On Homosexuality (May 22, 2002) Introduction
In recent years, the media has been obsessed with homosexuality. No other segment of society, accounting for such a statistically insignificant proportion of the populace, receives nearly this level of attention. Sex and violence sell, and homosexuality is a component of the former, and sadly, frequently provokes the latter.
Same-sex coupling has been with us for a very long time, and has been addressed in some of our most ancient of records. The majority of cultures have maintained strong taboos against the behaviour, from the Abrahamic gods commanding that homosexuals be killed, to the Buddhist classification of such thoughts and deeds as the most serious of sexual transgressions. It serves no apparent purpose in nature, and has no true parallel in the animal kingdom. So why does it exist in humanity?
All living things are genetically programmed to reproduce to ensure the perpetuation of life. Almost every action is tied to guaranteeing that a creature reach maturity with the intent to mate. Critical to sexuality in higher animals is the desire for a fertile partner; the physical appearance of the opposite sex must invoke lust. Males are encoded to find the breasts, genitalia, and overall body shape of the female compelling. Likewise, women find male genitalia and physical form sexually stimulating. Obviously instinctive compulsion is not a matter of choice. In fact, children develop a dislike for the opposite sex due to the differences in gender behaviour patterns, yet eventually they are unable to resist the attraction.
It is impossible for the average man to see how women can find the appearance of males exciting, being that men are programmed to find a quite different physique appealing. Females having masculine features are considered ugly, and likewise, women find men with feminine attributes to be sexually undesirable.
Most homosexuals claim that their attraction to members of the same sex is something they did not choose, which is somewhat supported by research. Certain studies of homosexual cadavers have identified differences in brain structure and an X-chromosome gene not present in heterosexuals. Research on identical twins establishes that, when one individual is homosexual, the likelihood of the twin being so is over fifty percent. This holds true in the case of twins separated at birth, although these results are obviously from a small sampling.
Data indicating a genetic component to homosexuality is hotly disputed, with accusations of suspect methodology and sympathetic bias. Those who disagree generally have a religious prejudice. The fact that many people claiming to be homosexual can be allegedly “cured” via psychiatric treatment adds to the argument. As well, thirty years ago the majority of homosexuals surveyed indicated that their sexual preference was a matter of choice, which has led the religious right to believe that claims of a physiological cause are nothing more than a public relations campaign.
Logic would suggest that a genetic anomaly is likely. Homosexuality is quite uncommon, occurring in only 1.6 percent of the population, with less than one percent being exclusively so; this is a frequency typical of many other genetic defects. Extensive international studies during the Nineties have established this figure to be accurate, and it corresponds to the rate predicted earlier by geneticists. At one time, some people believed that homosexuals represented ten percent of the populace, and attributed this to the 1948 Kinsey study; but this is a falsehood. Nowhere does the report use a figure of ten percent, and in fact found a rate of four percent. We must assume the erroneous statistic was simply a media fabrication.
The Kinsey study has since been discounted due to serious errors in sampling. The report relied heavily on interviews with prisoners, asking such questions as “have you had a homosexual experience in the past six months?” Due to the high rate of homosexuality in a prison environment, statistics gathered from inmates do not apply to the general population. Captive animals exhibit comparable behaviour, so we can attribute the difference to stress-related mental disorders; particularly since both convicts and other animals typically return to heterosexuality upon release.
There is a misconception that, judging by participation in “Gay Pride” events, it would seem that there are more homosexuals than statistics indicate. The media focuses on the flamboyant spectacle produced by people such as those referred to as transvestites, who are not necessarily homosexual as such, although they often engage in same-sex intercourse, but are actually afflicted with a mental disorder. A homosexual is a person who has sexual desire for a person of the same sex. A lesbian is not a woman who wishes to be a man, she is a woman who desires women. A male homosexual does not wish to be female, attending public functions dressed as a showgirl; he is comfortable with his gender, different from other males only in that he finds men rather than women sexually desirable.
Engaging in homosexual activity does not make one a homosexual, just as having a drink does not make one an alcoholic. One in five children will have a consensual encounter of a homosexual nature with another child due to confusion and curiosity, but almost none will ever repeat the behaviour in adulthood. When a pederast molests a boy, he is committing a homosexual act, but this does not make him a homosexual. When a sociopath rapes another male, the action itself is homosexual, but not necessarily the perpetrator.
People afflicted with a variety of mental disorders will practice sex with both genders. Homosexuals will not show signs of mental dysfunction attributable to sexual preference alone; any problems are primarily caused by the social stigma associated with their lifestyle. They appear to be mentally healthy, their only significant characteristic being that they experience the sexual desires normally reserved for the opposite gender.
It is important to differentiate between identifying oneself with a gender, and a gender role. Homosexuals who assume the characteristics of the other sex (i.e. feminine behaviour in males, masculine in females) are role playing. Both innate and cultural guidelines for sexual interaction exist only for male to female partnering, and because a child growing up sees only the roles assigned by nature and society, he/she will be conditioned to mimic a heterosexual partnership; dominant or submissive personality traits leading to behaviour that parallels the typical dominant and submissive roles of men and women respectively. During sex, homosexuals play both genders, and this dual nature is the cause of the distinctive mannerisms exhibited by some.
It is essential that we consider the media propensity for applying the term ‘gay’ to almost every form of sexual aberration and dysfunction. The causes for each condition involving same-sex intercourse are significantly different. Let us take a look at a few of these conditions.
- Gender Identity Disorder1
Gender Identity Disorder is classified as a mental illness by the medical community, and in most cases it is chronic. Sufferers, often generically referred to as transvestites, experience the delusion that they are actually the opposite gender, and usually believe that they have been trapped in the “wrong” body. Many are extremely flamboyant because, although they believe that they are the other sex, in reality they are trying to imitate a gender that is completely unlike their own, and consequently their behaviour is often a grotesque exaggeration of what they think are typical characteristics. As well, because their disorder entails a wish-fulfillment, the magnified attributes serve as a way of reinforcing their delusion.
In the mind of the patient, he/she is not practicing homosexual behaviour as such, for he/she believes that their real gender is of the other sex, and hence intercourse is heterosexual. Homosexuals can be afflicted with Gender Identity Disorder. This occurs when, due to the values imposed by society, they cannot deal with their predilection for the same sex. Rather than accept the fact that they are homosexual, they delude themselves into thinking that, but for a cruel fluke of nature, they are actually heterosexual. This is often brought about by a strict religious upbringing, where in these circumstances, guilt creates mental dysfunction.
Because those afflicted with Gender Identity Disorder are most often incurable, surgery is an option. This is because the psychosis frequently leads to self-mutilation or suicide, and as in all medical fields, the priority is “life over limb”, and if cosmetically altering a person’s sexual organs ensures their survival, then it is the only ethical option.
A related condition is one where the underlying cause is a desire to escape the role society has assigned to their sex. Each gender believes that life is better for the other, and due to an inability to mentally cope with life in general, switching gender roles is their solution to a situation that has become psychologically intolerable. This type will most often be bisexual, as their natural desires conflict with the need to reinforce the guise of the assumed gender. Treatment is quite effective with this type.
- Transvestic Fetishism2
This disorder only afflicts heterosexual males, and involves dressing and behaving as a female. It is a form of fantasy fulfillment, and any homosexual activity is part of the fantasy, and is not perceived by the subject as being homosexual, but rather heterosexual because they are a woman within this delusion. Almost all will simply “grow out” of the disorder, and the problem is rare in people over age forty.
Sociopaths lack the innate social emotions, and are consequently entirely self-serving. Because sex to a sociopath is purely a source of pleasurable sensations, and the pair-bonding aspect of emotional human interaction is alien to them, the gender of their partner can be of secondary importance. They account for many of those who are considered bisexual.
In rare instances, the amount of genetic damage can be extreme, and sociopaths are the segment of the population which commits the most horrific of crimes. There are twice as many people afflicted with sociopathy as there are homosexuals, hence they have a greater statistical impact. Nowhere is this more significant than in regards to pederasty. A disproportionate number of male sexual predators prey upon young boys. Some people use this fact to condemn homosexuality, but this is inappropriate. Male sociopaths have the opportunity to assault boys over girls because of convenience. Male children traditionally receive less protection than females. Due to the nature of boys, they are more likely to put themselves in situations where they can be molested, having a tendency to do things alone and take risks. Serial murderers are sometimes insistent that the courts and media not refer to them as homosexual, for to them, it was opportunity over any particular preference. It must be understood that with the most dangerous of sociopaths, the sadistic pleasure they derive from their actions supersedes the sexual reward.
Pedophiles will usually prey on members of the opposite sex, but the incidence of homosexual encounters is considerably higher than that of the population in general5. Pedophiles are more likely to commit homosexual acts than is statistically normal, however the disorder has more to do with control and dominance than it does gender, and elements of sociopathy apply to pederasty as well. It is a desire for children in general, rather than a particular gender.
The rate of same-sex molestation is significantly higher when it involves the clergy. Although it is far too convenient to blame society for the aberrant behaviour of individuals, in this instance it is partially the fault of the religious subculture these persons belong to. It is very stressful for an adolescent who discovers that he/she has sexual desires different from others; it can be far worse for one who is part of a devoutly religious family. Such young people must not only deal with the social stigma attached to their sexual preferences, but the conflict with their own faith. For the deeply religious, sometimes being ordained appears to be the solution to their personal crisis; believing that by dedicating their life to God, the deity will give them the strength to resist their desires. Such a decision ultimately leads to psychological problems primarily because they do not possess the qualities that enable a person to fulfill such a role. Contrary to popular belief, a devotion to God does not make a good priest, it is a devotion to humanity that is essential. One must be a pillar of strength for those in need, and because your duty is to help others cope with their personal demons, a clergyman has to be relatively free of his own.
Constant repression of sexual desire can lead to serious mental problems, and for the pederast, entering the priesthood serves to delay the inevitable, and concentrates people with the disorder in the profession. Thus we have an inordinate rate of this kind of abuse in traditional religious organizations.
The sexual abuse of a child is as offensive to homosexuals as it is to everyone else. Groups such as NAMBLA, which promotes pederasty, encourage anti-homosexual sentiments. Political correctness permits NAMBLA to exist, and provides the organization with a public forum for their views. An association that openly counseled the molestation of little girls would soon find its members in prison, yet authorities tolerate NAMBLA, wrongly believing that to take action against these disturbed individuals is to offend homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth, and zero tolerance of such behaviour would eliminate the inference that sexual desire for children is connected to a homosexual lifestyle.
- Indeterminate Gender
The human foetus is neither male nor female until the eighth week of development, when cells begin a differentiation process. Genetic flaws can cause problems with this procedure, resulting in babies being born with mixed sexual characteristics. One of every two thousand newborns has some level of sexual ambiguity, and a portion of these will be so severely deformed that no gender can be specified. Usually surgery defines sex in these cases, and until recently what seemed physiologically appropriate or medically practical was not necessarily accurate. People born with mixed sexual characteristics can be assigned the wrong gender, either via surgery or conditioning, leading to behaviour that is homosexual in appearance, but heterosexual in terms of what sex their brain has been genetically programmed to be. Predetermined gender can now be ascertained through DNA testing, as well as MRI scanning later in life (male and female brain structure differs after puberty).
Other than a preference for same-gender partners, there are areas where homosexuals stray from the statistical norm. These variances are attributable to psychological rather than physiological aspects of homosexuality.
Due to both cultural attitudes and the very purpose of life itself, reproduction is the ideal. From this perspective, homosexuality is an aberration. Humans are gregarious creatures, and have an innate need to belong. Consequently all homosexuals initially, and a few always, resist their desires; most engaging in heterosexual activity early in life. The social pressures on a homosexual often lead to denial or repression, and many will force themselves to form traditional relationships in order to somehow escape their predilection and be “like everyone else”. Some will live the charade into middle-age, marrying and raising children before accepting reality; and it is impossible to tell how many spend a lifetime in denial.
People who switch between having sex with the same gender due to desire, and heterosexual intercourse because of guilt or defense mechanism, are bisexual in practice, but homosexual by nature. This is far from being in a state of good mental health, and the heterosexual behaviour only serves to deepen the problem.
Engaging in sadistic6 or masochistic7 behaviour is indicative of psychological difficulties, however this is, in many cases, considered harmless, and people so afflicted rarely seek treatment. Masochists generally have specific problems relating to self-esteem, and feel a need to be punished for real or imagined personal shortcomings. Some sadists (excluding those who are sociopathic) share the same self-esteem issues, the difference being that they wish to identify with a dominant role; using a characterization of what they believe is the antithesis of themselves to become a confident and controlling figure. The psychological factors that contribute to such behaviour can be quite complex, but for the purposes of this argument, the basic premise will suffice.
Sadomasochism is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the general population. It should be apparent that the guilt and shame experienced in youth leaves lasting emotional scars, which later manifest in unconventional behaviour. Their perception of their sexuality is the cause of their negative mental state, hence punishment becomes part of the sexual act. As well, the higher rate of partner abuse is attributable to these same psychological problems.
Heterosexuals typically have fewer sexual partners than homosexuals. This is primarily due to the fact that by design, humans form pair-bonds for the purpose of reproduction. Desire exists to ensure mating, but the pair-bond is intended to guarantee that offspring receive adequate care early in life, which traditionally requires two caregivers (although now society often serves as a surrogate parent, particularly in Western culture). People have the instinctive tendency to form lasting relationships; in this way nature promotes the perpetuation of the species. A homosexual relationship does not fulfill the goal of this programming, therefore many of the innate bonding mechanisms are inappropriate to same sex coupling, and although role playing is often used in an attempt to compensate for this, it is an inadequate substitute. It is more difficult for a homosexual to initiate a lasting relationship, consequently there are more tries at it.
Genetics Vs Choice
One would think that a person does not intentionally choose a lifestyle that can lead to considerable emotional distress; that can make someone an outcast, and provoke violence and hatred from others. Choosing a homosexual lifestyle would mean that when faced with the options of desiring the same sex or the opposite one, a person picked the choice that would cause the most difficulties in life, and present the fewest opportunities to form a relationship due to the rarity of individuals who practice homosexuality. It would appear that simply choosing to be homosexual does not make sense, nor is it the way humans make decisions; for we tend to conform, and normally take the easy path.
There is evidence of a genetic cause for homosexuality, but it is the anomalies that are most significant. A person is from thirty to fifty times more likely to be homosexual when their identical twin has the propensity; but being that they are genetic mirror images, why are there those who differ? Although the discrepancy can be partially accounted for due to repression, where someone with a desire for the same sex refuses to consciously acknowledge it, psychological tests can often reveal a person’s true nature.
A statistically significant number of homosexuals can be made to behave as heterosexuals via therapy. In the majority of cases, however, such “cures” are accomplished by introducing a variety of defense mechanisms into the patient’s psyche, basically enabling them to deny reality. By definition, most are still homosexual. These “successes” do not produce mentally healthy individuals; although in such cases they are often happier, being that they would not seek treatment unless their situation was felt to be intolerable. Yet a few of these people do appear to become fully adjusted to heterosexual behaviour.
In the past, homosexuals indicated that theirs was a lifestyle choice, whereas now the majority indicate a predilection. Part of this shift can be attributed to changing social attitudes. Decades ago, having a genetic anomaly was associated with being handicapped in some way, and implied inferiority. Nowadays the trend is toward abrogating accountability, and anything that makes one different from the herd is assigned an inherent cause, whether it be obesity, alcoholism, or any other desire-based condition. Even those with genuine genetic impairments are told to believe such disorders are “gifts”.
People will believe what they are told to believe, regardless of reality. The mindset of both the past and present sets respective public opinion, and a “homosexual agenda” is merely representative of typical human behaviour. If the current nonsensical social constructionist theory on sexual preference ever becomes popular, the pendulum will swing back the other way, and once again many will claim a lifestyle choice is the cause of their behaviour.
Barring extensive inbreeding, genetic aberrance will appear relatively uniform throughout a species. There are statistical exceptions with homosexuality. Strict fundamentalist cultures naturally report a lower rate, simply because citizens are afraid to reveal their sexual orientation, but the most notable exception occurs in the United States, where the rate is almost double that of the rest of the world, and triple the rate of those who are exclusively homosexual. This is typical of American culture as far as psychological disorders are concerned. Double-blind studies have proven that lactose-intolerance does not exist in adults, yet it is widespread in U.S. society, while practically non-existent elsewhere. In fact, there is evidence that any form of food allergy in adults may be purely a mental problem, likewise occurring only in the Western nations, and prevalent in America. This holds true for almost every form of psychosomatic disorder, and this cultural phenomenon is significant when we apply it to a disproportionate U.S. rate of homosexuality, for it indicates a psychological component.
The fact that there are exceptions to the rule prevents science from concluding that homosexuality has a strictly genetic cause. Because of the physiological and anecdotal evidence accumulated over the last two decades, one would be relatively safe in saying that, in many instances homosexuality appears to be due to an inherent physical anomaly, and that other factors exist which indicate an additional psychological cause resulting in some individuals adopting a sexual preference contrary to their genetic predisposition.
From a practical standpoint, individuals who are homosexual due to psychological causes must be classified in the same way as those who appear to be predisposed to such behaviour, for although some will respond to treatment, most will not, and hence their circumstances are as real as those with a genetic source. A mental conviction can have the same effect as a physical condition. For example, adults who only believe they are afflicted with food allergies can still manifest serious symptoms, and even die.
Cultures often retain values that no longer have a firm basis in reality. The social taboo associated with homosexuality likely originated as a response to pederasty. Undoubtedly, a taboo against molesting children is valid, and the disproportionate rate of same-sex pedophilia would justify seeing a connection with homosexuality; but we now know that these are separate issues. Contemporary prejudice goes beyond this basic concern, for the laws of the land reflect the attitudes of society, and pedophiles routinely receive minor sentences for their crimes; despite the fact that they are incurable, and will invariably re-offend if the opportunity arises. Pederasty is apparently not as important to us as it once was.
We tend to ostracize anyone who is different from the herd, and nothing is more fundamental to the human identity than sexuality. Intolerance toward those who do not conform is deeply ingrained in religion, and not surprisingly, cultures which are based on the Abrahamic beliefs are most hostile toward homosexuality. Their gods condemn any sexual variation from the “norm”, and consequently followers believe they are enforcing divine will. However, the Abrahamic gods also condemn those who charge interest on a loan, and prohibit anyone with a blemish or physical handicap from attending church; yet these other holy decrees, and many more like them, are ignored.
Because of the selective nature of faith-based prejudice, it is obvious that hatred of homosexuals is only an instrument of religion, and the most significant political agenda is the one practiced by the church leaders who use this “common foe” as a means of rallying their followers. Christianity in particular has been losing adherents for decades, and focusing on this marked deviation from the majority, and something which is contrary to the very purpose of life, invokes the basic herd mentality.
There is one area where we can identify a “homosexual agenda”, and that is in how a genetic anomaly is perceived. Although homosexual organizations adhere to the position that desire for the same gender has a physical cause, they aggressively challenge anyone who refers to it as a biological mistake. This insistence on political correctness infers that such gene variations are equivalent to the differentiation that determines hair or eye colour. Political correctness, however, is in no way connected to reality, and attempts at making everything completely inoffensive to even the most insecure of people only serves to distort the truth.
Sex exists solely for the purpose of reproduction, and even though we engage in recreational intercourse, it does not change the inherent design. Hence, any variation from this rule of nature is an error in genetic programming.
Rather than comparing homosexuality to the dominant and recessive gene combinations which determine colour, it is more appropriately compared to the flaw which results in the lack of pigment; termed albinism. An albino is unquestionably a biological mistake, yet we do not ostracize nor assault those so afflicted; although naturally they experience what it is to be different. Being different in regards to sexual preference obviously has more significance to others. Variance from a consistent common pattern existing for millions of years, while showing no outward physical indications that one has cause to be unlike the majority, leads to distrust. The common man prefers a black and white world, where everything, and everyone, can be conveniently categorized.
Someone who is predestined to have desires not shared by almost all other people, due to a genetic error beyond their control, should inspire some level of compassion from those who represent the majority. An individual who acquires a desire contrary to what is typical, due to events so traumatic that their innate programming is compromised, deserves understanding. Implying that such divergence from the norm is simply a natural, albeit rare, variation does not result in a lasting solution. All living things have an instinctive awareness of what is natural sexual behaviour, and some people will never buy into the myth; while future scientific discoveries may lead to a backlash if the public feels they have been misled by a political agenda.
Society must see homosexuality as a condition that, either through predisposition or mental trauma, is usually chronic, and therefore not a matter of choice, nor something that will “taint” impressionable children. Certainly, youngsters must be made aware of its existence, but not as simply a lifestyle. We must keep in mind that sexual desire is a chemical compulsion. Androgens are the hormones that cause you to engage in sexual behaviour. If your body stops producing these chemicals, you will cease to find either gender desirable. We do not choose to have sexual feelings of any sort, rather, nature forces it upon us.
There is no valid argument against permitting homosexuals to marry. Resistance is based on religious criteria, and is therefore supported only by blind faith in the opinions of men long dead. Religious ritual aside, marriage is a legally binding contractual arrangement, which protects an individual’s interests while within a partnership, as well as assigning liability if said partnership ends on unequal terms.
Symbolically, matrimony is a covenant expressing the love and devotion between two people. What could possibly be wrong with extending these freedoms to homosexuals? Homosexuality is not about to go away if marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples. Attempting to maintain marriage as a “sacred union” ignores the fact that atheists are permitted to wed, not to mention “heathens” who follow a religion other than what is regionally popular. Marriage involves considerable financial and emotional commitment, and the protection afforded by the legal documents sanctioning such a partnership should obviously be available to everyone.
One opinion voiced in the marriage debate is based on financial considerations. Because certain benefits are extended to married couples, some people feel that, since all of society subsidizes these unions because they produce the next generation of citizens, homosexual couples will receive an economic benefit they are not entitled to. This is a specious contention, for many heterosexual couples do not produce children, and the whole concept of encouraging reproduction is contrary to the reality of our world, where overpopulation threatens our very survival. Tax credits for parents account for the intended monetary assistance, which enables people to invest more into the care of the next generation. Incentives which exist solely because two people have entered into matrimony are incongruous, and need to be eliminated. Until that time, we must bear in mind that homosexual marriages would account for a statistically insignificant portion of the total.
We are inconsistent due to the fact that we permit people afflicted with Gender Identity Disorder to wed, provided they have undergone surgery to cosmetically alter their gender. A male who has been given the physical attributes of a female is still genetically a male, and just because medical science is capable of treating a chronic disorder via hormone therapy and excision, it does not change the fact that the patient is marrying a person of the same gender. In truth, we already permit same-sex marriage.
The debate surrounding adoption should be focused on broad ethical considerations, rather than legalities and rights. There is no doubt that children raised by a homosexual couple are going to experience trauma, whether it be from the attitudes and actions of others, or the behavioural problems associated with not having clearly defined gender models. Sexual confusion and doubt is particularly difficult during adolescence, a time when sexuality becomes an obsession, and being different becomes one of the greatest fears. But this is not an issue that only applies to homosexual couples. People who produce their own offspring, while knowing that they will be passing on hereditary medical conditions that will cause the child to suffer throughout life, are part of the dilemma. Couples who have serious alcohol, drug, or financial difficulties who decide to raise a family, while aware that their children will more than likely be condemned to the same miserable existence, are part of the debate.
To desire to have children for entirely selfish reasons, while disregarding the impact it will have on their future, is morally wrong. To desire to have children with the intention of doing the very best for them, while knowing that circumstances will still cause unhappiness and dysfunction, is morally wrong. The issue is not whether homosexuals can be good parents, but what is in the best interests of the child.
Sexual preference is obviously an extremely personal issue, and that which we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms, provided it causes no harm to others, should not be subject to attack from those who see everything in black and white. What is worse: two consenting adults of the same gender engaging in a private act which fulfills their physical and emotional needs, or a dysfunctional heterosexual couple who, through their actions, produce an unwanted child that society must raise in an institution, and who one day may inflict harm upon others due to the experiences of childhood?
We encounter many shades of gray when we try to measure morality. Religion may find fault with those who practice homosexuality, but choosing to focus on the doctrine dealing with sex, while ignoring that which interferes with one’s own needs and desires, means that your faith is no more valid than that of someone who chooses to believe in the scriptures you disregard, while discounting that which pertains to sexuality. Biblical ethics concerning sexuality are clearly out of step with society. Consider that, in Abrahamic beliefs, raping a virgin is not a crime if the perpetrator gives the father fifty shekels and agrees to marry the victim. Would you still be so devout if your daughter were brutally violated, and the degenerate wished to make her his wife? Can we see the rape of a virgin as being excusable, and a loving relationship between two people of the same gender as unforgivable?
Many people find the thought of homosexual behaviour to be offensive, and tastes are certainly subjective. Many people do not want to form a mental image of a grossly obese heterosexual couple engaged in intercourse either. The world is full of things each of us finds personally distasteful, and we can be certain that some of our own actions would be reprehensible to someone.
Undoubtedly homosexual organizations that use events, marches, and statements to stress that they are different from everyone else are making a mistake. Creating a distinction between yourself and the rest of society, rather than maintaining that your personal relationships have no significance to your place and value within it, fuels the human tendency to fear and distrust that which is atypical. However, homosexual organizations exist because of this tendency; their members participating due to having spent their early years feeling ostracized and alone. Being a part of a homosexual community provides a sense of belonging, and aggressive lobbying imparts a sense of empowerment. In numerous ways, a gay fellowship substitutes for the religions that have spurned them.
At the other end of the spectrum are the people who have no desire to be “gay activists”, and simply want to be accepted by society, with their sexual preference being a non-issue. In either case, the need to feel as one of the “pack” leads to the creation of beliefs that are intended to portray homosexuality as “normal”. Lately, there has been an attempt to equate uncommon instances of unusual sexual behaviour in animals to homosexuality. This generally entails quite a stretch of the imagination, for other animals do not have “gay” lifestyles, and do not form relationships based on consensual anal or oral intercourse. The idea is to imply that homosexuality is a natural condition; but this is the wrong parallel to draw. Some animals have sex with immature members of their kind, and some forcibly mate with others. Most predatory creatures kill the offspring of competitors within their own species. The same argument that homosexuality is a part of nature also works for pedophilia, rape, and sociopathy.
Ideally, we strive to be a compassionate society, and likewise, many religions include this concept within their doctrine. Those who worship the god of Abraham no longer murder their children for being disrespectful, nor kill people for collecting firewood on the Sabbath. We learned that children would test authority, regardless of how hard we tried to weed out that particular characteristic. We discovered that people would fulfill their basic needs, if they saw no harm came of it, regardless of superstition. Individuals who are compelled to desire the same gender will do so, for it is their nature. They will satisfy their physical and emotional needs, because there is no harm in doing so. We do not have to encourage nor discourage that which others do in private, and which does not negatively affect our lives; we only need to understand that it is unjust to deny others the freedom to experience the love and devotion of another human being.
1 - DSM 302.6, ICD f64.x. More info on Gender Identity Disorder available here.
2 - DSM 302.3, ICD f65.1. More info on Transvestic Fetishism available here.
3 - DSM 301.7, ICD f60.2. More info on Antisocial Personality Disorder available here.
4 - DSM 302.2, ICD f65.4. More info on Pedophilia available here.
5 - Homosexuals account for 1.6% of the population, but 18% of juvenile sexual assault victims are male while only 6% of those who assault juveniles are female, and a portion of female offenders will commit same-gender assaults. [statistics from 'Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics' by Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D. - 2000]
6 -DSM 302.84, ICD f65.5. More info on Sadism available here.
7 -DSM 302.83, ICD f65.5. More info on Masochism available here.