a sexual act, when performed during non-ovulative days, is not procreative in type, and therefore not “apt for the generation of offspring,” as the above analysis shows.

An Old Natural Law Theory: By starting from the human reproductive function, both the old and the new natural law arguments, assert that, in virtue of the reproductive function, sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) can have a value that is superior to the value that sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) can have.

But, the views of natural lawyers diverge when the following "value question" is asked: "Why is the value that sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) can have superior to the value that sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) can have?"

On one hand, the old natural lawyers answer this question as follows: From the function of a non-biological thing we can know what makes it good. For example, a good watch keeps time well; and a good bridge allows cars to cross the river without falling down; and generally, a good tool is good because it performs its function well.

Analogously, they argue, a good reproductive system is one which performs a reproductive function well, based on sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

It is true that, according to their natures, human males and females have complementary reproductive systems. What is natural is good. Thus, the choice of sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), can be good for the heterosexual couple in a way that sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) can not be.

In this argument, from the fact that human beings have a reproductive function, it is argued, the chosen exercise of that function, under conditions suitable to the rearing of children, is good in a way that no other kind of sexual relationship can be.

The main objection to this argument, which is made by the second type of natural-law theory, namely, the new natural law, to be discussed next, is that you cannot derive an ought from an is. It is called a naturalistic fallacy.

The naturalistic fallacy is a logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ then it must be 'good.' The naturalistic fallacy looks like this:

Breastfeeding is the natural way to feed children; therefore, mothers ought to breastfeed their children and ought not to use baby formula (because it is unnatural). Also, it looks like this: All fertile human females have the capacity to give birth to children; thus, all fertile human females are obliged to have babes whether they want or not.

These are fallacies. We act often against nature all the time with vaccinations, electricity, medicine, breast-pumping, and using antiperspirants, many of which are ethical. It is true that, a lot of things that are natural are good, but not all unnatural things are unethical. This is what the naturalistic fallacy, also called "the is-ought fallacy," argues.

What the naturalistic fallacy does is to remind us about the "No Ought From Is Principle," often referred to as the "NOFI Principle."

In other words, the "is-ought fallacy" occurs when someone tries to infer what "ought to be done" from "what is the case." In this case, logical inference jumps from the statements of fact (or ‘is-statement’) to statements of value (or ‘ought’), without any explanation.

One more example will clarify this point. Consider the following example where someone might say: It is true that smoking is harmful to your health; Therefore, you ought not to smoke.

The claim that you "ought not to smoke" is not just saying it is unhealthy for you to smoke. It says that it is unethical to smoke. But, a lot of "unhealthy" practices are perfectly ethical. Thus, the assumption that facts lead us directly to value claims is what makes the "is-ought argument" a fallacy. This discussion is enough to show the uselessness of the old natural law theory.

In short, within the sexual sphere, the old natural law argument can be summarized in a syllogism which has the following structure:

(1) It is always wrong to act directly contrary to the telos of any human bodily faculty.

(2) Performing sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), is always directly contrary to the telos of the sexual faculty.

(3) Therefore, it is always wrong to perform sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT).

A New Natural Law Theory: On the other hand, the new natural lawyers answer the above stated "value question" differently, in a way that seeks to respect the "NOFI Principle," and hence avoid the "naturalistic fallacy."

In response to the the above stated "value question", the new natural law theory says that someone should perform sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), not because of the mere fact that he has a sexual reproductive system, but because its exercise is fulfilling.

In general the new natural law theory claims that there are certain “basic human goods” whose pursuit is humanly fulfilling, or the non-pursuit of which hinders human fulfillment, and so people should seek these basic human goods or at least do nothing incompatible with them.

The new natural law theory holds that there is a plurality of intrinsic goods, all of which are basic and none of which can be reduced to any of the others.

These basic human goods, which are described as constitutive aspects of genuine human flourishing, include life; health; knowledge; aesthetic experience; skilled work; play; harmony with neighbors (friendship); marriage; harmony with one's worldview commitments; and harmony among a person’s judgments, choices, feelings, and behavior.

The latter basic human good is also called "body-self integrity" as opposed to "body-self disintegration," or "psycho-somatic integration" as opposed to "psycho-somatic disintegration."

On this view, from the fact that "pursuing something is fulfilling,” a logical inference is drawn that, “we ought to pursue it.”

There could be someone who says, “I do not want to be fulfilled,” and there are people who seem to act in knowing self-destruction, say through suicide. There is not much we can say to convince them otherwise. For them this is another form of an "is-ought fallacy."

But those who do seek fulfillment seem to have taken fulfillment as their first ought. They recognize that performing one action is an antecedent to the realization of a certain outcome in their lives.

So, while this scenario is not an "ontological ought," it is a "praxiological ought," that expresses a cause and effect relationship between a human action and its efficient consequence. That is, a "praxiological ought" allows someone to recognize the fact that if something is fulfilling, then it is further linked to a more specific ought, called a "moral ought."

So, here we have an argument starting from an "ontological ought," moving through a "praxiological ought," and terminating into a "moral ought."

Arguments of this sort must ultimately appeal to self-evidence, since there is no theoretical way of proving that something is fulfilling to someone who just does not see that it is. It is like red colour which has to be seen to be understood. They will always terminate in axiomatic suggestions.

And this is the route taken by the new natural law theory. The theory holds that practical reason, that is, reason oriented towards action, grasps as self-evidently desirable a number of basic human goods.

Specifically, in the sexual sphere, the new natural lawyers make the following axiomatic suggestions: That, it is just a basic form of fulfillment for people to engage in sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), provided that they have taken a marital vow of exclusive and permanent commitment;

That, these acts are fulfilling because they makes possible a multi-leveled union, both at mental and bodily levels, of the two parties;

That, bodily union is possible by reason of the reproductive function, through which, a man and a woman can jointly become its single subject;

And that, since a mating pair which engages in sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), cannot likewise become the single subject of the reproductive function, their relationship cannot provide the same kind of fulfillment.

In short, when it comes to sexual relationships, the New natural law theory puts a lot of weight on the question, "What kind of basic human good is realized in the sexual dimension of a given pair of sexual partners? That is, "What kind of basic human good do these sexual partners pursue together that, say, two roommates in a non-sexual relationship cannot also pursue?

On one hand, sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) can promote the basic human goods of intrinsic bodily union, heterosexual friendship, and procreation. Obviously, these acts also promote the basic good of body-self integration, but the new natural lawyers never say this, presumably, as a strategy to conceal something, as I show next.

On the other hand, sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), including contracepted copulation, manual masturbation, pedication, fellatio, cunnilingus, armpit sex, thigh sex, and the like, can promote the basic human goods of psycho-somatic integration and friendship, on one hand, and instrumental goods such as extrinsic bodily union, on the other hand.

In short, the new natural law argument can be summarized in a syllogism which has the following structure:

(1) It is always wrong to act directly contrary to any basic human good.

(2) Performing sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), is always directly contrary to the basic human goods of body-self integrity and heterosexual marriage.

(3) Therefore, it is always wrong to perform sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT).

However, the new natural lawyers teaching that, performing sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), is always directly contrary to the basic good of body-self integrity collapses, in the face of the sexual response cycle and its aftermath.

Scientific research has shown that, the sexual response cycle has four steps: excitement, plateau, orgasm and resolution phases.

Phase one is the excitement phase, in which, for the man, the penis becomes erect due to the flow of blood into the penile tissues and, for the woman, there is moistening of the vagina, enlarged breasts, and tensing of the muscles with increased breathing and heart rate.

Phase two is the plateau phase, the entry of the penis into the vagina, further quickening of the heart and breathing, mounting erotic pleasure, and the appearance of a flush on both bodies.

Phase three, the climax, discharge of semen by the male and a number of orgasmic muscle spasms by the female, is the moment of greatest pleasure and ecstasy, the moment sought in every act of intercourse. This pleasure is, of course, quite individual.

Phase four is the resolution phase, in which the couple relax and blood pressure and respiration return to normal. A unifying component of these various physical stages of the sexual act is physical pleasure.

That is, each step is accompanied by erotic pleasure, which intensifies gradually from the first to the last phase. And, at the completion of the cycle, participants experience harmony between their bodies and minds, hence psycho-somatic unity, also known as body-self integration, or psycho-somatic re-creation, or body-self rehabilitation. Since an orgasm has to be experienced to understood, virgins and eunuchs may not comprehend this argument. They are invited to make a try.

A theory of causality: Every sexual activity is a process which brings about anatomical, physiological and psychological changes within human bodies and between human relations. Still, it may be a part of a wider biological process called sexual reproduction, which is a sequence of causal relations. The philosophy of causality, called etiology, is a key requirement for a fuller understanding sexual relations.

Causality or causation denotes a logical relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct consequence (result) of the first.

In science, the best available approximations to the ultimate principles of causation are expressed as laws, where a law is a formula to which real events truly show conformity. And the term "conformity" means that, taking the formula as a general principle, if our experience shows that the formula applies to a given event, then the result will be confirmed by our experience.

Against this background, according to John Sowa (2000), three assumptions are dominant in the definition of causality, namely:

(1) Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event, A is called the cause, and B the effect;

(2) Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect; and

(3) Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000)

Understood this way, causes are often distinguished into two major types: Necessary causes and sufficient causes.

Under necessary causal relations, If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

Under sufficient causal relations, If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.

However, while this informal understanding will suffice in everyday usage of the terms "causes," "effects," and "causal relations," an analysis of various causal processes raises a number of ontological, epistemological and logical questions which require carefully thought theoretical frameworks for their reasonable answers.

According to J. Dmitri Gallow (2017), we have Regularity Theories of causality, Probabilistic Theories of causality, Process Theories of causality, and Counterfactual Theories of causality, which complement each other, as and when required. I will briefly discuss them one after another.

One, according to the Regularity Theories of causality, an event type C causes event type E if and only if the occurrence of events of type C is constantly conjoined with the occurrence of events of type E. This means that, a token event c caused a token event e if and only if there are events of types C and type E such that: (a) c is of type C; (b) e is of type E; and (c) event type C causes event type E.

Two, according to the Probabilistic Theories of causality, a fact, an action or an event C causes a fact, an action or an event E if and only if: (a) C is temporally prior to E; (b) there is a fixed causal background context K, which forms the circumstances which are causally relevant to the causal process in question; and (c) for some fixed causal background context K, the probability of event E given that event C has occurred is greater than the probability of event E given that event C has not occurred.

Here a cause increases that probability or chance that its effect will occur. Mathematically, this is to say that, P(E/(C and K)) > P(E/(not-C and K))>0. This is the meaning of a cause when understood in terms of probability. On this view, if the probability is zero, then there is no causal relation that exists between the factors under consideration.

Three, according to the Counterfactual Theories of causality, one event, e, causally depends upon a distinct event, c, if and only if, had c occurred, e would have occurred; and, had c not occurred, e wouldn’t have occurred either.

And four, according to the Process Theories of causality, a token event c caused a token event e if and only if c and e are connected by a series of intersecting causal processes whose intersections constitute causal interactions. The basic idea behind process theories is that the token event c caused the token event e if and only if we can trace out the right kinds of causal processes leading from c to e.

According to a process theory, the binary relation of causation is not the fundamental causal notion. Fundamentally, causality is a matter of causal processes. When we speak of causal relations—i.e., when we say things like ‘Suzy’s throw caused the window to shatter’, what makes such claims true is the existence of the right kind of causal process connecting Suzy’s throw with the window’s shattering.

A process P is said to be causal if and only if there is some property of P, Q, and some potential causal interaction I such that (1) were P to undergo the interaction I, it would transmit the mark Q′(where this is an alteration of Q); (2) were there to be only the interaction I, and no other interventions, P would still transmit that mark; and (3) were there no causal interactions with P, P would not transmit that mark.

In view of the foregoing, I wish to conclude this part by discussing the concept of "causation by prevention." Most cases of prevention will involve a negative event as the effect. We therefore have the following analysis of prevention in which the effect is a negative event:

An event C prevented event E, that is, C caused not-E if C occurred and E did not, and there was an event X such that: (1) there is a causal relation between C and the process P, of the object x, such that either C is a causal interaction with P, or C causes Y, which is a causal interaction with P; and (2) If C had not occurred, then x would have caused E.

This analysis tells us, correctly, that Juma’s throw caused the window to shatter or caused the window to not shatter. In the sexual sphere, "causation by prevention" is exemplified by contraception, where, we can say that contraception prevents conception or causes conception failure.

A theory of subsidiary-spherical sovereignty: This principle is a blend of two principles, namely, the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of sphere sovereignty. I shall explain each principle in turn.

The Principle of subsidiarity states two points, First, it puts a limit to intervention by a higher authority versus a person or a community in a position to act itself. It also states an obligation for this higher authority to act versus this person or this group to see that it is given the means to achieve its ends (Ken Endo 1994).

This double meaning of subsidiarity is, in fact, the key to understanding a wide spectrum of its interpretation. Accordingly, the first and the most important distinction should be drawn between the negative concept of subsidiarity and the positive concept of it.

Basically the negative concept of subsidiarity refers to the limitation of competences of the higher organization in relation to the lower entity, whilst its positive concept represents the possibility or even the obligation of interventions from the higher organization. We can clarify this distinction in the following ways.

On the one hand, the negative concept of subsidiarity means that: (1) the higher organization cannot intervene if the lower entity can satisfactorily accomplish its aims, or (2) the higher organization should not intervene if the lower entity alone can accomplish its aims (a more strict version), or (3) the higher organization cannot intervene if it is not assigned to do so (as a variant).

On the other hand, the positive concept of subsidiarity means that: (1) the higher organization can intervene if (or to the extent that) the lower entity cannot satisfactorily accomplish its aims, or (2) the higher organization should intervene if the lower entity alone cannot accomplish its aims (as its stronger expression), or (3) the higher organization can or/and must intervene if assigned to do so (as a variant).

In a secular state, such as a democratic republican state, The Principle of subsidiarity is a very crucial tool in drawing a demarcation between the state, the civil society, the market and the individual, so that none of these segments of the society unreasonably trespasses into the territory of the others.

Each of these segments of the society is a semi-autonomous level of sovereignty. But this hierarchical ordering of a society is, often, unrealistic, a defect which is corrected by the principle of sphere-sovereignty.

The principle of subsidiarity is effective in re-locating power downwards. However, the problem with subsidiarity is that it does establish a mandatory structural order in which centralized or higher authority always has the burden of proof in justifying its actions.

If that burden is not discharged, action automatically devolves upon the lower levels of the system. But logically decisions should be made on whatever level they can be made most efficiently, without any built-in preference for "lower" or "higher" orders.

The issue, then, is not which hierarchical level is more fundamental and therefore preferable as a locus for decision-making, but the achieving of maximum efficiency in carrying out the overarching purpose of the organization or society. The principle of sphere-sovereignty is proposed as a remedy to this defect (David H. Mcilroy 2003).

The idea of sphere sovereignty is just simple. Experience shows that, although the democratic state derives its authority over the territory from the people, other areas of human life, such as the family, trade and faith communities, also have semi-autonomous spheres within which authority is properly vested and exercised otherwise than on the basis of the State's directives.

In each of these spheres, spherical sovereignty must be acknowledged, and those who exercise it must defend that sovereignty. Adjacent, in part subordinate to these, there is the Official Sovereignty of Law and Justice, represented by the State.

Although this Official Sovereignty has certain proper powers to protect formally the mutual relations of the other spheres, and thereby make possible orderly human society, it may never present itself as having a sovereignty from which the sovereignty of the other spheres were merely derived. This is never the case. The sovereign authorities of the family, the faith communities, the market, and so on, are derived as directly from human nature itself.

In other words, according to the principle of sphere-sovereignty, all distinct social entities are governed by their own laws, and that those laws differ in every instance according to the typical nature of the social institution concerned.

This is to say that, there are areas of human life, spheres of human activity, which are naturally designed to be laws unto themselves. As such, the government does not create the other sphere sovereignties, but must limit itself to recognizing them, and where in public they ask for support or where they conflict, to regulate between them, in order to promote their growth or avoid conflict, meaning that, it was legitimate for the State to intervene to defend the powerless within each sovereign sphere.

In other words, in a given nation, power is divided among various social institutions, and given to different institutions because of their differing "teloses."

For example, the telos of parenting is the raising of children; the telos of schools and universities is the education of students; the telos of commerce is the provision of goods to supply human needs; the telos of science is discovery and the advance of knowledge; the telos of art is the production and. appreciation of beauty; the telos of the State is the common good.

In short, a synthesis of subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty shows the following: One, while sphere sovereignty claims to give a substantive account of the rightful location of power, subsidiarity operates as a procedural principle, to be weighed against other principles in determining at what level power should properly be exercised.

And two, the principle of subsidiarity, within the paradigm of a centralized nation state, operates on the basis that all power is derived from that state, although it ought to be devolved, preferably downwards, as far as possible.

But, the central idea of sphere sovereignty is that different social entities have an internal enclave of domestic powers that emanate from the typical structure of the social entity concerned and conditioned by the particular function that constitutes the special destiny of that social entity.

Therefore, as presently applied, subsidiarity is concerned with the relationship between national, supra-national, and local government. On the other hand, sphere sovereignty is typically understood as concerned with the relationship between government and the other institutions of society, each depicted as a semi-autonomous sphere os sovereight, not necessarily arranged hierarchically in a top-down structure.

So, there is space for both principles, and indeed both are required in order to provide a comprehensive social doctrine of how power and authority ought to be divided in a plural human society.

Thus, guided by the principle of subsidiary-spherical sovereignty, I defend the following thesis: that, in the modern democratic republican states, as opposed to the old totalitarian theocratic /imperial states, all mutually consenting adult persons have a fundamental constitutionally protected right to participate in sexual activities, where this right goes beyond sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive in type (SAIPIT), and is broad enough to include all sexual acts which are extrinsically-barren in type (SAEBIT), partly, though not exclusively, based on the congenital sexual orientations of the participants.

The reason is simple. In terms of the principle of subsidiary-spherical sovereignty the standard modem position on the legal regulation of sexual conduct has two limbs.

On the one hand, the state is not authorized to, and does not have to, make it a punishable offence for adult consenting persons to engage, in private, in immoral sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), such as heterosexual contracepted fornication, heterosexual contracepted adultery, homosexual fornication and homosexual adultery.

On the other hand, states do have the authority to discourage overtly manifested sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), such as as heterosexual contracepted fornication, heterosexual contracepted adultery, homosexual fornication and homosexual adultery.

That is to say, states maintain various criminal and administrative laws and policies which have as part of their purpose the discouraging of such conducts in order to protect public morality.

However, many of these laws, regulations, and policies distinguish between heterosexual conduct and homosexual conduct adversely to the latter.

For example, some states have criminalized male homosexual prostitution and ale homosexual prostitution, but not heterosexual prostitution.

Also, in some countries, the legal position is that, the age of consent for lawful intercourse is 21 years for homosexual intercourse but 16 years for heterosexual intercourse.

Similarly, schools are often prohibited from doing anything to intentionally promote homosexuality or promote the teaching of the acceptability of homosexual family relationship.

Legal provisions relating to marriage and children adoption similarly manifest a purpose or at least a willingness to discourage homosexual conduct and
impede its promotion by any form of invitatory activity other than between consenting adults and in a truly private setting.

From the foregoing analysis, it follows that, penal prohibition of private adult homosexual activity, between persons who have attained legally recognised age of consent, is not necessary for the securing of the state's legitimate aim of protecting public morals.

The above standard modern position can be summarised as follows: apart perhaps from special cases and contexts, it is unjust for the first person to impose any kind of disadvantage on the second person simply because the first person believes that the second person has sexual inclinations, which he may or may not act on, towards persons of the same sex.

Special cases are more likely to arise, for example, where the second person's inclination is towards children. The position does not give the second person the widest conceivable legal protection against such unjust discrimination, just as it generally does not give wide protection against discrimination in housing or employment to people with unpopular or eccentric political views. But the position does not itself encourage, sponsor or impose any such unjust burden.

In short, the concern of the standard modern position, as summarized above, is not with inclinations but entirely with certain decisions to express or manifest deliberate promotion of, or readiness to engage in, homosexual activity or conduct, including promotion of forms of life, such as homosexual cohabitation, which both encourage such activity and present it as a valid or acceptable alternative to the committed heterosexual unions which the state recognizes as legal heterosexual marriages.

According to Finnis (2014), subject only to the written or unwritten constitutional requirement of freedom of discussion of ideas, the state laws and state policies which h I have outlined are intended to discourage decisions which are thus deliberately oriented towards homosexual conduct and are manifested in public ways.

On the view promoted by Professor Finnis (2014), the standard modern legal position, as explained above, can be expressed as follows. It considers that the state's proper responsibility for upholding morality is a responsibility subsidiary to the primary responsibility of parents and non-political voluntary associations.

The subsidiary character of government is widely emphasized and increasingly accepted, at least in principle, in contemporary democratic and republican states.

This conception of the proper role of government is taken to exclude the state from assuming a directly parental disciplinary role in relation to consenting adults.

That role was one which political theory and practice formerly ascribed to the state on the assumption that the role followed by logical necessity from the truth that the state should encourage morality and discourage immorality. That assumption is now judged to be mistaken.

So the principle of subsidiary-spherical sovereignty draws a distinction between supervising the truly private conduct of adults, on one hand, and supervising the public realm or environment, on the other hand.

The importance of the latter includes the following considerations. One, the public domain is the environment in which young people, of whatever sexual inclination, are educated.

Two, the public domain is the context in which, and by which, everyone with responsibility for the well being of young people is helped or hindered in assisting them to avoid bad forms of life.

Three, the public domain is the milieu in which, and by which, all citizens are encouraged and helped, or discouraged and undermined, in their own resistance to being lured by temptation into falling away from their own aspirations to be people of integrated good character, and to be autonomous, self-controlled persons rather than slaves to impulse and sensual gratification.

In short, while the supervision of truly private adult consensual conduct is now considered to be outside the state's normally proper role, with exceptions such as sado-masochistic bodily damage; the supervision of the public domain, involving moral, cultural, and educational environment, is maintained as a very important part of the state's justification for claiming legitimately the loyalty of its decent citizens.

A theory of sexual development and differentiation: According to the counterfactual theory of causation, one event, E, causally depends upon a distinct event, C, if and only if, had C occurred, E would have occurred; and, had C not occurred, E wouldn’t have occurred either (Dmitri 2017:55).

In the following discussion, I propose to show that, the occurrence of some chromosomes and some hormones is antecedent to the occurrence of certain sexual orientations, and that, in the absence of such chromosomes and some hormones, the said sexual orientations would not have occurred. Then, reasoning by analogy logically translates this reasoning to other similar sexual orientations.

According to Speroff and Fritz (2005) and Carlson (2013), the process of sex determination for the unborn child is governed by several genes within the first seven weeks of pregnancy. According to their research, this process goes through five main stages.

The first step is to determine the sex of the child at the cellular level (chromosome sex) during fertilization.

Through sexual intercourse, a male sperm with 23 chromosomes, including 22 chromosomes called "X" and one called "Y," unites with a female egg with 23 chromosomes called "X", creating a new compound cell having 46 chromosomes, which is called a zygote.

So, the result of the fertilization an egg by a sperm is a zygote capable of undergoing cell division to form a new individual.

Thus, this zygote can have either 46 chromosomes with a female format, that is, 'XX' (46XX Female), or 46 chromosomes with a male format, that is, XY (46XY Male).

In this first stage of sex determination, the pregnancy has a neutral reproductive system. Instead, there is a "tissue" having three parts: two bipotential gonads, two Mullerian ducts and two Wolfian ducts.

Depending on the circumstances of the time, the bipotential gonads and their ducts can turn into male genitalia or female genitalia.

Thus, chromosomal sex answers the questions: Does the person have 44+XX chromosome structure that is typical of normal female persons? Does the person have 44+XY chromosome structure that is typical of normal male persons? or Does the person have some other ambiguous combination of chromosome structure that is typical of some intersex persons?

The second stage of sex determination, occurs in the seventh week of pregnancy, and is about the establishment of the sex of the child at the level of the gonad (gonadal sex). At this point, the two bipotential gonads, either turn into ovaries or turn into testicles.

If the bipotential gonads turn into ovaries, the pregnancy of a female child is established. And if they turn into testicles, the pregnancy of a male child is established. These changes occur in the fifty-day-old pregnancy.

This stage is controlled by several genes, but the most important gene are the "sex determining region Y gene, that is “SRY gene."

The "SRY gene" is a gene found at one end of the "Y" chromosome, which is the male chromosome.

The job of the "SRY gene" is to produce a chemical that turns the bipotential gonads into testicles. That chemical is a protein called called "testicle determining factor (TDF)."

The availability of SRY and TDF forces the two free gonads to turn into testicles, so that, a male pregnancy is achieved. This is an event in the seventh week of pregnancy.

On the other hand, the absence of SRY and TDF allows the bipotential gonads to acquire the 'XX' format, and hence to turn into ovaries, and thus, to facilitate a female pregnancy. This is an event in the seventh week of pregnancy.

Thus, if a child is born as a complete male, he has a genetic system having an "XY" format which is accompanied by the "existence" of "SRY gene." That is, he has a genetic structure having the format of “46XY Male, SRY+.”

On the other hand, if a child is born as a full female, she will have a genetic system having the format of "XX" being accompanied by the "lack" of an "SRY gene." That is, she will have a genetic makeup having the format “46XX Female, SRY-.”

So under stage two, two types of sex emerge. We have genetic sex and gonadal sex.

Genetic sex answers the questions: Does the person have genes that determine sexual development that is typical of normal male persons? Does the person have genes that determine sexual development that is typical of normal female persons? or Does the person have genes that determine an ambiguous sexual development?

And gonadal sex answers the questions: Does the person have two testicles that are typical of normal male persons? Does the person have two ovaries that are typical of normal female persons? Does the person have an ambiguous mixture of gonads that are typical of some intersex persons?

The third stage is the determination of sex at the genital level and several parts of the body, thus giving it a special morphology/appearance (genital sex).

This stage is controlled by male hormones, such as testosterone, which is produced in the testes of the male fetus; and female hormones, such as estrogen, which is produced in the ovaries of the female fetus.

At this stage, the female fetus acquires the following external genitalia: the vulva, the vagina, the cervix and the urethra. In addition, a woman gets the following internal genitalia: the reproductive tract, uterus, two fallopian tubes and ovaries.

The male pregnancy, gets the following external genitalia: a penis and two testicles that descend into his pouch. In addition, the male pregnancy acquires the following internal genitalia: the prostate, the epididymis, the seminal vesicles, and the vas deferens.

Thus, at this stage, two types of sex emerge too. They are internal genetic sex and external genetic sex.

Internal-genital sex answers the questions: Does the person have sperm transport system that is typical of normal male persons? Does the person have the uterus, oviducts, and upper vagina that are typical of normal female persons?

And external-genital sex answers the questions: Does the person have a penis and scrotum that are typical of normal male persons? Does the person have clitoris and vulva that are typical of normal female persons; Does the person have an ambiguous mixture of these organs typical of some intersex persons?

The fourth stage is puberty sex differentiation, which determined by the production of male and female sex hormones which starts after adolescence. These hormones have both physical and psychological effect to the growing person.

So, we can talk about three types of sex here, namely: hormonal sex, pubertal sex, and psychological sex.

Hormonal sex answers the questions: Does the person have hormones that are typical of normal male persons? Does the person have hormones that are typical of normal female persons? Does the person have an ambiguous combination of these hormones?

Pubertal sex answers the questions: Does the person have Adam’s apple, beards, pubic hair, body shape and skeletal growth that is typical of normal male persons? Does the person have breast development, menstrual cycle system, and body shape typical of normal female persons? Does the person have an ambiguous combination of these features typical of some intersex persons?

And psychological sex answers the questions: Does the person have an androphilic sexual orientation that is typical of normal female persons? Does the person have gynophilic sexual orientation that is typical of normal male persons? Does the person have an ambiphilic sexual orientation that is typical of some intersex persons? And, does the person have a neutrophilic sexual orientation that is typical of sexually impotent persons?

In summary, concerning the science of normal sexual differentiation, we have seen the following: That, the chromosomal sex of the embryo is established at fertilization. This stage of embryonic development is sexually differentiated at a genetic level, but having sexually indifferent gonads. However, after six weeks of pregnancy further signs of sex differentiation are noticed.

This process of sex differentiation involves a series of events whereby the sexually indifferent gonads progressively acquire male or female characteristics. The process of gonadal determination is governed by a complex network of genes, including the SRY gene, whose balanced expression levels either activate the testis pathway and simultaneously repress the ovarian pathway or vice versa.

Subsequently, internal and external genitalia will follow the male pathway in the presence of androgens and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), or the female pathway in the absence of these hormones.

As such, we can scientifically talk about eight categories of human sex, namely: chromosomal sex, genetic sex, gonadal sex, internal-genital sex, external-genital sex, pubertal sex, hormonal sex, and psychological sex.

And, in conclusion, then, we can confidently say that, the sexual orientation of an individual person, whether androphilic, gynophilic, ambiphilic or neutriphilic is congenital and not volitional, natutal and not chosen.

A theory of disorders of sex development (DSD): Just as there are persons with disabilities at a physical level having impaired parts of their bodies, there are persons with disabilities at a sexual level too.

For example, if a person has two genitals, namely, a "penis" and a "vagina," with one of them not functioning properly, then, that is a person with disability at a sexual level.

The science of abnormal sexual differentiation, refers to this phenomenon as a disorder of sexual development (DSD).

According to Vogel and Motulsky (1996), the origins of "Disorders of Sexual Development (DSD)," can be explained scientifically.

Earlier we saw that, if a child is born as a normal male, he will have a genetic system having the format "46XY ME, SRY+." On the other hand, we said that, if a child is born as a normal female, she will have a genetic system having the format "46XX KE, SRY-."

But unfortunately, if it happens that a pregnancy with a genetic system having the format "XY" is accompanied by a broken "Y" chromosome which has suffered a partial or total loss of an "SRY gene," then, serious genetic consequences will occur to the pregnancy.

First, this pregnancy will not receive the Testicle Determining Factor (TDF), which is the "protein that triggers the growth of testicles," so that the child can be born male.

Instead, despite the fact that the pregnancy has a genetic format of 'XY,' which is a male format at the chromosomal level, this pregnancy will develop ovaries as if the pregnancy had a genetic format of 'XX,' which is the female genetic format.

Finally, a child will be born who is male at the cellular level, while he is female at the gonadal level. He will be a person with sexual disability as a sexual level, having a genetic format of "46XY Female, SRY-."

Her ovaries will produce female hormones, and she will have a female morphology, while inside she has cells having a male format. She will be a genotypitical male, who is a phenotypical female. This disorder of sexual development brongs about a change which is called “male-to-female sex reversal.”

So, this is how a man with a feminine appearance, like Caster Semenya, a South African athlete, comes into the world. Yet, this is a complete human being because she has 46 chromosomes of creatures in the "homo sapiens" lineage, and she has intelligence and free will.

Unfortunately again, if it happens that, a pregnancy with a genetic format of 'XX' is accompanied by an X chromosome that has picked up a "SRY gene," after it has broken off and dropped from the Y chromosome, serious consequences will befall the pregnancy too.

First, this pregnancy gets "testicular growth protein," that is TDF, causing the child to be born with male genitalia. For this reason, despite the fact that the pregnancy has a genetic format of 'XX,' which is a female format, it will still produce testicles, as if the pregnancy had a genetic format of 'XY,' which is a male format .

Finally, a child will be born with a female gender at the cellular level, while he has a male gender at the gonad level. He will be a genotypitical female and a phenotypical male. He will be a person with disability at a sexual level having a genetic format of “46XX Male, SRY+.”

His testicles will produce male hormones, and he will have a male morphology, while inside he has cells having a female format.

This disorder of sexual development brings about a change which is called “female-to-male sex reversal.” This is how a woman with a masculine appearance can come into being.

Again, if the "SRY gene” does not completely drop from the "Y" chromosome, then, male to female sex reverse, or female to male sex reversal, as the case may be, will be partial. As result, the pregnancy may have male genitalia and female genitalia.

This is how hermaphrodites happen. They are otherwise called intersexed persons or simply intersexuals.

In other words, hermaphroditism, also referred to as intersex, is a condition in which there is a discrepancy between the external and internal sexual and genital organs. It is grouped together with other conditions as a disorder of sex development (DSD).

There are four different types of hermaphroditism, as follows: 46XX hermaphroditism; 46XY hermaphroditism; true gonadal hermaphroditism; and complex hermaphroditism.

An individual with 46XX hermaphroditism has two XX chromosomes and the ovaries of a woman, but has external genitalia that appear to be male.

This type is usually caused by the excessive exposure of the female fetus to male hormones in the womb. There is fusion of the labia, and the clitoris becomes enlarged to resemble a penis. Internally, the female sexual organs such as the uterus and fallopian tubes have a normal structure.

An individual with 46XY hermaphroditism has one X and one Y chromosome, as is usually seen in males, but the external genitalia are either not completely formed, or resemble those of females. The internal sexual organs may be normal, incomplete or absent, depending on the specific case.

This type usually occurs because of an imbalance of female and male hormones. It may be caused by abnormal function of the testes, reduced ability to produce testosterone, or difficulty in utilizing the testosterone produced in the body.

True Gonadal Hermaphroditism is manifested by an individual with both ovarian and testicular tissue, either in the same gonad (referred to as an ovotestis) or in one ovary and one testis. Some affected individuals have XX chromosomes, others have XY chromosomes, and others have a combination of both. Likewise, the external genitalia can vary in form, from male, or female, to ambiguous.

Complex hermaphroditism involves other disorders of sexual development beyond simple 46, XX and 46, XY. These may include: 45XO, 47XXY, and 47XXX.

This type is not usually associated with a discrepancy between the internal and external genitalia. Instead, the individual shows abnormal levels of sex hormones and incomplete sexual development.

Signs and symptoms of complex hermaphroditism may include: Ambiguous genitalia; Micropenis; Clitoromegaly; Labial fusion; Undescended testes; Hypospadias; Electrolyte abnormalities; or Delayed, absent or abnormal pubertal changes.

These are biological facts, which are congenital and not chosen, natutal and not cultural. The facts, obvious contract the binary model of human sexuality which is presented by religious scriptures.

As such, a “penguinised mindset,” that is, a mindset exclusively trained in the social sciences,, may quickly dismiss these facts, as result of Kripkean dogmatism.

Kripkean dogmatists are persons who come to know a given proposition about some subject matter at one time and at all future times, and yet continue to believe in the truth of the original proposition about the subject matter at hand, despite the availability of new evidence which defeats their original belief and so robs them of knowledge and rational belief at those future times.

It is an irrational position which is anti-scientific, and which has to be battled, if we want to bring about intellectual revolution that is relevant to our time. I suggest that, this is a battle between natural sciences on the one hand, and historical, philosophical, theological, and social sciences, on one hand.

Social scientists includes persons who have studied such combinations as History, Geography and English Language (HGL), History, Geography and Kiswahili Language (HGK), History, Geography and Economics (HGE), Kiswahili, English Language and French (KLF), Economics, Commerce and Accountancy, and similar non-science subject combinations. Most of the persons in this group are irredeemable victims of Kripkian dogmatism, and hence a threat to epistemological public health in society.

From the above discussion, the challenge of two laws and three sexes is now obvious. Because of these disorders of sex development, some thinkers have argued that, "two sexes are not enough." They propose that we replace our two-sex system with a three-sex system, the third being the “intersex.”

In addition to males and females, they argue, under the “intersex” category, we should include the categories of herms (named after "true" hermaphrodites), merms (named after male "pseudohermaphrodites"), and ferms (named after female "pseudohermaphrodites").

Yet, in many legal systems, hermaphrodites doe not have a specific legal status, as a third sex, which is bodily different from both men and women, although they have their unique identity and biological needs.

This is the case because, the idea that legal gender had to be binary because biological sex was binary was part and parcel of the old legal culture throughout the twentieth century. And the most visible expression of this belief was, and still is, the assignment of either male or female legal gender to intersexual persons.

Recently, however, several countries have begun to revise these regulations. Australia in 2011 introduced a third gender marker ‘X’ for ‘indeterminate’ alongside the traditional male/female categories in passports.

In 2012, the EU commission published a report that specifically mentions binary sex or gender classification in civil status documents in its section on Discrimination against intersex people.

Most recently, Germany in summer 2013 adopted new rules for birth certificates for the first time since the late nineteenth century, where ‘undetermined sex’ can be registered. At the same time, medical guidelines for the treatment of intersexual infants are in the course of being revised in many countries.

As in the legal sphere, assumptions about sex and gender that had been unchallenged for decades have been called into question. Standards of medical treatment of intersexual persons based on these assumptions are today severely criticized.

Both in medicine and in law, intersexuality has become a human right issue. Uganda, East Africa and Africa has something to learn from these global trends. The time to abandon “two laws for three sexes” has come.

A theory of binary sexuality in religious scriptures: Based on the views of Yates (1995), Hanigan (2001) and Bolatito (2012), the heart of the matter for the Christian Churches, when considering human sexuality, is the recognition that God has a purpose in creating human beings.

These authors argue that, human sexuality, in its physical structure and biological consequence, in its erotic passion and energy, in the human desire for intimacy, and the human need for physical touch and interpersonal bonding, has a purpose in God’s plan.

They imply that, the human sexual faculty is designed to fulfil two interconnected functions, namely, the unitive function and the procreative function.

Logically, then, they are referring to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) as opposed to sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAIPIT).

By studying the Bible they arrived at a conclusion that, the teaching of the necessary connection between the two functions of human sexual intercourse is based on the Genesis creation accounts, how those accounts are related to the natural law, and how they are related to the rest of the scriptural witness.

For example, according to Hanigan (2001), the importance of the creation accounts in Genesis to God’s plan, is highlighted by a story in the gospels of Mark 10:2-12 and Mathew 19:3-9.

There, Jesus responds to the Pharisees’ question about divorce by invoking the creation accounts in Genesis as a revelation of God’s original creative purpose inherent in human sexuality.

Jesus draws from these accounts one normative implication, namely, the norm that, since “from the beginning of creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6); and given that, “in the image of God he created them; male and female” (Gen 1:27); then, it follows that, in creating them male and female, God has intended this heterosexual union of the man and the woman, as a part of original natural order.

According to Jesus, then, this divine plan is the reason why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes “one flesh” with his wife.

These texts, Hanigan (2001) says, serve as some kind of scriptural proof for the natural law theory of heterosexulity. What they do provide are the elements of a narrative framework, that is, a symbolic world that creates the perceptual categories through which we interpret reality.

This symbolic world contains affirmations both about the activity and character of God and about the human condition and its possibilities. It is within this symbolic world that particular accounts of natural law first find not only plausibility but a persuasive intelligibility that further illuminates the creation accounts in Genesis.

Specifically, Hanigan (2001) avers that, if we examine the creation accounts in Genesis we discover four significant points.

First, the uniqueness and dignity of the human person have their original source and foundation in the loving creation of humankind, male and female, by God in God’s own image and likeness.

Second, Hanigan (2001) observes that, human sexual duality, of malehood and femalehood, is an essential constituent of human nature as dedigned by God.

It includes, and is more than, a mere physical difference in anatomical structure or biological function, for it is a primary feature of the creation of humankind in the divine image and likeness.

In finding each other as given by God to one another, woman given to man, man given to woman, as mutual helpmates, the man and woman find what it is to be fully human.

The phrase that, “it is not good for the man to be alone” points beyond mere psychological and sociological sense, up to the apex of human flourishing, insists Hanigan (2001).

Third, Hanigan (2001) reminds us, males and females are called to be helpmates to each other, leaving father and mother and cleaving to one another in faithful loyalty, as God intended it from the beginning.

And fourth, Hanigan (2001) argues that, the biblical narrative provides a framework to an understanding of the telos of the gift of heterosexual human sexuality as heterosexual marriage.

What Hanigan (2001) explains is that, what we have in the Scripture, is not primarily a set of rules, or even basic moral principles governing human sexual conduct, but a symbolic world, a narrative vision of the meaning of heterosexual human sexuality and heterosexual sexual behavior in the divine plan.

On this view, this vision links together in a unified whole, and gives vocational significance to, the human goods of heterosexual sexual activity, namely, the personal unity, interpersonal unity, and procreation (Yates 1995).

In short, we have seen that, “copulation theology” and “pedication theology” are inseparably connected two sides of the same coin known as “the theology of human sexuality,” the former being a positive theology of human sexuality and the latter a negative theology of human sexuality.

Bolatito (2012:194-95) summarizes this reality with maximum brevity. According to his “heterosexual theology,” Genesis 2:18 tells us that simply as male, the first human being was incomplete. To be complete therefore, human living must include both sexes, different from one another and yet complimentary.

From this vantage, he describes heterosexual genital activity as an act that has three fundamental symbolic meanings.

One, sexual intercourse symbolizes the exclusive bond between husband and wife, which reflects the biblical confession that the person of faith has an exclusive bond with one God.

Two, it symbolizes the mutual help between the copulating pair, each partner finding pleasure in the intimacy and seeking to foster the other’s pleasure.

And three, it symbolizes the couple’s openness to new life that may emerge from their relationship through the birth of children.

He stresses that legitimate and appropriate sexual intimacy must always be symbolic in these ways, and that the institution of marriage is meant to foster such rich symbolism. In doing so, marriage serves as a crucial element in the life of the faith community.

Against this background, it logically follows that, same-sex covenant relationships simply cannot share in the richness of this heterosexual symbolism.

And the theological conclusion to be drawn from this is that homosexual sexual relationships among Christians can not, and should not, be allowed because they are incompatible with the heteronormative cultural values, norms and beliefs about the sacred institution of heterosexual marriage.

Then, the above “copulation theology,” as proposed by Yates (1995), Hanigan (2001) and Bolatito (2012), implies a kind of “pedication theology,” which is a negative theology of human sexuality that is informed by specific Biblical texts.

Gnuse (2015) has identified seven biblical passages often cited by Christians and used to condemn homosexual practices.

They are: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20-27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two Second Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26-27).

In light of these passages, “pedication theology” boils down to the following negative account of human sexuality:

The main reason why the Bible speaks so negatively about sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), is that, such acts are understood to be a threat to the very social foundations of biblical teachings which bind together Christian “faith communities.”

The authors opine that, if God’s plan of expressing sexual love is exclusively through sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), then any act of denying the uniqueness of this heterosexual plan, as promoters of sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) do, means rejecting God’s sovereignty.

They further explain that, based on this logic, the practice of sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) may be interpreted as a type of “sacrament” for those who reject God’s sovereignty as creator and ruler of the universe.

This is so, they think, because, faith in God includes, by definition, an acceptance of the plan God has created, from which it follows that, to blatantly deny the exclusive normativity of sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), is an expression of the refusal to honor God as a sovereign ruler of the universe by disobeying his prohibitions against homosexual practices.

So, apart from a theology of heterosexuality, which addresses sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), the other side of the coin of the theology human sxuality, is a negative theology of human sexuality, which addresses sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

Specifically, sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) include pedication, felatio, cunnilingus, armpit sex, thigh sex, intercrural sex, and the like, belong to the latter category.

All of these acts can also be performed by heterosexuals, who also can perform sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT).

But, homosexuals cannot perform sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT).

Accordingly, if revealed in scriptures, the “plan of God” about homosexual human flourishing would entail an argument for “the principle of separability” between the “unitive function” and “procreative function” of the human sexual faculty by using some biblical verses.

But, given the absence of such verses, the revealed “plan of God” then, becomes the basis for biblical condemnation of homosexual acts, simply based on the premise that homosexual acts are not a part of the said “plan of God.”

According to Hanigan (2001), the intellectual framework provided by the larger biblical narrative that supports an understanding of the natural law is on solid ground when it claims an inseparable connection, willed by God, between the unitive function and procreative function of human sexuality.

He argues that, the biblical narrative does not enable us, indeed does not allow us, to make theological sense out of sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), precisely as sexual.

It is against this theological argument, that, many Christian Churches teach with maximum hostility, typical of all types of religious fundamentalism, that sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), which are actions that are theologically unintelligible, constitute an objective disorder because they are not ordered to biological procreation.

In short, there is a set of extreme sexual assumptions that undergirds dominant interlocking Christian teachings on sexuality forming a tightly bound package, and which is intended to prove this disorder.

A summary of these theological teachings is this: there are no conceivable biblical circumstances that would warrant the acceptance of sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

By implication, this is rightly to say that, in fact, homosexual lifestyle does not find a place in the schema of biblical narrative of God’s plan for human salvation.

For all these reasons, many Christian Churches teach that homosexuals must abide by the same sexual norms meant for heterosexuals, since, as human beings, they are more than their sexual desires and have the free will to make sexual choices.

This call is based on an affirmation that homosexual orientation is not in itself sinful, nor is a homosexual orientation seen as the defining characteristic of the whole person.

But the ultimate theological dispute over homosexuality turns out to be the question: If it is not actually God’s will that homosexuals should be born that way, and given that God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolence, why doesn’t he intervene to eradicate this physical evil, called a sexual “objective disorder” by some theologians?

A theory of human communications: Communication is a process that uses signs to convey meaningful messages, which are endoded by a sender (or source), transmitted through a medium (or channel), decoded by the receipient (destination), after which, the interpreteation of the message is conveyed by the receipient as a feedback to the sender, in such a way that, these steps create one communication cycle.

Semiotics is a study that deals with the relationship between the sign, the signified, and the interpreter, without looking at the other segments of the communication cycle.

According to Charles Sanders Peirce a sign is something which stands to somebody for something else in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretation or significance of the first sign.

For example, the traffic light sign for "stop" consists of: a red light facing traffic at an intersection (the sign); halting vehicles (the signified object) and the idea that a red light indicates that vehicles must stop (the interpretation).

Peirce's triad is often presented as the semiotic triangle. In a version which is quite often encountered and which changes only the unfamiliar Peircean terms: a sign is called a reference, the signified is called a referent, and the sense made of the sign by an interpreter's mind is called significance or meaning.

Against this background, I hereby wish to briefly explain the basic principles of semiotics which are needed for the reader to grasp the phrase “unitive significance and procreative significance” which has been a rallying phrase in sexual ethics since 1968, when Pope Paul VI promulgated the controversial encyclical Humanae Vitae.

We have seen that, semiotics, also called semiology, is a study of sign-systems and their meanings in relation to human communications within a given society.

According to Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), the father of semiotics, a sign is “something which stands to somebody for something else.” Signs are divided into three main types: (1) an icon, which resembles its referent (such as a road sign for falling rocks); (2) an index, which is associated with its referent (as smoke is a sign of fire); and (3) a symbol, which is related to its referent only by convention (as with words or traffic signals).

Every sign has two inseparable components: the signifier, which in language is a set of speech sounds or marks on a page, and the signified, which is the concept or idea behind the sign. I will now explain in details the indexical, iconic and symbolic signs.

An index, plural indices, is a sign which indicates something else. Indices always point, reference, or suggest something else. A sundial or a clock indicates the time of day. A rap on the door is an index. Anything which focuses the attention is an index.

There are three types of index: tracks, symptoms, and designations. Tracks often have a physical, cause and effect relationship, but are not simultaneous with their object. Paw prints left by an animal are tracks; the lingering scent of perfume is a track.

Similarly, copulation is a cause, and therefore, an indexical sign of pregnancy; copulation is a cause, and therefore, an indexical sign of interpersonal sexual unity, which results from the bonding hormone called oxytocin, which is generated as a result of romantic touches and orgasm; cloud is a cause, and therefore, an indexical sign of rain; anger is a cause, and therefore, an indexical sign of a fight.

Symptoms are simultaneous with their object, and distinguishing between symptom and object may be impossible. Fever is a symptom of infection; smoke is a symptom of fire.

I other words, smoke is an effect, and therefore, a sign of fire; Fever is an effect, and therefore, a sign of infection; and pregnancy is an effect, and therefore, a sign of copultaion.

Lastly, designations point or signify while being distinct from their object: proper names, a pointed finger, and the word 'this' are all designations.

The frequent simultaneity of object and sign may be why (according to Piaget & Bruner), indexical signs are the first signs grasped by infants. While symbols cannot be signs without an interpreter, indices cannot be signs without their objects (no interpreter or "reader" necessary).

Originally called "likenesses" by Peirce, icons have a "topological similarity" to their object. Classical paintings and photographs are obviously icons, as they visually resemble their objects. This resemblance need not be tangible: "every algebraical equation is an icon, in so far as it exhibits, by means of the algebraical signs (which are not themselves icons), the relations of the quantities concerned".

Along these lines, Peirce creates three subcategories of icon: image, metaphor and diagram. Images share "simple qualities" or "sensory qualities" with their object: NutraSweet(r) is an image of sugar, and foley artists produce sound images.

Diagrams and their objects share relations or structures: a subway map is diagram of the actual subway, and the aforementioned equation is a diagram of mathematic relations.

Diagrams have a degree of arbitrariness, as I can express the same relation in a number of ways: [family(parents, children)] or family=parents+children.

For Peirce, metaphors "represent the representative character of an object by representing a parallelism in something else". Though technically conveyed through the non-iconic symbols of language, literary metaphors qualify as Peircian metaphors.

Peirce's definition, however, remains much broader: the thermometer previously described as index can also be described as metaphoric icon: there is a parallelism in the translation of heat into an increased volume of the mercury column.

While symbols required interpretants and indices required their objects, icons have no such requirements. Peirce uses the example of a Euclidian diagram: streaks of pencil lead can represent a geometric line, even though the latter "has not existence".

Symbols are arbitrary and unmotivated, reliant on conventional usage to determine meaning. Symbolic signs are constructed, or "agreed upon" for given purposes in the internal or external world.

Languages are perhaps the most important symbolic sign systems: Any ordinary word, as 'give,' 'bird,' 'marriage,' is an example of a symbol. Furthermore, every alphanumeric character on a computer keyboard is a symbol, as are those things not specifically alphabetic or numeric: $, %, &, #, @, etc. Unlike indices or icons, the symbols are not signs without an interpreter or "reader."

In summary, semiotics allows us to make sense of the following argument: (1) marital act of penis to vagina sexual intercourse, which is performed during the ovulation phase of the mesntrual cycle, can cause interpersonal unity, just as it causes procreation. (2) A cause is an indexical sign of its effect. (3) Thus, marital act of penis to vagina sexual intercourse has unitive significance and procreative significance.

However, it should be noted that, marital act of penis to vagina sexual intercourse, which is performed during the non-ovulation phase of the menstrual cycle, can cause interpersonal unity, but it cannot it cause procreation. Thus, it has unitive significance, but not procreative significance.

4. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

With these terminological and theoretical clarifications I am now in position to argue my case in the following sections, but after briefly introducing my methodology as follows:

Research philosophy

In responding to key questions in this study, seven key philosophical disciplines informed my thought process, namely, metaphysics, epistemology, semiotics, axiology, ethics, logic and the applied philosophy of sex.

Specifically, sexual metaphysics pursues the question “what is ‘sexual’ being?" Sexual epistemology pursues the question, "how do we get the knowledge of our ‘sexual’ being?"

Sexual axiology pursues the question, “how is our knowledge of ‘sexual’ being related to ‘sexual’ goodness? Sexual morality pursues the question, “how is our knowledge of ‘sexual’ being related to ‘sexual’ rightness,” and therefore, to ‘sexual’ human flourishing?

Sexual logic pursues the question, “how do we think properly about our ‘sexual’ being?" Sexual semiotics pursues the question, “how do we express our knowledge of ‘sexual’ being?"

And the applied philosophy of sex, pursues the question, “how do we apply our knowledge from metaphysics, epistemology, semiotics, logic, axiology and ethics to daily human ‘sexual’ lifestyles?”

The common denominator of these philosophical disciplines, as they apply to the present study, is the research philosophy that underpinned this study. It is called "constructive realism," which combines positive features of "realism" and "constructivism."

An attempt to combine constructivist and realist approaches, was motivated by the following facts: human cognition is based on the assumption that an objective reality exists outside the human mind and a human being as a cognizing subject essentially has access to it; that, cognitive activity is intrinsically embedded in the sociocultural reality; that, mental activity is essentially constructive; that, mental activity features the elements of sociality; and that, mental activity is not necessarily limited to the elements of sociality (Tcytcarev, Bazhenov, Amineva, and Pronin 2019).

Based on the above mentioned facts, in my opinion, the use of the ontological and epistemological concept of "constructive realism" may provide a conducive methodological framework for this study.

Research questions

Specifically, the present study was done based on theoretical and empirical literature review, which was supported by a specific to general argumentation, and then a general to specific argumentation strategy, namely, abductive argumentation. The following research questions guided the review:

1. What are the contents of the Ugandan discourse on homosexual human sexuality?
2. How can the contents of the Ugandan discourse on homosexual human sexuality be framed into formal arguments?
3. Are these formal arguments valid and sound, if yes why, and if no, why?
4. Given the above answers, what should be recommended to the Ugandan MP?

This research methodology presupposes an Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics, according to which, the nature of reality is fully understood when we know its existence in terms of formal, material, efficient and final causes, where, the first and fourth causes are more relevant here.

The first presupposition is essentialism, the belief that natural substances possess essences that are objectively real, rather than inventions of the mind or artifacts of language, and are immanent to the substances themselves, rather than existing in a Platonic third realm. For example, the formal cause of a brick is the brick making box, which can have a cubic form, a rectangular form, or otherwise.

The second presupposition tells us something about the content of reality. For example the matter of a brick is sand, cement, soil and water; while its form can be a rectangular block or a square block or a rhombic block.

The third presupposition tells us something about the coming to be of a thing, where the thing under consideration is a consequent that resulted from some antecedent. There is an etiological relationship between a an antecedent and its consequent. For example, the efficient cause of a brick is the mason who made it.

And the fourth presupposition is the existence of final causes, that activities and processes of natural substances are inherently directed towards certain ends or outcomes, rather than this directedness being imposed from outside.

The Thomistic-Aristotelian theory distinguishes between natural finality of the bodily faculty, such as an eye, an ear, a heart, lungs, and genitals, on one hand, and the consciously chosen finality/intention of the actor who uses these faculties, on the other hand. On this view, the good for the actor is determined by the ends which its faculties have by nature and not in one's subjective value judgments.

5. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS NORMS

Reverend Onen and others invoked an argument from religious norms, according to which: (1) God exists. (2) Scriptures contain the word of God and its doctrines express his divine will. (3) The word of God in Scriptures condemns sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), where the former category includes such as non-ovulative days copulation, homosexual pedication, heterosexual pedication, fellatio, tribbing, cunnilingus, armpit sex, thigh sex and inter-breast sex, between two mutually consenting adults. (4) Therefore, God disapproves of, and explicitly forbids, homosexuality. (5) According to Divine Command Theory (DCT), If God forbids or disapproves of an action, then it is morally wrong; if he commands or approves of an action then it is morally right, etc. (6) Therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

But, in a secular Republican state, as opposed to a theocratic state, this argument fails because it is not necessary that, every citizen accepts premise one, even if all MPs are God-fearing legislators, and therefore accept it.

Moreover, the religiously based disapproval of homosexuality assumes a divine command theory of ethics—a theory that even the devout believer should reject. God’s forbidding something does not make it wrong. There must be objective right or wrong, good and bad, independently of God’s will, otherwise we could not meaningfully praise God as being good.

If homosexuality is wrong, then there must be something about it that makes it wrong, other than God’s arbitrary fiat. This wrong-making feature would constitute a reason that would apply to everyone, not just believers in a particular faith. In that case, we should be able to find what these reasons are without relying on Scriptures that many reasonable people do not accept as true.

Accordingly, another argument invoked against homosexuality is that it is “unnatural.” It had three basic versions. The "Broader Old Natural Law Argument"; The "Thinner Old Natural Law Argument" and the “New Natural Law Argument."

6. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM BROADER OLD NATURAL LAW THEORY

Reverend Onen and others invoked the "Broader Old Natural Law Argument" which states the following: (1) That, sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), are unnatural for nonhuman mammalian animals. (2) That, whatever is unnatural for nonhuman mammalian animals is wrong for humans. (3) And that, therefore, all human sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are morally wrong.

This argument fails for two reasons. On one hand, premise one is false. The claim that homosexuality is nonexistent outside of the human species is in fact false.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in many animal species. One of our closest relatives, the pygmy chimps of the Congo jungle, frequently engage in same-sex liaisons.

Also, male lions also occasionally have sex with each other. In fact, some sort of homosexual activity has been observed in over fifteen hundred species.

On the other hand, premise two is false. It would be very odd to think that being “unnatural” for humans means that it is "unnatural" for other animals. That would amount to claiming that there can be no natural human traits that are absent in other animals, which is obviously false.

There are innate behaviors that are uniquely human, such as language. Other activities that are uniquely human include farming, domestication of animals, storytelling, division of labor, political governance, and religious worship. It would be strange to claim that all of these practices should be considered morally wrong.

7. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM A THINNER OLD NATURAL LAW THEORY

Reverend Onen and others invoked a “Thinner Old Natural Law Argument" which has the following format: (1) That, sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), are unnatural for humans; (2) That, everything that is unnatural for humans is morally wrong; (2) And that, therefore, all human sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are morally wrong.

The weakness of this argument is under premise one. The argument fails either if homosexuality is not unnatural or if being unnatural does not necessarily make something wrong.

It is unclear in what sense homosexuality is thought to be unnatural. The terms “natural” and “unnatural” are highly ambiguous.

They have several distinct meanings. We cannot assess the truth or falsity of the claim that homosexuality is unnatural until we know exactly what it means to be natural or unnatural. Homosexuality might be unnatural in some sense or other but might be quite natural in another sense.

Here are some of the various things that might be meant by the term “unnatural.” When we say an activity is unnatural, we might mean that it is unhealthy, abnormal, awkward or uncomfortable (as in “he has a very unnatural walk”), unfamiliar (as in “Chinese music sounds very unnatural to me”), contrary to instinct, not innate, artificial (i.e., being the product of human invention), or contrived.

Some of these senses of “unnatural” overlap, but many of them do not. To assess the “Thin Old Natural Law Argument" argument, we must first go through the various senses of “unnatural” and ask whether homosexuality is unnatural in any of these various senses—and if so, which ones.

So, the “Thin Old Natural Law Argument" fails if we can show both that homosexuality is not unnatural and also that being unnatural (in that particular way) does not make something morally wrong.

In fact, for homosexuals it is natural to be homophilic and not heterophilic, just as it is natural for heterosexual persons to be heterophilic and not homophilic. For this reason, the argument fails.

This position is well explained in terms of the Thomistic and Aristotelian metaphysical distinction between possession, privation, and deprivation.

Aristotle, in his book called “Categories,” distinguishes between possession, privation, and deprivation. The basic idea is that some entities are the kind of thing that can possess certain properties and others are not.

Although deprivation and privation are closely related, they are different in the key sense that privation signifies losing a property we had possessed, while deprivation indicates that we never possessed the property that we should possess.

From this point we can further distinguish between something possessing a property from the capacity to possess that property.

Some animals, for example, are the kind of animal that has the capacity to possess teeth. When an animal possesses teeth, it actualizes this capacity. If an animal loses its teeth, through a fight, then it no longer possesses them and suffers from privation.

Privation, then, affects possession, not the capacity to possess a property. It only marks when an organism lacks something it used to have for its proper function.

Now, if an animal has the capacity to possess a property, but does not, then, either it is at a stage when it does not possess it yet, or it is at a stage when it should possess it, but does not.

A newborn, for example, might not possess teeth, but that is because it has yet to grow them. If an adult animal is supposed to possess teeth, but never developed them, then it suffers from deprivation, not privation.

If, however, an animal is not the kind of animal that has the capacity to possess the property, then we cannot talk about it as either suffering privation or deprivation.

Worms don’t possess teeth because they are not the kind of animal that has the capacity to possess them, not because they lost them along the way or because something went wrong during maturation.

On this Thomistic-Aristotelian view, sexually active heterosexuals have a "possession" of a heterophilic orientation; sexually impotent persons due to accident of the spinal cord, say, have a "privation" of a heterosexual orientation; and homosexuals have a "deprivation" of a heterosexual orientation.

Failure to classify them as such amounts to a category mistake. And as such, it is illogical, fanciful and absurd to think of a causal link between homosexual orientation and procreation.

8. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM A NEW NATURAL LAW THEORY

Reverend Onen and others invoked the "New Natural Law Argument." This argument can be summarized in terms of the following claims:

(1) That, every human being is either a gynophilic human being or an androphilic human being, where each human being has an heterosexual natural inclination, and not otherwise.

(2) That, the only teleology of heterosexual natural inclination is the realization of the basic good of heterosexual marriage, which is exclusively specified by sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

(3) That, if a society wants its population to grow so that the good of human life continues on earth, it ought to promote the good of human life by exclusively protecting sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) and preventing all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

(4) That, every society wants its population to grow so that the good of human life continues on earth.

(5) Hence, every society ought to enact laws which promote the good of human life by exclusively protecting sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) and preventing all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

In my fair opinion, the new natural law argument, as summarized above, fails because its first three premises do not obtain.

The first claim, asserts that, humans have a dual sexual nature, which is mind-independent, being out there for us to discover, and which forms the basis of sexual relations. On this view, all human beings are heterosexuals, belonging to either the male camp or female camp. This position is scientifically false.

The reason is this: scientifically speaking, concerning the category of "human sexual orientation", four types are known, since the times of Alfred Charles Kinsey (1894–1956), the American sexologist, biologist, and professor of entomology and zoology who, in 1947, founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, now known as the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction.

They are: androphilia, gynophilia, ambiphilia, and neutrophilia. Attractions between a male androphilic and a male androphilic result into male homosexuality (gaysism).

Attractions between a female androphilic and a female androphilic result into female homosexuality (lesbianism). Attractions to both sexes result in bisexuality. And attraction to none of the sexes results in sexually impotent persons, otherwise known as eunuchs.

So, when it comes to human sexual orientation, it is not the case that we have an either heterosexual or homosexual scenario only, as the New Natural Law Argument would like us to believe.

The second premise, is problematic too, due to an inherent equivocation, as I proceed to show. It claims that, the only teleology of heterosexual natural inclination is the realization of the basic good of heterosexual marriage, which entails a subset of unitive good and procreative good.

In order to reveal the inherent equivocation, it is necessary to first explain the similarities and differences between a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) and a sexual act which is extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

By definition, a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) is an uncontracepted sexual act which involves inseminatory, genital to genital penetration, that is, penis-in-vagina contact, where the head of an erect penis is stimulated against the wall of a vagina until when it becomes limp, provided that it is done during the ovulative days of the female fertility cycle.

Such a sexual act is the first step of the long sexual reproduction process, which, if successful, it involves the following cascaded natural "teloses": copulation, orgasm, psycho-somatic unity rehabilitation, fertilization, compaction, cavitation, hatching, implantation, organogenesis during gestation, delivery, parenting, and grandparenting.

Opposed to uncontracepted ovulative days copulation are all other sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

They include non-ovulative days copulation, contracepted ovulative days ccopulation, male genital to mouth sex (irrumation), mouth to male genital sex (felatio), mouth to female genital sex (cunnilingus), genital to anus sex (pedication), genital to armpit sex, genital to thighs sex (inter-crural sex), genital to breasts sex (inter breast sex). In each case, the head of an erect penis is stimulated against the wall of a given cavity until when it becomes limp.

On one hand, there are many similarities between these two classes of sexual acts. The first similarity is that, they both exploit the sexual response cycle, either as a means to some end or as an end in itself.

The sexual response cycle has four steps: excitement, plateau, orgasm and resolution phases.

Phase one is the excitement phase, in which, for the man, the penis becomes erect due to the flow of blood into the penile tissues and, for the woman, there is moistening of the vagina, enlarged breasts, and tensing of the muscles with increased breathing and heart rate.

Phase two is the plateau phase, the entry of the penis into the vagina, further quickening of the heart and breathing, mounting erotic pleasure, and the appearance of a flush on both bodies.

Phase three, the climax, discharge of semen by the male and a number of orgasmic muscle spasms by the female, is the moment of greatest pleasure and ecstasy, the moment sought in every act of intercourse. This pleasure is, of course, quite individual.

Phase four is the resolution phase, in which the couple relax and blood pressure and respiration return to normal. A unifying component of these various physical stages of the sexual act is physical pleasure.

That is, each step is accompanied by erotic pleasure, which intensifies gradually from the first to the last phase.

The second similarity is that, they both facilitate spatial unity resulting from the common space which is occupied by the mating pair, temporal unity resulting from the common time segment which is occupied by the mating pair, psychological unity resulting from mutual consent which is exchanged by the mating pair, and praxiological unity resulting from cooperation in the performance of a single activity of copulation, in order to realize some mutually agreed goal, which is otherwise impossible.

On the other hand, there are several differences between sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), on one hand, and sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), on the other hand.

The first difference is that, under proper circumstances, a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) can cause pregnancy. Hence actual procreative unity between the mating pair is possible via SAUPIT, as a result of pregnancy.

Technically speaking, this is to say that, a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) is a potential cause of pregnancy. It is a probable producer of an effect called pregnancy.

Against this scientific background, it is right to say that, an heterosexual natural inclination has cascaded reproductive and non-reproductive teleologies, which are spread across the sexual reproduction cycle.

Only copulation, delivery, and parenting are under human choice. In short, the sexual reproduction cycle is a process of transmitting life from heterosexually complimentary parents to their children and grandchildren.

By reason of its physiological and psychological rehabilitative nature, it is intra-personally unitive, this being an extrinsic unity, yet a basic good of human nature.

And by reason of its procreative nature it is inter-personally unitive and inter-generationally unitive, each of the latter two being an intrinsic unity.

However, for a sexual act which is extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) the probability of procreation is zero. This discussion concludes the first difference between a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) and a sexual act which is extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

The second difference between a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) and a sexual act which is extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) is that, SAIPIT is both extrinsically and intrinsically unitive while SAEBIT is extrinsically unitive only.

Second, uncontracepted ovulative days copulation intrinsically unites the mating pair at a procreative level, via the first step of sexual reproduction process, which is called copulation.

This act triggers the sexual reproduction process, which may or may not succeed to cause conception. So, it is physiologically unitive in token and procreatively unitive in type.

And thirdly, when conception succeeds, uncontracepted ovulative days copulation actually and intrinsically unites the mating pair at a procreative level, via pregnancy, and a subsequent babe.

On this view, only uncontracepted ovulative days copulation can simultaneously promote the goods of intra-personal unity (body-self integrity), inter-personal unity (friendship), and inter-generational unity (procreation), which are members of the set of basic goods of human nature, which set provides right reasons for moral human action.

Beyond ovulative days uncontracepted copulation, all other known sexual activities are sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT). So, the similarities and differences between sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) and sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), reveal several facts:

One, there is a non-reproductive teleology resulting sexual mating which is: body-self integration that results from the standard sexual response cycle. This teleology does not require reproduction as a necessary consequence. It can be realized via sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) or sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), such as temporarily contracepted sex.

Two, there is another non-reproductive teleology resulting sexual mating which is interpersonal unity. This comes about by reason of the hormone of oxytocin, called the binding hormone.

Naturally, orgasm leads to the production of this hormone. It creates a chemical bond that makes lovers frequently think about each other after the first encounter, based on a phenomenon called "sex afterglow."

This way sexual encounters force lovers to communicate and most often to commune together under one roof either as regular sexual partners or as husband and wife. This is now the interpersonal unitive teleology of sexual mating.

And three, non-ovulative days copulation, is a sexual act that is extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to ovulative days copulation which is a sexual act that is intrinsically unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT).

Yet, both of these sexual acts are regularly performed by heterosexual couples, as morally good and legally permitted sexual acts. They are a means by which the good of body-self unity, or body-self integration, and interpersonal unity are realised.

So, in stock taking, we can say that, under premise two, the main problem is that it overtly posits two sexual goods: the unitive good and procreative good.

However, when equivocation is ironed out under the term "unitive good" it becomes obvious that, we are talking about both intra-personal unity and inter-personal unity.

So, the third sexually promoted good which is never mentioned is intra-personal unity, also known as body-self unity or body-self integration. Once this fact is taken into account, the New Natural Law Argument runs into troubles.

The good of body-self unity, or body-self integration, justifies sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), without dpending on procreation. It gives the non-procreative reason for non-ovulative days copulation, and copulation between infertile marriage, either due to disease or age or otherwise.

On this view, the challenge for the advocates of the new natural law argument is to explain why heterosexual partners have a right to sexually pursue the good of body-self unity through sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), but homosexual partners do not have such a right. This fact alone problematizes premise two.

And the third premise under the new natural law argument, fails too. It claims that, the role of government is to promote and facilitate the achievement of basic human goods, by formulating and enforcing statutes which prohibit all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

The reason this premise fails is that, sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), such as non-ovulative days copulation, are needed to promote the basic goods of intra-personal and interpersonal unity in heterosexual marriage.

So, on this view, in order for them to argue against pedication and support non-ovulative days copulation, they have to argue from the essential difference between copulation and pedication, and then argue for the superiority of non-ovulative days copulation, in a way that excludes pedication.

Conversely, for one to argue for both non-ovulative copulation and pedication, one would have to argue from the similarities between the two, and then show that, their differences are essentially irrelevant, when it comes to moral analysis.

Either way, the issue should be settled by objective facts about the uniqueness of non-ovulative days copulation as opposed to, and as compared with, pedication.

So, if we can deny that there is an objectively unique and morally relevant nature of non-ovulative days copulation, as opposed to pedication, then we would be left with sexual permissiveness and toleration of pedication.

And this is the scenario which the new natural law argument seeks to block, at the cost of sacrificing all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), except ovulative days copulation.

They assert that, "ovulative days copulation" could be "procreative in type if other circumstances which are beyond human control were present.

But, etilogically speaking, we usually speak as follows: "given context X, action Y is a cause of Z." Then, based on the actual world consisting of parameter X, Y and Z, we perform moral analysis.

Circumstances outside this actual world do not have a place in such an analysis. So, this way, I have shown why their strategy is an unreasonable imposition of wishful thinking.

In short, I have argued that, when it comes to the similarities and differences between sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) such as non-ovulative days copulation, contracepted sex, pedication, fellatio, and cunnilingus, on one hand, and sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), such as ovulative days copulation, the "New Natural Law Argument" fails for two reasons.

First, it commits a category mistake, in which case, it wrongly classifies non-ovulative days copulation as a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), whereas in fact, non-ovulative days copulation is a sexual act which is extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT).

And secondly, it unreasonably, fails to recognize the fact that, both sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) and sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are psycho-somatically unitive, where, psycho-somatic unity is a basic good, hence, making SAIPIT and SAEBIT alternative candidate strategies for pursuing a morally good purpose.

Given this analysis, the question of whether to engage in a sexual act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) or to engage in sexual act which is extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), is a personal choice, depending on whether one wants to make a babe or to pursue some other legitimate basic human goods via sexual mating.

The logic is simple, and it is as follows: (1) If you want an effect, you have to trigger the cause; (2) procreation is an effect which is caused by a sex act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT); (3) Thus, if you want procreation, you have to perform a sex act which is intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT).

Conversely: (1) If you do not want an effect, you have to avoid the cause; (2) procreation is an effect which is prevented by either a sexual act which is extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) or sexual abstinence; (3) Thus, if you don't want procreation, you have to either abstain from sex or engage in a sexual act which is extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), provided that the latter is either morally good or morally neutral.

Psycho-somatic unity is a basic good which is promoted by adult and mutually consented sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), such as contracepted sex, masturbation, fellatio, and pedication, which are morally neutral human acts. Thus, adult and mutually consented sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are not morally bad acts, and they should not be criminalized. This way, the new natural law argument collapses into debris.

In short, I wish to hint that, both the old natural law theories and the new natural law theories, that I know, have no good arguments against the morality of a sex act which is barren in type (SABIT), such as pedication, when it comes to persons with sexual orientation disabilities.

For this very reason, I am of the view that, when Pope Francis said that, although pedication is a sin under the Bible, and that it is "not a crime" under positive law, he meant that,, homosexuality is not a sin under the natural law of morality.

9. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM DISGUST

Reverend Onen and others defended the Bill by appealing to an argument from disgust.

That is, an "appeal to disgust" or "argument from disgust" or "wisdom of repugnance." But, this is a logical fallacy. It is illicit to argue that something is morally wrong simply because it is ugly, or conversely, to argue that, something is morally good because it is beautiful.

In Latin, it is called an "argumentum ad fastidium." The fallacy goes like this: "(1) X is disgusting; (2) Disgusting things are morally wrong; (3) Thus, X is morally wrong."

Here, X stands for some thing or some action that the person making the argument is against, in this case pedication as opposed to copulation. But premise two is subjectively true, depending on ones cultural values, hence making the argument fall flat.

This argument falls quickly. Disgust is an aversion or discomfort directed at certain specific things. For example, most people are naturally disgusted by bodily fluids like fecal matter, urine, and semen. And for sure, feelings of disgust tend to drive intuitive attitudes of moral disapproval.

But just because feelings of disgust tend to drive intuitive attitudes of moral disapproval agsinst some conduct, say homosexual or heterosexual pedication, that does that mean that these feelings of disgust give any legitimate reason to think that homosexual pedication is disgusting, everywhere, every time and for every one.

It has been scientifically established that, revulsion-disgust is an automatic, socially learned emotion that causes a person to recoil from another person or thing judged to be foul or unethical. Most adults have learned revulsions to many things.

They have revulsion to their own feces, for instance, though any parent can tell you the fascination infants have with their feces. Their adult revulsion is a product of parental and social training.

So it is too with revulsion-disgust to homosexuals and their sexual acts. So, an arguments from disgust against homosexual acts and homosexual relationships is not a rational argument but a mere emotional revulsion.

It is true that pedication involves contact with bodily fluids. But so does copulation, fellatio and cunnilingus. Engaging in copulation fellatio and cunnilingus involves exposure to saliva, semen, sweat, vaginal secretions, and sometimes menstrual fluids. These are substances that most people, under normal circumstances, find disgusting.

Given all the bodily fluids involved in heterosexual and homosexual sexual mating, it is a wonder that any of us engage in any kind of sex at all.However, there seems to be a natural mechanism in the human brain to reduce our disgust sensitivity when we are sexually aroused.

As such, there is no good reason to think that copulation is naturally or inherently any less disgusting than pedication, tribbing, fellatio, or cunnilingus. Disgust at the thought of any particular sexual activity is a purely subjective matter.

Maybe some of these acts are disgusting to you, Mr. President; but they are not disgusting to every person, every where and every time. So, since disgust is a subjective reaction, it seems unreasonable to claim that anything is inherently disgusting. It cannot form a basis of good legislation.

Moreover, in philosophical, juridical and parliamentary debates, there is no such as thing as "disgusting language". All vocabulary items have to be assigned an equal status as tools of communication. This is necessary if we wan to maintain epistemically rich and logically valid and sound debates.

10. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM HETEROSEXUAL FAMILY INSTABILITY AND EXTINCTION

Reverend Onen and others defended the Bill by invoking an argument from threats to heterosexual family stability and survival.

They think that an enjoyment of a right to sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) threatens the stability and survival of the traditional heterosexual family, which is based on sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT). Their argument can be formalized as follows:

(1) Anatomically speaking, male and female genitalia are complementary anatomical systems designed for sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), where, each of these acts is a single joint function akin to the relationship that exists between a penetrative “pole” and its receptive “hole” or between a penetrative "key" and its receptive "padlock."

(2) Each of these complementary genitals signifies all known natural gender specific differences, where, man-hood is signified by the hard, dominant, donative, penetrating penis; while woman-hood is signified by the soft, submissive, receptive, penetrated vagina.

(3) Thus, the ultimate distinction between masculinity and femininity, between manhood and womanhood, between power and weakness, is the distinction between the penetrator and the penetratee.

(4) But under the culture which accepts sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), we will have to tolerate some men having penises functioning as defective penetrative “poles" and anuses functioning as receptive "holes,” just as we have women having clitorises functioning as defective penetrative “poles" and vaginas functioning as receptive “holes.”

(5) Thus, accepting men's anal receptive capacity along with men's penile penetrative capacity, requires us to somehow discard the hetero-patriarchal erotic model of sex and gender, according to which, the male and female genitals are complementary biological systems which are causally antecedent to intrinsic sexual unity which is premised on the possibility of sexual procreation, and not just parallel biological systems which are causally antecedent to psycho-somatic unity, which is an extrinsic intrapersonal unity.

(6) This acceptance will destabilize the heteronormative cultural system which is based on the notion that men and women are opposite, complementary pieces, whose functional unity is expressed in terms of the dichotomies such as strong versus weak, dominant versus submissive, aggressive versus nurturing, stoic versus emotional, sex subject versus sex object, donors versus receivers, penetrator versus penetratee.

(7) Thus, male anal eroticism subverts heteronormative categories and complicates norms of gender and power relations that the dominant heterosexual society wishes to stabilize, as a means of protecting power relations at the heterosexual family level, and will upset the youth and many people’s lifelong understandings of themselves, their bodies, and their heterosexual society.

(8) Heteronormativity is a worldview whose tenets include beliefs, values, norms, practices, and institutions that support heterosexuality and the related sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), as statistically normal, and therefore, fundamental within the human society; in opposition to sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAEBIT), where, the latter are often associated with contracepting heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals; and where, the said fundamentality simply comes from the assumption that, heterosexual orientation is “natural” while non-heterosexual orientations are not “natural,” but volitional.

(9) Therefore, the heteronormative worldview, which reinforces the presumptions that there are only two sexes, namely, males and females; that it is "normal" and "natural" for people of the opposite sex to be attracted to one another; and that those who fall outside of this heteropatriarchal erotic norm should be considered social deviants; should be the only legally sanctions social order.

(10) Under heteronormativity, the statement that, "heterosexuality is normal and non-heterosexuality is abnormal," is given a specific meaning in early childhood development (ECD), through the instrumentality of parents, relatives, peers, school teachers and religious instructors, with a focus on three domains, namely: sexual categories of male-hood and female-hood, gender categories of masculinity and femininity, and family categories of fatherhood, motherhood, and parenthood.

(11) Therefore, for the purpose of promoting an ambient public sexual health, which is conducive to ECD, the right to engage in sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), often demanded by contracepting heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals; should be outlawed, as they are against the order of the dominant heteropatriarchal sexual nature.

But, this argument falls quickly for a number of reasons. One, the existence of true hermaphrodites, also known as she-males, who simultaneously possess both penetrative "poles" and receptive "holes", and therefore, receptive capacity and penetrative capacity, has never been a real threat to the stability and survival of heterosexual families, which are based on the heteropatriarchal sexual model.

Two, the existence of priestly celibates, Biblically known as self-made eunuchs; congenital eunuchs, popularly known as sexually impotent persons; and those having acquired sexual impotence due to accidents; has never been a real threat to the stability and survival of heterosexual families, which are based on the heteropatriarchal sexual model, nor does the self-made eunuch Reverend Onen and other eunuchs of his type propose a law to criminalize celibate lifestyle, which is an obvious bad example to children who are expected to become future parents.

Three, the existence of urban massage centers, where female servants provide prostate massage services to heterosexual males by using both index fingers and dildoes, and in which case, these male customers have both receptive experience via the receptive back "hole" and penetrative experience via the penile penetration, has never been a real threat to the stability and survival of heterosexual families, which are based on the heteropatriarchal sexual model.

Four, the view that all heteronormative tenets are natural is philosophically disputed, when genitals and genital acts are used not as indexical signs, but as symbols and icons, where the latter two options are culture-specific.

The word "nature,” as opposed to "culture," always needs a qualifier, since it always refers to the "nature of a particular object,” such as the nature of fire, the nature of water, the nature of an individual plant or the nature of an animal.

It signifies the aggregate of the powers and properties of a thing and everything which takes place by means of those powers, but only what takes place without the agency, or without the voluntary and intentional agency, of humans. It often describes things as they would be, apart from human intervention.

So, when members of a given community communicate with one another, by using conventional symbols, such as written or verbal words, both of which are signs that express the ideas generated by them, after they have subjectively interpreted the natural environment which is external to their minds, this interpretation forms their cultural environment.

So, while human and non-human beings might possess the same natures all over the world according to the perspectives of the natural sciences, still, they can stand as signs which embody different meanings, depending on who is making the interpretation, or who is applying the interpretation in a given communicative action.

Thus, “nature” and “culture” are the two sides of the same coin of reality, where nature includes both physical nature and human nature.

For example, then, the term “human nature” means that dimension of human beings that is entirely the same for all human beings, such as anatomy, biological processes, and the subjects studied by the natural sciences of chemistry, biology and physics. It refers to how human beings are entirely the same through time and over space.

But, this fact does not eliminate the relevance of the specific differences between humans, say sexual differences, skin color differences, height differences, and weight differences, and how they are differently interpreted by different communities across the globe.

Social interpretations of human nature, however, take the same dimension of human beings and endow it with specific meanings and feelings within a well-defined social system. For example, many human beings in the world are females or males; but the meanings attached to female-hood or male-hood are quite different in different communities.

Many human beings in the world have children; but the significance of the first child as opposed to other children is quite distinct in different societies. Similarly, the significance of male babies as opposed to female babies, is quite distinct in different human societies.

And "penis-in-vagination penetration," often called "copulation," and which entails the penetrator-penetratee dichotomy, has both natural and conventional interpretations.
To see this fact, let us first define it as an act of inserting an erect penis into a vagina and stimulating the glans penis against vaginal wall until when the penis becomes limp often followed by male ejaculation of semen in the wet female vagina.

Defined this way, it has many meanings, which fall into three classes, since it can be interpreted as an index, a symbol or an icon.

As an indexical sign, copulation is a cause, and therefore an indexical sign of, the following consequences: ejaculation; orgasm; psychosomatic integration; fertilisation; implantation; embryonic organogenesis; delivery; parenting; and grandparenting; heterosexual marriage; a nuclear family of mother, father and kids; an extended family of kids, parents, and grandparents; a clan; and a kinship. It is on this account, copulation is said to be naturally unitive in type at an intrapersonal, interpersonal, and inter-generational levels.

As an iconic sign, copulation has a form which entails a non-arbitrary and non-conventional relationship to the meaning it conveys. For example, a road sign that marks a bicycle lane and has an image of bicycle on it is iconic because the form of the sign, in particular the graphic image on it, is related in a direct way to its meaning; both form and meaning have to do with bicycles. Therefore, copulation is often interpreted as an iconic sign of the following dichotomies, dominance-versus-submission, power-versus-weakness based on the pronounced similarity between female orgasm and epilepsy, reception-versus-donation because the man ejaculates while the woman gets wet and receives the ejaculates, and so on.

And as a symbolic sign, copulation can arbitrarily, mean any dichotomy by convention or consensus. For example, it can mean bread-winner versus home care taker dichotomy, male-professions versus female professions, and so on.

In short, the area covering the way human societies interpret identical physical and human natures is called the social dimension or the cultural dimension.

So, while human and non-human beings might be the same all over the world according to the perspectives of the natural sciences, they stand as signs which embody different meanings, depending on who is making the interpretation. Thus, there is a one-to-many relationship between a sign and its significance; that, is between a sign and the signified.

Accordingly, a given object, event or human behavior can be interpreted in radically different ways according to the perspectives of specific cultures.

Five, one's legal sex is a determined by the application of socially agreed upon biological criteria for classifying persons as females and males. The criteria for classification can be genitalia at birth or chromosomal typing before birth, or both. But, the binary of male and female leaves out everyone who does not fit into these categories because of genital make up, chromosomes, or hormone levels. Such a discrimination is violative of the principles of justice, according to which, equals should be treated equally and unequals should be treated unequally.

Six, heterosexual fornication, heterosexual adultery, street children resulting from unwedded procreation, heterosexual concubines, celibacy and similar practices are contrary to the heteronormative culture. Yet we have not criminalized them, due to the difficulties associated with the enforcement of the related criminal laws. Consensual fornicators are conspirators against self-disclosure. As such there is no good reason to single out homosexual fornication as target of criminal legislation.

Seven, the argument that sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative (SAIPIT), are exclusively responsible for body-self disintegration is radically disconnected from the actual sexual experiences witnessed by the copulating and pedicating pairs, who traverse all the four phases of sexual response cycle.

Orgasmic experience is one regardless of whether it has been caused by sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) or otherwise.

Empirical evidence indicates that, when it comes to the pursuit of the good of psychosomatic integration, also known as body-self unity, and which is opposed to the evil of body-self disintegration, sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are not significantly different from sexual acts which are intrinsically unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT). They are both motivated by good reasons for action, namely, “extrinsic sexual unity,” “body-self integration,” and “friendship,” all of which are goods of human nature.

Moreover, both sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) and sexual acts which are intrinsically unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), are characterized by spatial unity, temporal unity, praxiological unity, love, respect, commitment, affection, and passion between the partners, and hence social unity.

Therefore, it is not false to claim that both types of sexual relationships are equally capable of creating a "union" of two individuals, which they actualize and experience regardless of whether it is an extrinsic union or an intrinsic union.

In fact, the assertion that many persons who form sexual relationships which are based on sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) suffer from illusions about the quality of their sexual experiences, is an assertion which is premised on illusory speculations engaged by those who make the assertion.

And even if Reverend Onen and others were correct that all sexual relationships which are based on sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are under an illusion about the real meaning of their acts, the claim that such relationships are "hostile" and thus threatening to the wellbeing of society and the stability of existing and future marriages proves to be empirically false.

Although similar assumptions have been also made in various debates around the world, none of the opponents of sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) has been able to provide any empirical proof of the alleged corruption of social values or devaluation of the institution of heterosexual marriage in countries where the right to sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) has achieved received reasonable tolerance. Specifically, this tolerance has been instrumental in alleviating unwarranted social stigma against sexual minorities and suicide amongst sexual minorities.

Reverend Onen and others of his ilk have failed to prove that recognition of the right to sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) is a threat to society at large because empirical evidence from many countries has clearly shown that its recognition has not brought anarchy or caused devastating consequences to people's morals.

Specifically, there is no empirical evidence that making homosexual fornication a tolerable option, along with heterosexual fornication, heterosexual adultery, unwedded breeding, polygamy, and polyamory, has induced people to abandon heteropatriarchal sexual model or the moral system which condemns the evils of murder, cruelty, or dishonesty.

As a rule of practical wisdom, it is now a social norm that, people will not abandon morality, will not think better of murder, cruelty and dishonesty, merely because some private sexual practice which they disapprove is not punished by law.

Thus, the decisions to outlaw the right to sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), are based on an unsupported claims that recognition of such a right constitutes a threat to “public health," hostility to the stability of marriage as a social institution, and a harm to youth morality.

In addition to the lack of empirical evidence support, the promoters of an argument from threat to public health and family stability have failed to construct a logical argument.

They argue as follows: that, to show love to someone means to do something that promotes at least of good of another human person, where such goods include life, health, peace, body-self integration, friendship, and knowledge; both sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) and sexual acts which are intrinsically unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) are means by which the good of body-self integration, as opposed to the evil of body-self disintegration, is promoted; and that, therefore, to express love by means of sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) is a pursuit of an illusion.

This set of three claims is a contradiction, since the first two premises logically imply that, to express love by means of sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) is a pursuit of a real good, which contradicts the stated conclusion. Logical contradictions of this nature imply epistemological crisis in society, and hence, a threat to epistemological public health, which is understood as the intellectual health of the population as a whole, especially as the subject of government regulation and support.

In short, as show above, the promoters of an argument from threat to public health and family stability have failed to construct a logical argument or provide empirical evidence to defend their position.

In the absence of any evidence of the damaging effects of sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) on the rest of society, it is illogical, unpersuasive and unethical to demand that relationships based on such acts have no right to exist and impose an obligation on the state to discourage them.

Once the basic assumption that only sexual acts which are intrinsically unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), can actualize mutual affection and, thus, is morally worthy, is shown to be false as a matter of rationality, logic, experience, and reflection, the entire argument against sexual acts which are extrinsically unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) falls down.

As such, the defenders of the heterosexual nuclear family are invited to fight the real dangers, such as adultery, unwedded procreation, domestic violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, and poverty, without resorting to totalitarian public policies which are violative of the principles of autonomy, unity in diversity, tolerance, and harmonious coexistence of persons pursuing different sexual lifestyles.

However, I wish to concede that, early child development (ECD), which is facilitated through the instrumentality of parents, relatives, school teachers and religious instructors, with a focus on sexual categories of male-hood and female-hood, gender categories of masculinity and femininity, and family categories of parenthood, requires a special legal protection against environmentally induced homosexual tendencies.

On this view, it would be proper to ban non-heterosexual teachers to enter the teaching profession related to ECD and to legally prohibit non-heterosexual partners to become caretakers of pre-adolescent children.

11. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM AFRICAN TRADITIONAL CULTURE

Reverend Onen and others proposed a Bill which was supported by using an "argument from African culture," as if Africa has one homogeneous culture.

While it is true that, the majority of Africans are heterosexuals, it is self-deception and "aggravated" hypocrisy to think that there were no homosexuals in pre-colonial African, and that they don't exist in post-colonial Africa.

Homosexuality is both a biological and cultural question both in pre-colonial and post-colonial Africa. In fact, Tanzania has one good example of pre-colonial and post-colonial homosexual culture.

I am talking about homosexual marriages, called "nyumba ntobo", which are headed by "female husbands," around Lake Victoria Region, amongst the "Kurya" tribe. The United Nations Association of Tanzania once did a good research on this matter.

So, when we look at this matter from a cultural perspective, the logical argument lacks merit. Yes, for the sake of argument, it may not be a part of heterosexual culture of love making to engage in pedication.

But, from this very premise, it does not necessarily follow that, it ought not be a part of homosexual culture of love making to engage in pedication.

To make such a logical inference is to fall into the trap of the naturalistic fallacy, since here, one illicitly derives a prescriptive conclusion from a descriptive claim. This conclusion is a non sequitur.

So, in the present case, some of our legislators, who have little training in the philosophical and biological sciences, have inadvertently mixed mangoes and oranges.

In my opinion, if the morality of pedication is an issue for rational determination, then an argument from African culture does not do the job. Better arguments are still needed. It is at this point that, scientists and philosophers should come in to rescue the situation. Through this letter, while acting as a voluntary statecraft agent, I am just doing this task on behalf of our Ugandan friends.

12. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM THE LACK OF SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Reverend Onen and others proposed a Bill which elevates politics and theology over scientific evidence, when they argued against homosexuality from the lack of scientific consensus. Their argument can be summarized as follows:

(1) So far, the available scientific evidence has discovered, not causal relations, but correlational relations between genetic and hormonal factors and heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual orientations.

(2) In the absence of evidence for necessary and sufficient link between these variables, their correlations do not entail any causal relations between them.

(3) Therefore, while there is a correlation between genetic and hormonal factors and heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual orientations, up to now, there is no proof that genetic and hormonal factors do cause these sexual orientations.

(4) Underlying the question of whether genetic and hormonal factors cause heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual orientations is the assumption that, if they do, then a given person cannot be culpable for engaging in a given sexual behavior, which is triggered by one's heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation, since one’s actions are outside of one’s control.

(5) But, since a genetically induced desire does not force any person to act upon the desire, every time and every where, no person is predetermined to engage in a given sexual behavior, which is triggered by one's heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation, simply based on the excuse that, "I was born this way.”

But, the first premise does not obtain, and therefore the whole argument collapses. I propose to show why this argument collapses based on the following counter argument:

There is conclusive scientific evidence showing that heterosexuality is caused by genetic and hormonal factors. Similar effects are brought about by similar causes. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are similar effects. Therefore, homosexuality and bisexuality are similarly caused by genetic and hormonal factors.

An exception to this general rule, is observed in studies of monozygotic and dizygotic twins. The twin studies insinuate that “homosexuality" is not a trait similar to hair color, skin color, or eye color, since its concordance rates is no similarly 100% as it is for such traits.

But, Christopher Cook (2021) has ably explained this exception. First, he states the following:

"Research on the causes of human sexual orientation has been marshaled in support of predetermined and opposing theological viewpoints. Whilst acknowledging that there is still much that is not known, the peer reviewed scientific literature clearly shows that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to sexual orientation, with approximately one third of variance currently attributed to the former. Much of the known environmental influence appears to be intra-uterine and there is no currently convincing evidence that social environment plays a significant part."

And then, Cook (2021) adds the following:

"Studies of sexual orientation have almost all1 shown greater similarity of MZ than DZ twin pairs, suggesting a genetic effect... One of the puzzles in genetic research is that identical MZ twins are not always concordant for sexual orientation. A possible explanation for this, which potentially links genetic accounts of the causation with hormonal accounts [...], is that epigenetic mechanisms are in operation whereby certain genes are 'turned on' or 'turned off' due to chemical changes (methylation) during development. [Scientists] have provided an account of a way in which foetal sexual development may thus be impacted. At present, evidence in support of this theory is relatively limited, largely indirect, and not entirely consistent, but there is every reason to hope that future research will confirm or refute the theory."​

At this point, I wish to add the following qualifying explanation. In the exploration of what science can and cannot say about heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality, it is important to keep in mind that there are always exceptions to scientific observations.

Scientific knowledge is, not absolute truth, but relative truth. It is only approximate the truth at a given time and within a given context which is causally relevant. That is, scientific facts always have exceptions. For example, there is good scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer, but some long-term smokers do not die from cancer. Still, science is the best tool for understanding such a complex issue as human sexuality, which includes homosexuality.

Now, in order to fully appreciate this counter argument, I shall call upon the reader to refer back to the discussion on the origin of heterosexual sexual orientation and the related disorders of sexual development. The point I want to drive home here is that, unless proved otherwise, many heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and asexual conditions are congenital and not chosen.

13. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM THE KANTIAN CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Finally, Reverend Onen and others, also invoked an argument from the Kantian categorical imperative, variously referred to as the personalistic norm, by philosophers such as Karol Wojtyla. This argument can be summarized as follows:

(1) According to the Kantian moral theory, we should act only on that maxim by which we can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law (the law of universalizability).

(2) If everyone were to participate in homosexual act of predication, then the population of the world would decline to zero, and the human race would have committed mass suicide.

(3) Thus, on Kantian moral theory participating in homosexual act of predication is a morally bad act.

However, the following criticisms of Kant’s view is sufficient to knock down the above syllogism: Premise number two fails since not every person can participate in in homosexual act of predication.

The latter acts are only possible for persons have a hemophilic sexual orientation, namely homosexuals who constitute less than one percent of the human population, as opposed to heterosexuals who are the majority.

Moreover, Kant himself was celibate, as he never married. He thus believed that, not all human beings have a duty to marry and reproduce.

Moreover, if the Kantian moral rule is applied to celibacy then, as with homosexuality, then, it follows that, celibate lifestyle is to be judged morally evil, and yet it is promoted by many religious superiors, including Reverend Onen.

Modern philosophers have, therefore, found it hard to create a strong case for using Kant’s ideas when dealing with homosexuality. They often appear contradictory.

14. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM PERVERTED AXIOLOGY ARGUMENT

Reverend Onen and others have also invoked an argument from perverted axiology. I propose to formalize it as follows:

(1) Engaging in axiologically perverted human acts undermines human flourishing by frustrating our capacity to participate in basic human goods which are constitutive of human nature;

(2) All sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) such as heterosexual and homosexual pedication, as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) such as uncontracepted and ovulative days copulation, are axiologically perveted sex acts, where, where the basic human good that is axiologically perveted is heterosexual marriage;

(3) Thus, the homosexual conduct of pedication is morally wrong.

This argument invokes the notion of "basic human goods," which are necessary features of good life. They include life, health, control of one's bodily and psychic functions, the capacity for knowledge and marriage. They are both intrinsic values and a means to all instrumental human goods.

Assuming the central importance of the said basic human goods to human flourishing, it is argued that if we deny ourselves one of the basic human goods, or the capacity for it, and no other basic human good is seen as resulting thereby, and when pleasure is the sole motive of the denial, the act is axiologically perverted.

On this view, axiological sexual perversion is a specific perversion, where the basic human good that is sacrificed is marriage, and the pleasure that motivates this sacrifice is sexual pleasure. Perversion is morally wrong on this account because valuing basic goods is constitutive of our human nature. Thus, to sacrifice these goods, as we find pleasure in such a sacrifice, is degrading, corrupting, damaging, and immoral.

In other words, engaging in these practices involves a perverse failure to make use of our capacities and opportunities, and so live a less good life than we might otherwise.

Then, perverse desires – sexual or otherwise – are ones that significantly hamper human flourishing, that work powerfully against self-development, that importantly constrict life possibilities, and so impede realization of the kind of life a rational person would on reflection most want to have.

Pursuing such desires, rather than the more fulfilling "ideal sex", is immoral because in doing so we fail to fulfil the duty we have to ourselves to try to flourish. Instead, we knowingly undermine our own self-development.

This argument fails because it carelessly commits a category mistake, by failing to distinguish heterosexual human nature as opposed to homosexual human nature. Let me explain this flaw fully.

Following Thomas Aquinas, the proponents of this Argument have sophistically organized their account of sexual morality around the good of marriage, without regard to the fact that, the prevalence of non-marital sexual acts is higher than the prevalence of sexual acts, where, the former requires its own explanation without being necessarily tied to marital sexual morality.

On their view, and which I fully accept, the good of heterosexual marriage is one of the basic human goods to which heterosexual human choice and action are directed by the first principles of practical reason.

They think and teach that, heterosexual sex acts are immoral when they are against the good of heterosexual marriage, and therefore unreasonable and, in as much as unreasonable, heterosexually unnatural.

On their view, considered precisely as kinds of morally bad heterosexual sex, all wrongful heterosexual sex acts are more seriously immoral the more distant they are from heterosexual marital sexual intercourse.

They are busy formulating arguments that seek to show how various kinds of heterosexual sex acts, such as heterosexual solitary masturbation and heterosexual pedication, even when performed by unmarried people who have no intention of marrying, violate the good of heterosexual marriage.

Then abruptly they apply this argument to non-heterosexual sexual relations, without any serious consideration of the fact that, heterosexual human nature is not synonymous with homosexual human nature, in so far as their respective differences at the level of formal, material, teleological and efficient causes, are concerned.

When this line of thinking is carefully analyzed, it logically follows that, "rationality" is a specific difference of the human nature, but it is not a specific difference between heterosexual human nature and homosexual human nature; and this "specific difference" when acknowledged, has moral significance which overturns the Argument, as I have shown.

15. A CRITIQUE OF AN ARGUMENT FROM THE PERSONALISTIC NORM

Reverend Onen and others, also appear to have invoked an argument from the personalistic norm to defend their “anti-homosexuality bill.” Based on what Kant (1959), Wojtyla (1993), Soble (2002) and Rickert (2009) have said about this norm, I propose to formalize this argument in the following terms:

1. According to philosophical anthropology, every human being is an embodied entity which is a center of biological life, feelings, conscious, intentional and intelligent actions, which is called a "person," as opposed to an unconscious, unintentional and unintelligent entity, which is called a mere "thing" or an "object."
2. Given that, means are usually entities that are meant for utilization, where, a means is subordinated to an end, and, at the same time, it is also to a certain degree subordinated to the actor, when one uses means, one usually asserts their control over them and "willingly" and "knowingly" uses them for a certain end or goal, usually only important to the person using the means.
3. Thus, since we humans use objects, and human person are above things, in that, they are subjects as well as objects, then: whenever a person is the object of your activity, remember, that you may not treat the person as only the means to an end, as an instrument, but must allow for the fact that he or she, too, has, or at least should have, distinct personal ends;
4. All sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), belong to a class of human acts which entail using one person as a mere means to an end for another person, without regard for the basic human good of body-self integration, which is also an instrumental good toward self-determination.
5. Therefore, all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), are violative of the personalistic norm.
6. Every human act which violates the personalistic norm is morally evil.
7. Thus, all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), are morally evil.

This argument fails because premises number three, four and five, do not listen to each other, and hence do not constitute a sound argument.

Specifically, in reference to premise number four, it is not the case that, all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), as opposed to sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), belong to a class of human acts which entail using one person as a mere means to an end for another person, without regard for the basic human good of body-self integration.

This fact is simple to grasp if we carefully note the following taxonomy of sexual acts: We have marital sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (marital SAEBIT), non-marital sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (non-marital SAEBIT), marital sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (marital SAIPIT), and non-marital sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (non-marital SAIPIT).

In light of this taxonomy, we can now ask the following question: Given marital SAEBIT, marital SAIPIT, non-marital SAEBIT and non-marital SAIPIT, which sexual acts do effectively eliminate the possibility of sexual use between a copulating pair?

Given our understanding of the sexual response cycle, the clear answer is none. Let me explain. The sexual response cycle has four steps: excitement, plateau, orgasm and resolution phases.

Phase one is the excitement phase, in which, for the man, the penis becomes erect due to the flow of blood into the penile tissues and, for the woman, there is moistening of the vagina, enlarged breasts, and tensing of the muscles with increased breathing and heart rate.

Phase two is the plateau phase, the entry of the penis into the vagina, further quickening of the heart and breathing, mounting erotic pleasure, and the appearance of a flush on both bodies.

Phase three, the climax, discharge of semen by the male and a number of orgasmic muscle spasms by the female, is the moment of greatest pleasure and ecstasy, the moment sought in every act of intercourse. This pleasure is, of course, quite individual.

Phase four is the resolution phase, in which the couple relax and blood pressure and respiration return to normal. A unifying component of these various physical stages of the sexual act is physical pleasure.

That is, this sexual response cycle is a common denominator between marital SAEBIT, marital SAIPIT, non-marital SAEBIT and non-marital SAIPIT.

Then, the truth of the matter is that, both sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), plus sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), belong to a class of human acts which entail using one person as a mere means to an end for another person, in a way that, ultimately promotes the basic human good of body-self integration.

Moreover, even if sexual use persists, both in marriage and outside marriage, just as it is the case in both sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) and sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), it is not the case that, every instance of sexual use violates the personalistic norm, though premise number five claim otherwise.

The cases of prostitution, fornication and adultery testify to this fact. In none of these acts is it necessary that one use the other merely as a means to an end. Each involves some degree of use, but there is no reason to conclude that people involved in these acts do not intend goods or ends benefiting, belonging to, and willed by the other.

It simply is not true to say that every fornicator is using his partner merely as a means to his own ends. He may very well be willing the other’s consciously intended end, while enjoying his own benefits that happen to be attached. There certainly is evidence that some fornicators place the act within altruistic intentions.

A young girl, for example, may agree to subordinate her own ends, goals, and purposes to those of her boyfriend. In this case, she is obviously not treating him merely as a means to an end.

Part of what separates fornication, adultery and fornication, to some degree, from rape, in fact, is that the other’s ends are not completely subordinated to one’s own. The other is not merely used for one’s own ends.

On the contrary, each agrees to cooperate and act for the other’s distinct personal ends. The discriminating fornicator will not accept just any means merely as a means to his end of pleasure. He prefers, instead, a partner that shares his ends as her own, as he shares hers as his own.

In other words, he would prefer a partner who actually likes him and freely wills to please him. Their mutual use, in contrast to rape, emerges precisely as a kind of use that does not reduce either one to merely a means to an end.

If acts such as these are truly cases of moral evil, they certainly are not morally evil on the grounds that they are instances of using a person merely as a means to an end. A better argument is needed.

For all these reasons, regardless of the formulation of the prohibition against using a person as a means to an end, the distinction, by itself, fails as a universal moral standard. The fact is that, we can, in good conscience, use a person as a means to an end. The means-to-end distinction, by itself, cannot hep one to differentiate good from evil (Rickert 2009: 663).

16. DISCUSSION

In order to accomplish the assignment, I set for myself at the start, I have so far tried argued for the fact that, a good account of the functions and meanings of human sexuality requires an account of at least five elements.

One, it must account for the function of sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) in the lives of adult human persons, and which accounts for almost 80 percent of all sexual encounters in the human population.

Concerning this point, I have argued that, sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT) are means by which human persons participate in the goods of intra-personal unity and interpersonal unity. The former is also called psycho-somatic unity while the latter is also called friendship.

Two, it must account for the function of sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) in the lives of adult human persons, and which accounts for almost 20 percent of all sexual encounters in the human population.

Concerning this point, I have argued that, sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) are means by which human persons participate in the instrumental good of human life transmission and the basic human good of human life itself. I have insisted that, biological procreation is not a basic human good, since it is a process, and no process can acquire the status of a basic human good.

Three, it must account for the relationships that exist between the life of human persons as non-sexual beings and human persons as sexual beings, that is, the relationship between human sexuality and the economy, the polity, the society, marriage, the family, education, religion, and other known social institutions.

For this purpose, the different objective and subjective meanings of sexual intercourse must be unpacked, based on the distinctions that exist between symbolic, iconic and indexical signs.

And four, it must provide a minimally plausible account of human sexuality that goes beyond the binary, heterosexist analysis of human nature, since it makes it possible for us to speak to, and about, non-heterosexual human beings and their experiences in meaningful ways, even if they constitute a minority which is not recognized by religious scriptures.

At a methodological level, the present study was guided by the research philosophy of "constructive realism," which combines positive features of "realism" and "constructivism."

This methodology was assisted by ten theories in an attempt to capture and describe key facts pertaining to human sexuality. They are:

A theory of personalistic morality, which assisted me to lay down key anthropologcal principles such as autonomy, rationality and embodiment of the human person; a theory of mereological unity and diversity, which allowed me to explain different forms of sexual unity; a theory of sexual reproduction, which allowed me to explain well the difference between the basic good of concrete human life and the instrumental good of human life transmission, which is a biological process;

A theory of old natural law, which allowed me to reveal the weaknesses of the perverted faculty argument; a theory of new natural law, which allowed me to emphasize the positive relationship between the basic good of intra-personal unity and sexual intercourse, the latter being instrumental toward the realisation of the former;

A theory of causality, which allowed me to explain the etiological distinction between genital-to-genital sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT) and genital-to-genital sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT); a theory of subsidiary-spherical sovereignty, which allowed me to explain the limitations upon governmental intervention in the sexual sphere;

A theory of sexual development and differentiation, which allowed me to show the role of hormones and genes in the development of one's sexual orientation; a theory of disorders of sexual development, which allowed me to explain the scientific origin of the non-binary sexual diversity; and a theory of sexual human flourishing, which allowed me to explain the differences between heterosexual human flourishing and homosexual human flourishing.

Specifically, I appealed to the theory of subsidiary-spherical sovereignty as an intellectual tool for organizing human societies in such a way that unity is achieved without sacrificing diversity both at the level of individuals and the community in which they live. This theory was complemented by such other theories as a theory of sexual reproduction, a theory of causality, and a theory of the human person.

16. CONCLUSION

At the start of writing this letter, the assignment I set for myself was defending the following thesis: that, in the modern democratic republican states, as opposed to the old totalitarian theocratic /imperial states, all mutually consenting adult persons have a fundamental constitutionally protected right to participate in sexual activities, where this right goes beyond sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), and is broader enough to include all sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), partly, though not exclusively, based on the congenital sexual orientations of the participants.

In light of the above discussions, it is my hope that I have succeeded to accomplish it, within the limits of the books available my digital library.

Finally, I wish to point out that, in Africa, talking about sex is often a taboo which is premised on the belief that all matters pertaining to sex as disgusting. But I believe that in philosophical deliberations there is no such as a thing as a disgusting language. I have intentionally broken this taboo, in order to drive my argument home with minimal linguistic hurdles. Once again, I have no vested interest in the topic discussed in this letter.

17. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

HENCE, in view of the above reasons, specifically, I call upon you, Mr. President, to make sure that the proposed Bill is adjusted so that, the following changes are made:

One, unambiguous definitions should be removed from the Bill, so that a distinction is made between a homosexual condition and a homosexual conduct of pedication.

A truly homosexual person is someone who has “a condition characterized by an emotional and psycho-sexual propensity towards others of the same sex” (Bailey, D.S. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (New York, NY, USA: Longman’s, 1955).

This definition is hypocritically contested by conservative religious critics, in my view, contrary to the available scientific evidence, and so we should not be detained by their criticism.

Two, the name of the Bill should be changed from "anti-homosexuality bill" to "anti-pedication bill."

Three, the definition of "the offence of homosexuality" under section 2 of the Bill has been revised by making sure that, section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Bill, have been replaced by the following phrases, respectively:

“2(a) Any person, who is medically certified as having a heterosexual human nature, as opposed to a homosexual human nature, and who performs a sexual activity which does not terminate into hetero-genital contact, commits an offence.”

And:

“2(b) Any person, who is medically certified as having a homosexual human nature, as opposed to a heterosexual human nature, and who performs a sexual activity which does not terminate into hetero-genital contact, does not commit an offence.”

Four, for these revisions to make sense, the phrase "sexual activity which does not terminate into hetero-genital contact" has to be defined in the proposed Bill as follows:

"A hetero-genital sexual activity which does terminate into hetero-genital contact belongs to a class of sexual activities which are procreative in type, meaning that, it has key properties which can allow it to be a member of a class of human sexual activities which have been procreative in effect in the past , where such activities are done in a natural human manner, meaning that, they involve sexual foreplays, penis to vagina penetration, intra-vaginal insemination and are done without any intentional human intervention that can prevent conception, if bodily circumstances allowed it."

Five, after these revisions, subsequent provisions should be revised accordingly, by using normal principles of valid logical inference.

Six, special efforts should be made to empower the Ugandan Parliamanetarians in the following areas: the science of human sexuality, the philosophy of sex, the philosophy of the family, and basic jurisprudence. This empowerment is expected to assist them to understand the distinction between sins and crimes, sexual orientatation and sexual behaviour, culture and nature. Only after such empowerments can the Ugandan Parliament engage in meaningful debates concerning human sexuality.

Seven, similar special efforts should be made to empower the Ugandan secret service department in the same areas of empowerment mentioned for MPs. In 2014, when you told the world that your special committee had informed you that one's sexual orientation is a "choice" rather than being a congenital condition, we quickly concluded that there was something wrong in your secret service department.

The same problem persists in other secret service departments in the world, including Tanzania. I understand that, their sexual biology, sexual epistemology, sexual ontology, sexual axiology and sexual etiology are still evolving, thought not evolving at an adequate speed. Specifically, I am not happy with their sexual epistemology.

For example, they use the "second to fourth digit ratios" as a confirmatory test for identifying homosexuals. But, scientifically speaking, this is not, and cannot be a confirmatory test for homosexuality. So, they too need intellectual empowerment, I believe.

And eight, given the prevalence of heterosexual persons, and realizing the unique importance of heterosexual families to the nation and humanity, I support a qualified discrimination against homosexuals when it comes to legal marriage, babe making, parenting and education of children.

These functions need an ambient environment for them to be successful. So, marriage and child rearing should be an exclusive function of heterosexual persons. So, legally speaking, I am against homosexual marriages.

Here the reason for my position restated: Heterosexuality along with economic status, geographic location, age, race, politics, and religion, is widely acknowledged as a basic narrative through which one's identity is forged. It allows a growing child to distinguish between grandfather and grandmother, father and mother, brother an sister, masculinity and femininity.

That having been said, in my opinion, within the context of a constitutional democratic state, these proposals strike a balance between the state, society, and an individual. This is the case because:

First, religious communities, whose scriptures do not recognize the existence of homosexuals are not thereby forced to enroll them as their members.

Two, philosophers and scientists who recognize the existence of homosexuals are thereby accommodated.

And three, without being partisan, the secular state which is at the service of the whole nation is thereby allowed to perform her role of protecting individual rights, including homosexual rights to life, education, health, assembly, and association.

This way, a charge of totalitarianism against the government is avoided.

In fact, the process of medical certification, when properly and timely done by trained and qualified professionals, so that the test results are incorporated on an individual's National Identity Card, may prove more cheaper than the process of reinforcing the proposed anti-homosexuality laws.

So, it is my hope that, these proposed revisions will make sense to you and bestow honor to the Ugandan Parliament, the Ugandan people, and Africans at large.

18. THE COSTS OF IGNORING THIS ADVICE

I wish now to suggest that, the cost of ignoring this advice is huge. Three types of such cost come to my mind. The first is the charge of intellectual incompetence against the Ugandan Parliantarins. The second cost is that, Ugandan history will be rolled back to the times of Germany holocaust which was sanction by the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler. And the third cost is that, the Ugandan history shall be rolled back to the times of Inquisitional holocaust which was sanction by the Catholic Church.

The possible charge of intellectual incompetence

According to Cornel West (1999:83-84), in his book, “Cornel West Reader,” as published by Basic Civitas Book, in the United States, a long time ago, David Hume of England suspected “the negroes … to be naturally inferiors to whites.”

He argued that, “there never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation.” His conclusion followed from the fact that, amongst negroes “no ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no science.”

Again, West (1999:83-84) reports that, Emmanuel Kant of Germany similarly argued that, “the negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling.” On his view, “So fundamental is the difference between the two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color.”

It is my considered assessment that, the decision by the Parliament of Uganda, to unanimously consider and pass the Anti-homosexuality Bill 2023 with maximum penalty of death sentence for the sin of pedication, without regard to the compelling scientific evidence available in support of the thesis that, both homosexual orientation and heterosexual orientation have scientific origins, with the former orientation being associated with disorders of sexual development, may confirm the logic behind the disrespect that Hume, Kant and their likes had against Africans.

Uganda can avoid this embarrassment by revising the contents of the proposed Bill, at a minimal cost. On this point, I wish to cite professor Martha Nussbaum (1999), who once said that, although the society loses much of its rationality when it comes to homosexuality and children harrassment:

"If we fight with any weapon other than rational argument, we will have given our adversaries the greatest victory that they could possibly win, that of debasing our humanity. But if we face the issue with good moral arguments . . . there is reason to believe that we can prevail over prejudice, both in the courts and in the larger society of which we are a part."

The possible roll-back to the Germany Holocaust era under Hitler

I suggest that, Reverend Onen and others have proposed a Bill that will roll back the history of Uganda and put it very close to the dark era of the Germany Holocaust .

The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II. Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe.

This was around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. The murders were carried out in pogroms and mass shootings; by a policy of extermination through labor in concentration camps; and in gas chambers and gas vans in German extermination camps.

Although Jews were the primary victims of the Nazi’s evil, many other groups were targeted based on both racial and political grounds.

Other groups singled out by the Nazis included homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled, Roma gypsies, Poles and other Slavic peoples, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and members of political opposition groups.

The proposed Bill proposes death sentence to homosexual persons, because they are defined as "subhumans." This is exactly what, Hitler of Germany did to gypsies, homosexuals, and Jews between

Todd A.Salzman and Michael G. Lawler(2008:49), in their book, The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology(Georgetown University Press), have clearly informed us how the totalitarian regime, under Adolf Hitler's Germany Holocaust program, killed gypsies, homosexuals, and Jews, based on the assumption that they were "subhumans."

That is, the Nazi regime in Germany carried out a campaign against male homosexuality and persecuted gay men between 1933 and 1945. As part of this campaign, the Nazi regime closed gay bars and meeting places, dissolved gay associations, and shuttered gay presses. The Nazi regime also arrested and tried tens of thousands of gay men using Paragraph 175 of the German criminal code.

The entire world watched Nazis herd gypsies, homosexuals, and Jews into gas chambers. Committed members of the Nazi Party interpreted the action as purification of the German human race. The rest of the world interpreted it as murder of innocent people. And we can only guess how the people waiting for the gas suffocation interpreted it.

But, for all three groups the action was naturally the "same," the herding of people into fatal gas chambers. For each group, however, the meaning of the action was far from the same. The meaning which prevailed dis so because of the principle according to which "mighty makes right", which is the normal warrant for "majority tyranny."

In short, more than 6 million European Jews were murdered by Germany’s Nazi Party during the Third Reich. Homosexuals and Gypsies were non-Jew victims of the holocaust.

The extermination of European Jews and non-Jews by the Nazi Party, left a horrific chasm in global humanity. Uganda, East Africa, Africa and the rest of the world have something to learn from this dark history.

The possible roll-back to the Catholic Inquisitional holocaust era

I suggest that, Reverend Onen and others have proposed a Bill that will roll back the history of Uganda and put it very close to the dark era of the Inquisitional Catholic Church, which is associated with the holocaust of homosexual heretics and witches.

The Christian tradition has generally proscribed any and all noncoital genital activities, whether engaged in by couples or individuals, regardless of whether they were of the same or different sex.

The position of the Christian Church with regards to homosexuality developed from the writings of Paul the Apostle and the teachings of the Church Fathers.

There has always been a war between sexual acts which are intrinsically-unitive and procreative in type (SAIPIT), on one hand, and sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), on the other hand.

Under this war, throughout its early development, the Christian Church was under constant threat by the religious teachings of Mani, born in Persia in AD 216.

His belief system, now called Manichaenism, held that evil was as powerful as goodness, contrary to the Christian view that the God of goodness was all-powerful.

During the early Middle Ages cults of this religion spread throughout Egypt, Asia Minor, Byzantium, northern Italy, southern France, the Balkans and Bulgaria.

Of greatest importance here is the fact that many of these Manichaean groups tolerated and permitted homosexual intercourse.

They went so far as to advocate its superiority over heterosexuality, on the grounds that the latter enslaved humanity in a chain of procreation which bound us to the earth and hence to Evil.

They thus held in varying degrees of esteem all the non-procreative sex that the Christian Church condemned: masturbation, male and female homosexuality, anal and oral sex between men and women, and group sex-play that wasn't designed to produce offspring.

Nevertheless the condemnation against sexual acts which are extrinsically-unitive and barren in type (SAEBIT), still, had more to do with church politics than with morality.

Most of these heretical groups, the Albigensians, Paulicians, Patarenes, Bogomiles, and Cathars, were rather puritanical in non-sexual areas and appealed not only to the common people, but to wealthy burghers and the nobility.

The Cathars were openly supported in France by the counts of Toulouse, Foix and Bezier, and the king of Aragon, and the princes seized Church property on the "religious" authority of the Cathars.

It is hardly surprising, then, that the Catholic Church branded these people as heretics, and used the homosexual charge as an effective weapon in its crusade against them. Any defeat of heresy meant the confiscation of more property for the Church.

When Manichaenism entered France by way of Bulgarian immigrants in the eleventh century, the word "Bulgarian," became synonymous with both "heretic" and "sodomite," and survives in the English language today as "bugger."

The Pope authorized anti-homosexuals crusades. The first explicit allegation of homosexuality against the heretics was made in 1116, concerning the Henricians.
From that time onward we hear more and more frequently that the heretics copulated man with man and woman with woman.

In 1209 Pope Innocent authorized the Crusade against the Albigensians in France, a policy which resulted in nearly total genocide throughout the southern part of the country, and by the time the Inquisition would finish its work in the seventeenth century, several million heretics and homosexuals had been burned at the stake.

But the first well-organized persecution, based on homosexual allegations, was that against the Knights Templars.

In 1122, Pope Callistus II issued a bulla establishing a lay religious community with specific responsibilities to defend the Church Universal, protect the City of Jerusalem, guard the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre and pilgrims, and fight in the defence of Christianity.

In total, as a result of these military needs, five major chivalric communities were established in the Kingdom of Jerusalem between the late 11th century and the early 12th century: the Knights Hospitaller (Order of Saint John) (circa 1099), the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre (circa 1099), the Knights Templar (circa 1118), the Knights of Saint Lazarus (1123), and the Knights of the Hospital of Saint Mary of Jerusalem (Teutonic Knights) (1190).

The religious function of the Order of the Knights Templars was to defend the Holy Sepulcher, and to safeguard pilgrims to it.

The Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is a big church which was originally built by the Romans after they converted to Christianity in the early fourth century CE. It was, they believed, the site of both the crucifixion and the tomb of Jesus.

But, it is believed that, due to the constant intermingling of cultures in that area, they quickly became adherents to the great heresy; just as quickly took up the sexual practices tolerated in the East, including homosexuality; and at the same time acquired vast wealth and property as traders and bankers.

By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Order comprised 15,500 Knights, an appropriate number of squires and lay brethren, more than 150,000 gold florins and over 10,000 manors, plus a few fortresses and Temples in every major city in Europe (including London, on the site now occupied by The Temple on the Embankment).

In other words, the Knights Templars were almost as powerful as the Holy Roman Church. Recognizing a threat when he saw one, Pope Clement V persuaded King Philip le Bel in 1307 to issue an arrest order, accusing the Knights Templars of sodomy, heresy, general abominations and criminal acts.

Philip himself was homosexual, but he stood to gain much wealth by outlawing the "heretics." On October 13 of 1307, Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Order, was arrested along with 140 Knights.

They were hideously tortured, and confessed to heresy, sodomy, cannibalism and a host of other crimes. More than a hundred of them were then burned to death, and 51 more were cremated in 1311.

The Order was formally abolished by the Pope in 1312, and on 18 March 1314, Jacques de Molay and his friend Guy D'Auvergne were burned at the stake.

Just before dying, Molay ordered his persecutors to join him within the year "at the tribunal of God". Both Pope Clement and King Philip accordingly died before the year was over. But before their deaths they had totally eradicated the Knights Templars.

There is a great scholarly controversy over whether or not the Knights Templars actually were homosexual. It is impossible here to sum up the evidence for either side of the argument.

I can only note the tendency in much recent scholarship to conclude that they were not cannibals etc., but that they were indeed "heretics" as defined by the Church, and that they did indeed engage in homosexual sex.

Their initiation ceremony is well documented and has the ring of truth in spite of being extracted by torture. It involved such things as stripping oneself naked, kissing the high priest or leader on the mouth, anus and penis as a sign of fealty, and engaging in homosexual group sex as a symbol of brotherhood.

Like the other heresies, they were theologically opposed to marriage and procreation, and taught that erotic tensions were better relieved with one's brothers than with women.

Fires and Faggots were used to burn homosexuality suspects. Homosexual practices were intolerable to the Catholic Church, particularly dangerous because of its own practice of celibacy, and the commonly-held view, whether true or not, that the Templars were homosexual strengthened the Church's already deeply ingrained prejudice against homosexuals.

This charge became a major weapon in the arsenal of the Crusades and the Inquisition. As mentioned, in 1209 Pope Innocent began the Crusade against the heretical and sodomitical Albigensians in France.

It was a wholesale slaughter. In Beziers alone nearly 20,000 heretics perished by the sword. Several thousand heretics who had fled for refuge to the Church of Mary Magdalene were massacred after the Crusaders had amused themselves by extracting out their eyes. Within twenty years a million heretics were exterminated. The Cathar movement was similarly expunged.

It is against this political background in which heresy and homosexuality were so closely aligned as to be virtually identical, that the great Church Father St Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) formulated his Christian sexual ethics: "right reason declares the appointed end of sexual acts is procreation," and declared that homosexuality was one of the gravest of the "sins against nature," which is still the official view of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and even Protestant Christian Churches.

Some commentators believe that the term "faggot" as applied to homosexuals is derived from the bundles of sticks or "faggots" that were used to burn the heretics.

Witchcraft, Witches and the Kiss of Shame were inseparable concepts, that led to witchcraft holocaust in Europe.

Whereas the Manichaean heresy was an Eastern religious import, witchcraft was native to Western Europe and the survival of a pagan cult. The heretics often came from the upper middle classes in urban centers, while the witches often came from the lower classes in rural areas relatively untouched by new-fangled religions, either Christian or heretical.

Nevertheless the very widespread witch cult was a stumbling block to the enlargement of Christendom, and had to be similarly destroyed once the more powerful heresy groups had been disposed of.

The Margaret Murray school of anthropological study argues that the witchcraft persecutions were primarily the result of a class war, or a new Christian culture stamping out a witchcraft culture.

The important point for us to note is that the witches, like the heretics, either in fact or at least in popular conception, seem to have often approved of all forms of non-procreative sex, partly because they were not prejudiced against any form of erotic pleasure, and partly because the production of offspring was inimical to a peasant population which could not afford more mouths to feed or further divisions of limited agricultural areas through inheritance.

Homosexuality was often an important feature of the witches' real or alleged initiation rituals and the communion we now mistakenly refer to as the Black Mass.

We have some well-documented evidence, freely given instead of extracted by torture, concerning the practice of one rite sometimes called the "shameful" act of kissing the arse of the "Devil" or leader of the coven.

It is first recorded in 1303 regarding the Bishop of Coventry, and is especially found in the records of the sixteenth century, for example: "Satan offers his back-parts to be kissed of his vassal" (1617); and sometimes his genitals as well as his back parts(1609).

Today the contemptuous phrase "kiss my arse" indicates a kind of humiliation, but in the heretical rites it was an act of humility and fealty, in much the same way that in an earlier era ritual prostitution was an act of humility and subservience to Cybele.

This "kiss of shame" is still found in primitive initiation rituals today, and even in college fagging.

After everyone in the coven had kissed the Devil's or Leader's arse, and sometimes his penis, they would have sex with one another without regard to gender. Then followed the Black Mass, which in the most authentic accounts is merely a Feast of Communion that is more hearty and friendly than demonic.

My main argument is not that the Christian Church was justified in persecuting heretics and witches, but that to some degree it was justified in believing that the heretics and witches approved of and engaged in homosexual sex.

Today so much sentimentality and polemic has obscured the witchcraft persecutions that we can barely credit the existence of witches; that we believe that all witches were women when in fact very many of them were men; and that we think the fertility rites were heterosexual when in fact they often contained a substantial element of homosexuality, e.g. in the form of mutual masturbation which celebrates virility if not fertility.

The detailed investigation of homosexuality among heretical and witch cults has not been adequately studied even today, just as contemporary compilers at the trials would give only a few details "as a warning to all Christians to take no part in these abominations," and then would draw a prudent veil over the rest, "and God forbid that curiosity should lead anybody to explore them."

In the book “Montaillou, village occitan de 1294 a 1324,” based on records taken during a heresy investigation in a village in southwest France from 1319 to 1324, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, one of the most distinguished French historians, establishes that homosexuality was "far from uncommon," and that the medieval villagers were very "permissive" regarding sex outside marriage.

One of the "false priests," and a homosexual as well, was Arnold of Verniolle, who in 1323 confessed to frequent homosexual affairs with students, some of them long-term relationships, and to picking up men in the latrines and in bathhouses.

At his trial in 1324 he defended his natural homosexual inclinations, saying "the bishop would have enough on his hands if he were to apprehend everyone in Pamiers who had been infected with that crime because there were more than three thousand persons."

The Pope Innocent VIII authorized inquisitional holocaust too. Once Pope Innocent VIII issued his “Bull Summis desiderantes affectibus” on December 5, 1484, giving the Inquisition full power to seek out and destroy witches, the sickening note in the margin of the court records is always the same: "Convicted and burned."

The tale may be as horrifying as that of the Nazi concentration camps, and the death toll as high. The story has been told many times, making us aware how thoroughly and perhaps irredeemably the Christian Church disgraced itself, how amply Christians made recompense for their own persecution under the Roman emperors centuries earlier.

What began primarily as a straightforward political deception to wrest economic power from the Knights Templars and the heretical cults, eventually became a mania so immense as to challenge our powers of comprehension.

A number of things can be explained in simple economic terms. For example, female witches were vehemently opposed by the medieval medical profession who were their economic rivals in herb-lore and midwifery.

What is more difficult to understand is what some historians refer to as the "anal obsession of the Middle Ages."

For nearly half a millennium the Christians of Western Europe were obsessed with a fear of everything associated with the anus.

Luther defined the Devil as a giant anus, and in much iconography we see Evil and Sin personified by farting, shitting, and sodomy.

There is no satisfactory explanation for this anal phobia, though no doubt it had something to do with what we now call the "anal-retentive" personality of authoritarian types.

Very strong pressures, such as the stake and thumbscrew, were brought to bear to "properly align" the husband's penis with the wife's vagina, which meant not only the suppression of homosexuality, but the enforcement of gender-defined clothing (witches were often persecuted for the specific "crime" of transvestism), strictly-controlled marital groups as opposed to the brotherhood and coven groups of the heretics and witches, and a gender-defined labor force.

In summary, the extermination of heretic homosexuals and withes in Europe, under the instruction of Catholic Popes, who at the same time paraded to be messenger's of God, left a horrific chasm in global humanity. Uganda, East Africa, Africa and the rest of the world have something to learn from this horrible history.

19. DISCLAIMER

Before concluding this letter I wish to attach a disclaimer, clearly stating that, I have no vested interest in the matters discussed here.

In writing a letter like this one, which argues for the fundamental human rights pertaining to homosexuals, one might expect its genesis to involve personal struggles of discrimination or sentimental descriptions of loved ones who are homosexuals. But the motivation for the writing of this letter is not like that. I am neither a homosexual nor do I have any close friends or relatives who are homosexuals.

There are two reasons why I have taken this step. First, it is a matter of justice. I am opposed to injustice of any kind, even injustice that does not affect me personally. I do care about human rights, and homosexual rights happen to be a part of human rights, since homosexuals are humans too.

The second reason is a matter of obeying my moral duty to promote the good of human rationality and demote the evil of human irrationality. As a public philosopher, I cannot tolerate bad arguments to go unchallenged. Much of what passes for debate on moral or political issues in our society today consists of rhetoric, slogans, name calling, appeal to emotions, and fabrications.

Even when good arguments are presented on one side of the debate, they are typically distorted or ignored by the other side, which may happen to be supported by the majority. In this case plausibility prevails over validity.

But, the purpose of philosophy is to promote critical thinking. We public philosophers question things that people tend to take for granted, assessing and critiquing arguments on both sides of a debate, and basing our beliefs on arguments and evidence, rather than on wishful thinking, habit, blind conformity to the status quo, blind obedience to authority, or irrational emotions.

On this view then, I am not an activist for gay rights, but an activist for rational thinking with respect o moral issues and public policy matters.

And it just happens that the homosexuality-tolerant-view, which asserts that, there is nothing morally wrong in having a homosexual condition, and that homosexual persons deserve the same rights and liberties as heterosexual persons, is better supported by stronger arguments than the alternative anti-homosexuality view.

So, the ultimate purpose of this letter is to promote critical and rational thinking on moral and public policy issues in Uganda, East Africa, and in Africa generally, without being detained by Kripkean dogamtism.

The detainees of Kripkean dogamtism have paralyzed brains, and many of them are African intellectuals, including professors of law and computing.

I suggest that, they have become detainees of this slave-master simply because they are fond of hunting Caesarian Friendship with their religious and political superiors, in a way that makes them embrace the Caiaphas Principle, as opposed to the Paulin Principle, according to which, we may not do evil so that good may come out of it.

20. SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION LIST

LASTLY, I kindly request you to use your office to to do the following: First, to share my letter with the Ugandan Members of Parliament, philosophers, theologians, scientists, the general academic community, and the concerned general public in Uganda.

And secondly, given that, you are the "eldest child" in the family of "global heads of state", and since other legal systems in about 67 states in the world are not free from the problem addressed by this letter , do the needful to share my letter with other homophobic heads of state, after appending your "elderly wisdom" to it for them.

21. KEY REFERENCES​

The following are the key references used when preparing this letter:

1. Abraham Maslow (1943), A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50.4:370-96.
2. Abraham Maslow (1954), Motivation and personality (New York: Harper and Row).
3. Abraham Maslow (1962), Toward a psychology of being (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company).
4. Abraham Maslow (1966), Religions, values, and peak experiences (New York: Penguin).
5. Abraham Maslow (1970), Motivation and personality (New York: Harper & Row).
6. Abraham Maslow (1987), Motivation and personality (Delhi, India: Pearson Education).
7. Alan Soble (2002), “Sexual use and what to do about it: internalist and externalist sexual ethics,” in The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2002, pp. 259–288.
8. Andrey Tcytcarev, Ruslan Bazhenov, Elena Amineva, and Aleksander Pronin (2019), "Constructive realism: Advantages of ontology and methodology," SHS Web of Conferences, 72:04009.
9. Bailey, J.M., et al. (2016). “Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science,” Psychological Science for Public Interest, 17:45-101.
10. Christopher Cook (2021), "The causes of human sexual orientation," Theology and Sexuality, 27.1:1-19.
11. Christopher Tollefsen (2012), "New Natural Law Theory," Source URL: New Natural Law Theory | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism
12. D.S. Bailey(1955), Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (New York, NY, USA: Longman’s).
13. Dallied Kien(2009), The Ethics Based Approach or Keys of Human Fulfillment (Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand GmbH).
14. David H. Mcilroy (2003), "Subsidiarity and Sphere Sovereignty: Christian Reflections on the Size, Shape and Scope of Government," Journal Of Church And State, 45:739-763.
15. David Oderberg (2010), “The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law,” in H. Zaborowski (2010).
16. Edward Feser (2015), “In Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument,” in Feser (2015).
17. Edward Feser (2015), Neo-Scholastic Essays (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press).
18. Elof Axel Carlson (2013), The 7 Sexes: Biology of Sex Determination (Bloomington: Indiana. University Press).
19. Friedrich Vogel and Arno G. Motulsky (2009), Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches (Berlin, New York: Springer)
20. Germain Grisez (1965), “The First Principle of Practical Reason: A Commentary on Summa Theologica laIIae, q. 94, a. 2,” Natural Law Forum, 10:162-201;
21. Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, and John Finnis (1987), “Practical Principles, Moral Truth, and Ultimate Ends,” American Journal of Jurisprudence 32.1: 99–151;
22. Gnuse, R.K. (2015), "Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality," Biblical Theology Bulletin, 45.2:68–87.
23. H. Zaborowski (2010), (ed.), Natural Law in Contemporary Society (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press).
24. Immanuel Kant (1959), Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. L.W. Beck (New York: Library of Liberal Arts).
25. J. Dmitri Gallow (2017), Seminar Notes for Causality (Online).
26. James P. Hanigan (2001), “Unitive and Procreative Meaning: The Inseparable Link,” in: Jung, P. B. and Coray, J. A. (2001).
27. Jennings, B., 2002. Quality of life, philosophical and ethical dimensions: Encyclopedia of aging. Available: Quality of Life, Philosophical and Ethical Dimensions | Encyclopedia.com (Accessed 24 May 2023).
28. John Finnis (2011), Natural Law and Natural Rights (New York: Oxford University Press).
29. John Finnis (1994), "Law, Morality, and Sexual Orientation," Notre Dame Law Review, 69.5:1049-1076.
30. Jung, P. B. and Coray, J. A. (2001), (Editors), Sexual Diversity and Catholicism: Toward the Development of Moral Theology (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press).
31. John Lamont(1998), “On the Functions of Sexual Activity.” The Thomist 62: 561-580.
32. John Sowa (2000), Processes and Causality. URL: Processes and Causality
33. Justus Buchler(1955), The Philosophical Writings of Peirce (New York: Dover).
34. Karol Wojtyla & Others(1969), "The Foundations of the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Principles of Conjugal Life," Analecta Cracoviensia, 194-230. The actual citation of this article is: “Les Fondements de la Doctrine de L’Église concernant les principes de la vie conjugale,” Analecta Cracoviensia, Societas Theologorum Polona Cracoviae Sumptibus Curiae Metropolitanae Cracoviensis, Polskie Towarzystwo Teologizczne, Krakow 1969, pp. 194-230.
35. Karol Wojtyla (1993), Love and Responsibility, trans. H.T. Willets (San Francisco: Ignatius Press).
36. Kevin Rickert (2009), "Wojtlya’s Personalistic Norm: A Thomistic Analysis," Nova et Vetera, 7.3:653-78.
37. Ken Endo (1994), "The Principle of Subsidiarity: From Johannes Althusius to Jacques Delors," Hokkaido Law Review, 44.6:652-553.
38. Koner (2013), D.C. Dutta's Textbook of Gynecology including Contraception, 6th Edition (New Delhi, India: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd).
39. Leon Speroff and Marc Fritz (2005), Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility.
40. Matolino, B. (2014), Personhood in African Philosophy (Dorpspruit: Cluster Publications).
41. Melissa Moschella and Robert George (2015), “Natural Law,” in The International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition.
42. Melissa Moschella (2019), “Sexual Ethics, Human Nature, and the ‘New’ and ‘Old’ Natural Law Theories,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 19.2:251–278.
43. Milton Rokeach (1954), "The nature and meaning of dogmatism," Psychological Review, 61:194–204.
44. Patrick Lee and Robert P. George (2008), Body–Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press).
45. Raphael Mary Salzillo (2021), “The mereology of Thomas Aquinas,” Philosophy Compass, 16.3: e12728.
46. Robert George, "Nature, Morality, and Homosexuality," in D. Forte, ed. Natural Law and Contemporary Public Policy, (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1998).
47. Sabina Alkire (2002), "Dimensions of Human Development," World Development, 30.2:181–205.
48. Todd A.Salzman and Michael G. Lawler(2008:49), The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology(Georgetown University Press).
49. Tulin Dzhengiz and Kai Hockerts (2022), "Dogmatic, instrumental and paradoxical frames: A pragmatic research framework for studying organizational sustainability," International Journal of Management Reviews, 24.4: 501-534.
50. Willian Norris Clarke (2014), The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics(USA: University of Notre Dame).
51. Yates, J. (1995), “Towards a Theology of Homosexuality”, Evangelical Quarterly, 67.1:71-87.

Yours sincerely.

Mama Amon,
"Sumbawanga Town",
Tanzania.

Dated: 30 March 2023.
Updated: 22 May 2023.

 

[Unavoidable Servant]

Mama Amon nilijuwa tu hili litakugusa, umri umefika Sasa uolewe umuache na huyo mwenzako naye aolewe.

Wanaume wapo kibao ni kwa nini msagane na mwanamke mwenzako?

 

[Mama Amon]

Mama Amon nilijuwa tu hili litakugusa, umri umefika Sasa uolewe umuache na huyo mwenzako naye aolewe.

Wanaume wapo kibao ni kwa nini msagane na mwanamke mwenzako?

Unabahatisha sana!

 

[Unavoidable Servant]

Unabahatisha sana!

Covid 19.

 

[Mama Amon]

Covid 19.

Bila Covid19 ruzuku hakuna!
Yaani!

 

[Unavoidable Servant]

Bila Covid19 ruzuku hakuna!
Yaani!

Nipo kawe hapa nakula salala ya mbuzi Choma.

 

[Mkoko kisu]

Sa kwel president ataweza soma yote iyo why usifocus kwa point

 

[Mama Amon]

Nipo kawe hapa nakula salala ya mbuzi China.

Gwaji Boy atakushughulikia... Ohoooo!
Ondoka hapo...

 

[Mama Amon]

Sa kwel president ataweza soma yote iyo why usifocus kwa point

Haya maneno 800.
Kwa daily intelligence report anazopokea huwa na maneno mangapi?

 

[Escotter20]

Uko sumbawanga upo busy na mambo ya nchi za watu ,huo mda WA kuandika utopolo so Bora wahuni tuku kamiee..shubamiti

 

[Mama Amon]

Uko sumbawanga upo busy na mambo ya nchi za watu ,huo mda WA kuandika utopolo so Bora wahuni tuku kamiee..shubamiti

Hujasoma vizuri.
Niko Sumbawanga Mjini...
Kudadeki!

 

[Unavoidable Servant]

Uko sumbawanga upo busy na mambo ya nchi za watu ,huo mda WA kuandika utopolo so Bora wahuni tuku kamiee..shubamiti

Covid hiyo, inakupoteza maboya tu.

 

[Mickbrown]

Nyumba ntobo wewe😂😂.....mnajitia wasomi wa Sheria mpaka mnakanusha biblia kwa mafungu ya wazungu . Mtajibia hii laana apa apa duniani .

 

[Mama Amon]

Nyumba ntobo wewe😂😂.....mnajitia wasomi wa Sheria mpaka mnakanusha biblia kwa mafungu ya wazungu . Mtajibia hii laana apa apa duniani .

ATR inasema nini kuhusu nyumba ntobo?

 

[BICHWA KOMWE -]

Asante sana

 

[Tondelo]

President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda​

Dear Yoweri Kaguta Museveni,
The President of the United Republic of Uganda:

A disquieting decision has been made by the Parliament of the Republic of Uganda, of which you are the top most leader, for about 30 years.

On 28 February 2023, one Reverend Fr. Charles Onen, who is a member of parliament of Loroo-Pece Division, prepared the motion seeking leave of parliament to introduce a private member's bill entitled "anti-homosexuality bill of 2023" in the Ugandan Parliament.

Apparently, motivated by the Biblical doctrine of sin based on the Old Testament, which is technically known as Biblical harmatiology, he proposed death sentence for some people convicted of engaging in "aggravated" pedication.

Uganda has no law which proposes death sentence for people convicted of engaging in aggravated oppressions, aggravated fornication, aggravated adultery, aggravated theft of public funds; aggravated bodily assault; aggravated political, economic and social lies; and other several aggravated sins.

This asymmetrical mindset, typical of pre-republican theocratic states which existed prior to the Westaphalia Treaty, and which sanctions the Victorian era of sexual ethics, has reminded me of the long time Western disrespect against Africans.

According to Cornel West (1999:83-84), in his book, “Cornel West Reader,” as published by Basic Civitas Book, in the United States, a long time ago, David Hume of England suspected “the negroes … to be naturally inferiors to whites.”

He argued that, “there never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation.” His conclusion followed from the fact that, amongst negroes “no ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no science.”

Again, West (1999:83-84) reports that, Emmanuel Kant of Germany similarly argued that, “the negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling.” On his view, “So fundamental is the difference between the two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color.”

The decision by the Parliament of Uganda, to unanimously consider and pass the Anti-homosexuality Bill 2023 with maximum penalty of death sentence for the sin of pedication, without regard to the compelling scientific evidence available in support of the thesis that, both homosexual orientation and heterosexual orientation have scientific origins, with the former orientation being associated with disorders of sexual development, confirms the logic behind the disrespect that Hume, Kant and their likes had against Africans.

According to the passed anti-homosexuality bill, which is below attached, the word "homosexual" means "a person who engages or attempts to engage in same gender sexual activity." This definition does not distinguish between a homosexual condition and a homosexual conduct, which is a very fundamental distinction when it comes to legal and moral analysis of human conduct.

It also defines "homosexuality" as "gender or same sex sexual acts". This definition too does not distinguish between a homosexual condition and a homosexual conduct. So, these disjunctive definitions are in conflict with known scientific definitions of "homosexuality" and contrary to best practices in legal and moral discourses.

The Bill says that, an "offence of homosexuality" is committed if homosexual felatio, homosexual pedication, or if homosexual tribbing, or homosexual cunilingus is done. It says nothing about heterosexual felatio, heterosexual pedication and heterosexual cunilingus. In effect, text analysis under paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) shows that the Bill defines the following offense:

“Any heterosexual or homosexual person who performs a sexual activity which is not procreative in type, as required by the order of heterosexual human nature, commits an offence” (my paraphrase).

Then, based on this ambiguous position, which coercively subjects homosexuals to heterosexual norms, the following sub-offenses and penalties have been proposed by the Uganda Parliament:

A person convicted of aggravated homosexuality deserves a death penalty; a person who commits the offense of homosexuality deserves 20 years imprisonment; a person who is convicted of promoting homosexuality deserves 20 years imprisonment; and a person who recruits children into homosexuality deserves 20 years imprisonment.

Also, a person who commits the attempted aggravated homosexuality deserves 14 years imprisonment; a person who has been convicted of attempted homosexuality deserves 10 years imprisonment; a person who owns the premises that promote homosexuality deserves 10 years imprisonment; a child found guilty of homosexuality deserves three years imprisonment; and a media house that publishes materials that promote homosexuality deserves a fine of one billion shillings and license revocation for 10 years.

If signed by you, Mr. President, into law, this bill will be an implementation of the biblical sanctions against pedication as found in the Book of Levites, chapter 20 verse 13. But Uganda is, not a theocratic state, but a democratic republic.

According to Biblical harmatiology, a sin is any rejection of divine plan; such a rejection entails rejecting God; and so, sinners such as oppressors, thieves, fornicators, adulterers, pedicators, liers, and killers of innocent persons are atheists, who deserve an equal punishment of death sentence.

But this time, the Ugandan Parliament has arbitrarily singled out pedication as a major sin, while other sins are classified as minor sins. Such a type of religious fundamentalism and asymmetrical thinking is unwarranted exercise, making Uganda legislators look like a person suffering from selective amnesia, a conduct which is so dangerous to Ugandan National Security.

Mr. President, when you commissioned a scientific study to look into the nature of human homosexuality, you taught the world that your office prefers to make decisions based on facts: “No research no right to decide,” you taught the world. And your committee members said that "their findings do not lend support for the draconian legislation."

But, this time, the Ugandan Parliament has ignored this wisdom. The bill recklessly uses the term “homosexuality” without distinguishing between a “homosexual condition” and “homosexual conduct.”

For the parliament aggravated “pedication” is a more serious sin than the sin of aggravated public funds embezzlement, whose culprits are jailed for seven years only! This is a ridiculous penal system.

Mr. President, the right to life, freedom of choice, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and similar freedoms are constitutionally protected in Uganda. The Parliament is not above the state constitution. And sectorial scriptures are not above the state constitution too.

Moreover, natural and social sciences have taught us that, homosexuals are human beings, albeit people with sexual disabilities, as a result of disorders of sexual development.

They need guidance, counselling and other assistances but not condemnations and harassments. I propose that, in the name of the best principles of justice, it is unjust to use heteronormative norms to judge homosexual persons.

Justice requires that equals should be treated equally and that unequals should be treated unequally. Ugandan members of parliament are not aware of these fundamental principles of justice.

For this reason, I am also disturbed by the "argument from African culture" as a weapon against homosexuals, as if Africa has one culture. While it is true that, the majority of Africans are heterosexuals, it is self-deception to think that there were no homosexuals in pre-colonial African, and that they don't exist in post-colonial Africa.

Homosexuality is both a biological and cultural question both in pre-colonial and post-colonial Africa. In fact, Tanzania has one good example of pre-colonial and post-colonial homosexual culture.

I am talking about homosexual marriages, called "nyumba ntobo", which are headed by "female husbands," around Lake Victoria Region, amongst the "Kurya" tribe. The United Nations Association of Tanzania once did a good research on this matter.

So, when we look at this matter from a cultural perspective, the logical argument lacks merit. Yes, for the sake of argument, it may not be a part of heterosexual culture of love making to engage in pedication.

But, from this very premise, it does not necessarily follow that, it should not be a part of homosexual culture of love making to engage in pedication.

Here, some of our legislators, who have little training in the philosophical and biological sciences, are inadvertently mixing mangoes and oranges, hence revealing the systemic weaknesses of our education and electoral systems, which have produced incompetent legislators.

So, if the morality of pedication is an issue for rational determination, then an argument from African culture does not do the job. Better arguments are still needed. It is at this point that, scientists and philosophers should come in to rescue the situation. I am just doing this task here on behalf of our Ugandan friends.

In short, I wish to hint that, both the old natural law theories and the new natural law theories, that I know, have no good arguments against the morality of pedication when it comes to persons with sexual orientation disabilities. Hence, the reason for my proposals below.

Specifically, I call upon you, Mr. President, to make sure that the proposed Bill is adjusted so that, the definition of "the offence of homosexuality" under section 2 of the Bill has been revised by making sure that, section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Bill, have been replaced by the following phrases, respectively:

“2(a) Any person, who is medically certified as having a heterosexual human nature, as opposed to a homosexual human nature, and who performs a sexual activity which is not procreative in type, commits an offence.”

And:

“2(b) Any person, who is medically certified as having a homosexual human nature, as opposed to a heterosexual human nature, and who performs a sexual activity which is not procreative in type, does not commit an offence.”

For these revisions to make sense, the phrase "sexual activity which is procreative in type" has to be defined in the proposed Bill as follows:

"A human sexual activity belongs to a class of sexual activities which are procreative in type if and only if it has key properties which allow it to be a member of a class of human sexual activities which have been procreative in effect in the past , where such activities are done in a human manner, meaning that, they involve sexual foreplays, penis to vagina penetration, intra-vaginal insemination and are done without any intentional human intervention that can prevent conception, if bodily circumstances allowed it.

After these revisions, subsequent provisions should be revised accordingly, by using normal principles of valid logical inference.

In my opinion, within the context of a constitutional democratic state, this proposal strikes a balance between the state, society, and an individual.

First, religious communities, whose scriptures do not recognize the existence of homosexuals are not thereby forced to enroll them as their members.

Two, philosophers and scientists who recognize the existence of homosexuals are thereby accommodated.

And three, without being partisan, the secular state which is at the service of the whole nation is thereby allowed to perform her role of protecting individual rights, including homosexual rights to life, education, health, assembly, and association.

This way, a charge of totalitarianism is avoided. In fact, the process of medical certification, when properly and timely done by trained and qualified professionals, so that the test results are incorporated on an individual's National Identity Card, may prove more cheaper than the process of reinforcing the proposed anti-homosexuality laws.

So, it is my hope that, these proposed revisions will make sense to you and bestow honor to the Ugandan Parliament, the Ugandan people, and Africans at large.

Kindly, use your office to, share my letter with the Ugandan Members of Parliament, philosophers, theologians, scientists, the general academic community, and the concerned general public .

Yours sincerely.

Mama Amon,
Sumbawanga Mjini,
Tanzania.

Uganda is not A United Republic

 

[Mama Amon]

Uganda is not A United Republic

Correction noted, and appropriate steps taken based on the following logic:

1. Uganda is either a united Republic or a disintegrated Republic.
2. Uganda is not a disintegrated Republic.
3. So, Uganda is a united Republic.

Note that, the unity of a compound thing, containing many parts, such as the Republic of Uganda, derives from the existence of an extra part which unites these parts together into a single entity.

For example, the human body has many organs, each performing its own function in a unique way, yet depending on other others, in the realisation the common goal of bodily survival, the phenomenon called organismality. So, the human body is one by reason of this biological organismality.

Similarly, in the case of a political community like the Republic of Uganda, the unity of this Republic derives from its constitutionally defined government, which promotes the common good of the Ugandan people. There is a political organismality here. On this metaphysical view, Uganda is a united Republic.

 

[Smart911]

Uganda is on the wright path...

 

[Mama Amon]

Uganda is on the wright path...

Although article 79 of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda empowers Parliament to make laws on any matter for the peace, order and good governance of Uganda, the Parliament of the Republic of Uganda has disquietingly exceeded her constitutionally defined powers by making a decision to criminalize a homosexual condition instead of criminalizing a homosexual behavior.