We received a following message from a site visitor asking questions on a major issue dominating the current “Public Discourse”:
“I am very interested in reading almost everything you have on your site. I do not, however, agree with your positions on the nature of homosexuality. Within every family, or extended family, there are those individuals who have a nature or proclivity to be not attracted to the opposite sex. There is a genetic hormonal predisposition. There are wonderful homosexuals in both my and my husbands' family. In these situations, it is not a matter of an obsession or addiction, or a matter of choice. It is a matter of nature versus fighting nature. Most homosexuals would not chose to lead this life; it is difficult to be an openly homosexual in a heterosexual society, with all its prejudices against marriage. A homosexual couple who want to be faithful to each other are not supported by community, legal, and faith organizations as are heterosexual couples. Regarding those instances where homosexual behavior is a perversion, I do agree this exists, as you state. But, remember, perversion and promiscuity happen also in heterosexual populations. It is matter of psychology not physiology. Thank you for your other writings.”
The site visitor does not quote the exact passages with which she disagrees, but advances some of her own views on homosexuality. This raises a number of issues, to deal with which would require a few books, so we restrict our comments to some basic points requiring clarification. Our answers to the issues raised follow below.
|#||Site Visitor's Point||Our Answer|
|1||Regarding those instances where homosexual behavior is a perversion.||To begin with, the natural purpose of “sex” and of all the associated with it sensations and emotions is reproduction of a species. And natural reproduction of mammals (including humans) involves interaction between two individuals of opposite sex. And this determines, the natural physiological, psychological and behavioural differences between the two genders.|
The reproductive process is naturally driven by emotions and sensations which compel and encourage the individuals to reproduce.
It is possible, however, to simulate these reproductive sensations and emotions by artificial means: various forms of masturbation, pornography, etc, which “deceive” Nature, and cannot result in reproduction of the species. And this is the meaning of “perversion” as used by us, — that is, behaviour contrary to that intended by Nature.
Homosexual behaviour consists in two (or more) individuals of the same gender engaging in masturbatory acts with the aim of producing reproductive sensations and emotions in ways which cannot lead to natural reproduction and for that reason cannot be anything but perverse.
While it is possible to indulge in masturbatory activities by persons of opposite gender, or even by single individuals, which are also perversions, homosexuality is perverse not only in the physical activity itself, but also in one of the participants assuming the role of the opposite gender, and in that sense is even more perverse (contrary to the intention of Nature).
So, if to define “perversion” as “behaviour contrary to that intended by Nature”, then homosexuality cannot be anything but perverse. It is always perverse.
This, however, does not, in itself, imply “good” or “bad”, which are different issues.
|2||There are wonderful homosexuals in both my and my husbands' family||Indulging in “homosexual behaviour” does not prevent a person from being “wonderful” in some other ways. But, the fact that a person is “wonderful” in some ways does not mean that “homosexuality” is good. This is true about anything, like smoking, drinking alcohol, gambling, making false expense claims, etc.|
|3||It is not a matter of an obsession or addiction.||Although it is possible for a person to indulge in a homosexual act and not to become addicted to this behaviour, or to become addicted to it, and then overcome this addiction, most “practicing” homosexuals are addicted to this behaviour. This is true about any other addiction: smoking, drinking, etc.|
|4||It is not a matter of choice.||The only case when it is “not a matter of choice”, would be in a case of a person being raped. In all other cases it is always a matter of choice. It is impossible to indulge in a voluntary homosexual act without performing a series of conscious actions each of which is a result of choice.|
|5||It is a matter of nature versus fighting nature.||All people are born bed‐wetters, beggars, thieves, rapists, etc, which are all examples of “natural” behaviour, and from the earliest childhood and throughout their whole lives they are taught and compelled to “fight nature”. And they do fight it all the time. And every time they make choices to follow a “natural” impulse or to fight it and take an alternative action.|
Examples of such choices are: “urinate on the spot or restrain yourself until you find a WC?”, “steal or buy?”, “rape or marry?”, etc.
|6||There is a genetic hormonal predisposition.||There is a natural drive to indulge in reproductive behaviour and to experience related with it sensations and emotions. How this drive is satisfied depends on many factors, with environmental and social factors playing the predominant role.|
Yes, some people could be more predisposed to some forms of behaviour, but this predisposition can be due to many factors, intelligence, maturity, education (in a broad sense), etc. But, if it so “hormonal” that a person cannot control himself, then it is a clinical pathological case.
|7||Most homosexuals would not chose to lead this life.||Those, who are in such position are either pathological cases, or in the majority of cases, addicts, who, having been introduced to this behaviour, cannot get out of it due to addiction.|
There has been, however, a campaign by some governments and mainstream media to make homosexuality “socially acceptable”. A new word was introduced into the “socio‐political” vocabulary: “sexual orientation”, and a belief was promoted that mankind is divided into 3 groups who are “born that way”: “gay”, “straight” and “bi‐sexual” (that is, both “straight” and “gay”). This has lead to those who have been affected by this campaign to develop a view that homosexuality is “good”, “natural”, a “human right”, and something to be “proud of”. So, such people do choose this lifestyle because they believe it to be “good” and are “proud” of their choice.
The idea that those who practice homosexual behaviour should be “proud of it” is promoted by special public processions, called “gay‐pride parades”.
|8||Is homosexuality “good” or “bad”?||This is an issue of social morality.|
In the distant past there were cases of sexual perversions becoming socially accepted, and this used to lead to decline (and eventual extinction) of tribes and nations due to inability to reproduce. In all healthy societies institution of “marriage” was introduced supported by laws restricting all reproductive activity to the framework of this institution. Reproductive activity outside of marriage (“adultery”) and sex between persons of the same gender or between humans and animals (“sodomy”) were proclaimed as “sinful” (morally wrong) and criminalized. This attitude to perversion of Human Reproduction prevailed up to the middle of the 20th century, when such behaviour began to be socially acceptable in some countries. This was due to view of “sex” as a means of “entertainment”, “pleasure”, “life‐style”, rather than reproductive activity within the framework of a normal family.
The view of human reproductive activities as “entertainment” has become one of the four foundations of the modern “pop culture”, the other three being alcohol, drugs and debilitating music.
There also have been various attempts to justify homosexuality by arguments, “researches” and “studies”, like: “homosexuals are born that way”, “some good people were (are) homosexuals”, “some animals do it”, “homosexual couples are happy and healthy”, “wars, homosexuality and diseases are necessary to keep the world from being overpopulated”, etc … .
In the first decade of the 21st century promotion of homosexuality became an ingredient of the “War on Terror” campaign (a series of wars by the USA and its “friends and allies”). These wars are justified, among a range of other justifications by “promotion of human rights”, and homosexuality is presented as a “human right”. Thus, justifying British involvement in the Afghan war, Jack Straw, the then British Foreign Secretary, called for “destruction of the Taliban”, because they are “homophobic and antisemitic”. And, recently, the current British Prime Minister threatened some African countries with withdrawal of “foreign aid”, unless they legalize homosexuality. And as islamophobia is one of the main propaganda weapons in the War‐on‐Terror, one of the arguments against Islam is that it prohibits homosexuality (“a human right”), but so do all the other Abrahamic religions — the Bible is clear on that subject (Leviticus 18:22), and so is Plain Common Sense.
Moral decay can be observed in the final days of all failed civilizations, and breakdown of the institution of Marriage and replacement of it by various forms of sexual depravity (pornography, collective sex orgies, sodomy, sexually motivated cannibalism) are some of its main symptoms, the other symptoms are spread of alcohol, drugs and music, spread of general dishonesty, and especially of dishonesty in government, wanton wars of self‐glorification of the ruling elites — all these can be observed in the dying days of the “empires” of old. The ruling elites begin to live in an imaginary world created by their own propaganda aimed at justifying and glorifying their own crimes. Morality is replaced by “political convenience and social acceptability”. Corruption becomes wide spread in all the spheres of human existence, until, finally, the whole civilization collapses and becomes “history”.