Saturday, 10 January 2009

On Homosexuals and homosexuality

Homophobia is a label invented for the purpose of making it impossible to argue against homosexuality.

However, I refute the charge: I believe homosexual practices to be wrong, and I am not homophobic: I have neither fear of nor hatred for homosexuals, and I have homosexual friends who know of my views, and who will vouch for the fact that I neither fear nor hate them...

So where do I stand?

I believe that human sexuality is designed (and I use that word advisedly) for procreation and love (babies and bonding) and further that that is self-evident to anyone prepared to look at the issue without prejudice.

But what about people born gay?

I do not have sufficient expertise to know whether homosexual attraction, or the tendency for it, is sometimes innate or always acquired (there is certainly lots of anecdotal evidence that nurture has a lot to do with it, in the form of weak or absent father-figures and early homosexual abuse).

However, even if they discover a ‘gay gene’ which proves that there is an innate tendency, that in itself tells us nothing about whether homosexuality is good or bad. There are genes pre-disposing one to cancer, for example.

This is believed by Catholics to be the result of Original Sin, that primeval catastrophe which allowed Satan some measure of dominion over this world and introduced disorder in to a good creation. The failure to teach about Original Sin properly is one of the major contributors to the catastrophic decline in Christendom.

The gay argument ‘This is the way God made me,’ rings hollow when one considers that it could also be applied to pedophiles or babies doomed to die soon after birth. Only the notion that there is some damage in the system adequately accounts for this - and therefore could also account for homosexual tendencies.

But surely what consenting adults do in private is their own affair?

Surely not! No man is an island, and private actions and attitudes have public consequences. At the most basic level, the ‘gay life style’ is an unhealthy one: the life expectancy of the practicing homosexual is relatively poor, and his demands on the health system disproportionately high. But also, those who argued for private tolerance are now arguing for public enforcement of a whole ‘gay’ agenda, including educating children to accept their view of morality and sexuality, and initiating the persecution of those who disagree with them.

Having said all of which, it is important to remember to love people rather than to hate them. It is important to remember that my sexuality, too, is damaged: the temptations of the flesh assail us all, and we should recognise that the homosexual is not unique in this. But just as I have no moral right (should I wish to do so) to campaign for free love in order to justify my indulging my lust for women other than my wife, so the homosexual has no moral right to campaign for acceptance of homosexual behaviour which is intrinsically disordered.


madame evangelista said...

Thanks for posting this, I read it with great interest as it's a subject I am struggling to come to terms with in the church.

"the homosexual has no moral right to campaign for acceptance of homosexual behaviour which is intrinsically disordered." It's this idea that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered ('objectively disordered' is the other phrase sometimes used by the church) that I really don't understand at all. I can't see any basis for it being considered disordered in the natural world. My cat is gay (although now he's been neutered he's just a bit fat eunuch rather than trying it on with the tom down the road), I find it hard to believe that is the result of nurture. Although, as you say, the natural world is fallen because of original sin.

Your definition of the purpose of sex to include love (bonding) doesn't seem at all inapplicable to homosexuality. If sex has to include procreation then that also rules out quite a lot of heterosexuals who may find themselves infertile. That's also very harsh.

I find the claim that a person is not homophobic because they do not 'fear or hate' homosexuals somewhat undermined by choosing to compare homosexuality to cancer or pedophilia should a genetic cause be found. As for having gay friends, that doesn't wash; I have met racists married to spouses of a different race.

On the other hand, the church definitely teaches that homosexuality is wrong. I suppose my real issue at the heart of this is, what kind of God would say that homosexuality is wrong? I don't think it's an unreasonable question. For example, I have heard many catholics say that they do not believe God would place anyone in a fiery hell because a loving God wouldn't do that. But that's just as much a subjective definition of the parameters of God's love than my question. (I don't know whether you are one of those catholics who believe hell is a 'condition' rather than a place of fiery torment, am just citing it as an example).

George said...

Regards the 'Gay gene' bit, readers may be interested in the following from LifeSite News last year.....

Foremost UK Gay Activist Admits there is No Gay Gene

August 6, 2008 ( - One of the untouchable dogmas of the homosexualist movement is the assertion of the existence of a "gay gene", or a genetic marker that causes same-sex attraction. The assertion of a genetic factor in homosexual preference has never been demonstrated by scientists and now at least one prominent campaigner in the British homosexualist movement has admitted this fact.
Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist who founded the "direct action" group OutRage! that specialises in media stunts such as disrupting Christian religious services, wrote on Spiked Online that he agrees with the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "gay gene."
Contrary to the findings of some researchers who have tried to posit a purely genetic origin for same-sex attractions, Tatchell wrote, "Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that's all. Predisposition and determination are two different things."
Homosexual activists have adopted the "gay gene" theory to bolster their assertion that any objection on moral grounds to homosexual activity is akin to objecting to left-handedness or skin colour. It has supported the accusation that Christians and others who object to the homosexual movement are racists and bigots.
Tatchell even went as far as to acknowledge the existence of some who have changed their "sexual orientation." "If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined... how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't."
Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow."
"Examples of sexual flexibility... don't square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination."
Bill Muehlenberg, a Christian writer and philosophy lecturer, called Tatchell's admission a rare and "refreshing" and "very revealing case of homosexual honesty." Muehlenberg said that he has been "howled down" by homosexual lobbyists for years for saying the same things about putative homosexual determinism. Whoever is saying it, he wrote, the conclusion must be the debunking of the myth that homosexuals are "born that way" and cannot help, or change, their inclinations.
The "gay gene" theory has been used by gay activists "to deny choice, to make it appear that homosexuals cannot help it, and to argue that any criticism of the gay lifestyle is as silly as criticism of being left-handed or red-haired."

And the old myth that 'science proves that homosexuality is rife in the animal kingdom' argument also falls on stony ground. Go to for more on that.

God Bless

madame evangelista said...

Thanks George, that's very interesting. I broadly agree, I doubt any aspect of human behaviour is simply defined by 'a gene for something'. We are more than the sum of our parts.

On the other hand, regarding your last sentence, my cat really is gay. I wasn't just saying that for effect! Although I cannot take the anecdotal evidence of my pet's sexuality to infer behaviour across the animal kingdom, I do think it unlikely that out of all the cats on the planet, the only gay cat in existence would happen to live with me.

Ben Trovato said...

Madame E.

You raise a number of good points worthy of a proper answer, We have visitors this weekend, so it will probably be a while till I get the chance to address them with the attention which they deserve: but I will do so.

Ben Trovato said...


Thanks - very interesting comment.

My point was that even if they do discover a gay gene, it tells us nothing either way about the acceptability or otherwise of homosexual activity, But your point is well made, and it is certainly interesting to note how the militant gay lobby consistently tries to re-write reality to justify their behaviour.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the post. It is very informative. I agree with what you are saying. I often write about these topics on my own blog.

Ben Trovato said...

Madame Evangelista

Just a note to say that I have created a new post to continue our conversation, as I believe it is both important and interesting.

Rick said...

Looks like we're touching the same issues. My entry in:

has a biblical reference as well as a quote from the Vatican site that supports my point re: homosexuality.

Ben Trovato said...


Absolutely with you on not condemning anyone simply for being homosexual (or rtather, suffering same sex atraction: I think the notion of 'being' homosexual implies that we are defined by our sexuality, whichi is a philosphy I reject.

Not quite sure about your inference that the water jar may imply gay though...