The Society of HumanKind


Questions of human sexuality are discussed and examined. The Society regards reproductive heterosexuality as both the norm and the preference for all its members. Other sexual activities and preferences are permissible provided they pose no substantial threat to the Aim of the Society.

The primary Condition of the Dogma is that our species should survive into the infinite future. Only with that time-scale can we be sure that continuous growth in human skills and knowledge will create the opportunity for humanity to discover a means to extend life beyond death and achieve the Aim of the Society of HumanKind. Given the inherent mortality of the human species, and the form and nature of its reproductive processes, achievement of the Aim of the Society therefore depends on the widespread and vigorous practice of reproductive heterosexuality as a permanent feature of human behaviour. The Society can allow no departure from that rule since a failure by any generation of humanity to reproduce itself will permanently remove our entire species from the universe. That point is more fully examined in the Essay on the Family.

At the same time, the Society also seeks to preserve the widest possible range of human qualities and characteristics through the succession of human generations, as a hedge against the unforeseeable needs and hazards of the future. That policy provides the best and widest base for an infinite growth in our knowledge. Any failure by any individual to pass on their unique set of attributes, qualities and abilities to succeeding generations will therefore result in a permanent decrease in the potentialities of our species, with consequent irreparable damage to our prospects for infinite progress and survival.

Put together those conclusions show that the Society of HumanKind regards the vigorous practice of reproductive heterosexuality as indispensable to the hope of our species for salvation. Both simple prudence and self interest therefore dictate that, in accordance with the Principle of Peace and in support of its Aim, the Society must be concerned to ensure that the human species retains the largest possible capacity to reproduce itself, even in circumstances where that potency is not wholly used. In short, the perspective of the Axioms and Dogma reveals our reproductive potential to be an indispensable prerequisite not only of our survival and our progress, but also of our salvation.

That basic set of propositions forms the main ground on which the Society of HumanKind builds its approach to human sexuality. To be compatible with the Principles of the Society any system of sexual morality we might choose to apply to our social lives must always have the effect of encouraging reproductive heterosexuality in all members of our species. The Society will judge that we cannot afford to waste any of that potential, or to suppress or curtail that characteristic where it exists in any individual. Quite the contrary.

The Society of HumanKind will therefore teach all its children that reproductive heterosexuality is both the preferable and the desirable, expression of their sexual identity and instincts. Beyond childhood, the Society will encourage and foster reproductive heterosexuality as the norm and preferred option in all sexual behaviour between adults.

As the discussion of this Essay shows, the encouragement of reproductive heterosexuality as the proper expression of the sexual potentialities of humanity is not the outcome of sexual prejudice or prudery by those who choose to work toward the realisation of Aim of the Society of HumanKind. It is not even disinterested altruism. It is simply an application of their own fundamental self-interest to this subject, whatever their personal orientation or preferences in these matters might be.

Beyond that overriding stipulation, our rules of sexual behaviour should then take account of the Principle of Progress and the need to preserve our social order. This will require the Society to strike a delicate balance. The requirement of the first Condition of the Dogma is that there should always be a high level of reproductive sexual potential within our species. However, its expression cannot be allowed to threaten the peace, stability and progress of our society, or the full and free development of every individual. This is an area of our social life in which our sexual impulses have caused persistent problems in the past, and where they are most likely to trouble the Society in the future.

The first thing to be said on the impact of human sexuality on our social stability is that nothing in this Essay, and none of the provisions of the Principles, should be read as restricting adherents of the Society solely to sexual orientations, preferences, practices or activities specifically directed toward the reproduction of our species. The broad concern to encourage reproductive heterosexuality, and to have it regarded it as the norm, should not prevent the Society from tolerating other sexual practices and activities, with one proviso; that no significant harm to the maintenance of either of the Conditions of the Dogma is caused thereby.

Indeed, the Society might see benefit in permitting some promiscuity or diversity in sexual preference. The reason is that variety in human experience, and curiosity about the limits of human potentialities, are both desirable in the light of the Principle of Peace. Any minor damage caused by deviations from the strict and exclusive practice of reproductive heterosexuality should therefore be tolerable by the Society, provided the behaviour produces no risk of a real change in its stipulation in favour of reproductive heterosexuality, nor poses any threat to the peace or good order of our communities.

That concession must not be taken too far, however. It will not, for instance, alter the fundamental requirement that those who choose the Objective of the Dogma (and hence all members of the Society of HumanKind) must accept an overriding duty to contribute all they can to the continued survival and progress of our species. A member of the Society may for example, therefore choose homosexuality, or some other non-reproductive personal sexual orientation, and be permitted to develop that aspect of their attributes by the application of the Principle of Peace. But their Duty and their own direct interest in the achievement of the Aim of the Society will still combine to prevent them from either advocating their orientation as a sexual preference or acceptable norm, or inducing, inciting or recommending others to take part in that, or any other, non-reproductive sexual activity.

In short, it is for those who choose such preferences to convince the Society of HumanKind that it should permit any of its adherents to deviate from the strict and exclusive practice of reproductive heterosexuality. Where it does make such a concession the Society must still insist that all its adherents, whatever their personal sexual orientation, preference or practices, should continue to discharge their Responsibility by doing all they can to foster and encourage a reproductive sexual orientation amongst others, and especially among the developing young.

In particular, it should never be forgotten that the Society's rules and precepts are designed and intended to apply to its membership, which is available only on the free choice of a fully mature adult. The Society of HumanKind can therefore never condone or approve any form of sexual activity that involves any individual, whether a member of the Society or not, who is under the age for acceptance as a member, or who is not fit or ready to take a full personal, responsible role in the pursuit of its Aim.

On the wider question of how the Society can safely and peacefully organise and direct our sexual activity, the experience of countless generations of our kind reinforces the significance of the Principle of Progress in this area of our social life. The most common mistake in these matters is to fail to define clearly, and then strictly to enforce, rules about who is entitled to engage in those activities, and with whom. That error will be exacerbated by any neglect to provide public ceremonies that announce and approve the establishment of those relationships, and any changes in them.

A conclusion reached on a similar issue in the Essay on the Family is relevant here. There it was concluded that, in the era of the Society, the rules and definitions that govern these kinds of close individual relationships cannot be permanently fixed, either for the present or for any future generation, nor can they be either uniform or inflexible. All the Society may properly say in accordance with the Principle of Peace is that, whatever they may be and however the rules dealing with sexual relationships are applied, variety within the limits imposed by the maintenance of the Conditions of the Dogma will always be preferable to any rigid conformity.

Beyond those general conclusions nothing in our previous experience is helpful in further specifying the best structure for our sexual and reproductive activity. A study of our history will however, reveal the importance of making very careful arrangements for the direction and control of these instincts. They are powerful enough to create us, and they are also strong enough to destroy us utterly.

Index (no frames) top Society homepage

©Lawrence Thornton Roach
2000-2002 AD