The Homosexual Debate in a Heterosexual World

There has been some discussion lately about homosexuality and whether or not it should be considered normal and if the civil rights of homosexuals are being denied. Let me start off by saying that I do not fear, hate, or have any negative feelings toward homosexuals/homosexuality. I have had homosexual friends, I work/have worked with homosexuals, and I even lived with a homosexual for almost four years (granted, it was a woman, but she was homosexual nonetheless). Other than the fact that they are attracted to, and have relationships with the same sex, they are not much different from anyone else.

However, there seems to be an attempt by “gay activists” to redefine societal norms, to demand acceptance of this behavior, and to convince everyone that homosexuality is a normal and healthy, alternative way of life. In order to justify this, they rely on a few false premises or logical inconsistencies which will be discussed in this article. This is not meant to be an attack on any individual homosexual and it should not be inferred as such.

The absence of religion will end the debate

Many people falsely assume that if religion was removed from the discussion, there would be no reason to oppose homosexuality. That argument is entirely erroneous as I will demonstrate throughout this article. It may be that the most vocal opponents of homosexuality are religious, but that does not mean they are the only ones speaking out. The debate about homosexuality is not at all limited to whether or not it is a “sin” according to various religious beliefs. In fact, religion has very little to do with it. Presuming that everyone opposed to homosexuality is a religious zealot is nothing more than a common fallacy known as a hasty generalization, and in some cases it appears to be little more than a straw man tactic.

Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that most of our laws and customs are derived from religious beliefs. Religion has always been the basis for most laws and probably always will be. Failing to recognize this will limit one’s ability to understand why or how our laws were implemented and what impact they have had on our society. While religion is not the primary reason for many people to oppose homosexuality, it may be the reason why many homosexuals feel they are disparaged and treated unfairly. I do not support the notion that homosexuality is a “sin” and that homosexuals need to repent and change their lifestyle. That is an argument not grounded in logic or reason.

The argument I usually make (which has nothing to do with religion) is whether or not homosexuality is a destructive behavior, not only for the individual, but for our species in general and what impact it may have on our society if it is taught as normal and as an acceptable, behavioral alternative to heterosexuality. There may be instances where religion becomes indirectly involved because of its influence on law, but it is not the underlying theme of the argument.

Homosexuality is normal and natural

What is the end of all species? In the most rudimentary aspect of this question, the answer is survival. The main objective of any species is to survive and perpetuate its existence. Nothing else can be accomplished without doing so. This is why species adapt, evolve, and reproduce. Without these components life would not exist today. The only way to ensure the continuation of life is through survival. A species that cannot survive will soon be a species extinct.

Given these basic truths about life, it would logically follow that an attribute or behavior that denies the most essential element of survival is a defect. A species that cannot adapt to its changing environment will struggle to live. A species that cannot produce offspring will eventually, and most certainly, cease to exist. Not being able to perform these functions is undoubtedly less than ideal. Not wanting to perform these functions is not only an imperfection, but it seemingly conforms to the behavioral concept of self-destruction.

Since survival is the behavioral norm for species in nature, any actions that prevent survival are, by definition, deviant. Procreation is a main element of survival, so behaviors that hinder the ability of a species to reproduce cannot be said to be normal or natural. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be considered normal or natural, other than saying it is “of nature”, which can include everything within the realm of our universe, ultimately qualifying everything in existence (behaviors included) as “natural.” Homosexuality is in fact a physiological defect and behavioral deviancy.

This argument is not meant to imply that our only reason for existence is to reproduce. However, without this fundamental element of survival, all other functions would be irrelevant.

Homosexuals and the activists that support them will also use the argument that homosexuality is witnessed in nature. This is partly true, but most pairings cease after a short period of time. It is extremely rare to see a life-long, homosexual pairing of wild animals. Also, they are not exclusively homosexual. Many still participate in natural acts of procreation while they are “paired” with their same-sex mate.

I find that equating human behavior with that of wild animals is usually not a great way to present your argument or your actions. And just because your behavior can be seen in the wild, it does not mean it is acceptable for humans or that it is normal. Other “natural” animal behavior includes cannibalism, killing of offspring, eating one’s feces, and the sniffing of posteriors, but none of these actions would be considered normal or acceptable human behavior. We are not wild animals.

*Words used in this section and their meanings as written:

end – goal, object, or purpose
survival – staying alive; the fact of remaining alive or in existence
defect – blemish, fault, imperfection; inadequate feature
self-destruction – the ruining of your own life or an aspect of it; suicide
norm – standard pattern of behavior that is considered normal; the customary situation or circumstances
deviant – diverging sharply from a customary, traditional, or generally accepted standard, or displaying such divergent behavior
natural – in accordance with the usual course of nature
physiological – relating to the way that living things function

Homosexuality is genetic

This is probably the most polarizing argument of the homosexuality debate. There are many false assumptions that are made pertaining to the scientific research about “inherited” homosexual behavior. Perhaps there is too much want for an explanation of this behavior that causes many people to desperately believe in things that have yet to be proven. There have been studies that show physical and behavioral similarities between homosexual males and women, but none of these studies have examined the cause and effect relationships. We do not know if the physical and behavioral similarities between homosexual males and women, or the differences between homosexual males and heterosexual males are the result of inherited traits or learned behaviors. It could very well be an intricate combination of the two that creates these relationships.

Another problem with the genetic argument is the idea that sexual preference can be fully explained by genes alone. (Never mind the fact that the phrase, “sexual preference is not a choice,” is actually an oxymoronic statement, because the word preference would indicate that your sexuality is a choice.) Genes can determine your skin tone, eye color, or hair color, but they cannot fully explain why you get in trouble at school or which sport you are going to play as an adult. The latter two examples fall into the realm of behavioral patterns and learned abilities. Sexuality is a behavior. Genes alone cannot determine behavior, so they alone cannot determine sexuality. Our physical traits, along with our environmental influences (mainly antecedents and consequences) determine our behavior.

Having no overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is not genetic does not mean that it is.

Also, having no overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is genetic does not mean that it is a conscious choice. Many advocates in the “gay rights” movement use the argument of homosexuality in this way: Either it is genetic or it is a “choice”. This is actually another fallacy known as a false dilemma. They do not account for the fact that just because it is not genetic, it does not mean that the person makes a conscious effort to be attracted to the same sex. Or it may simply be a way for them to dismiss the argument of their opponents as ridiculous, because after all, why would anyone choose to be a homosexual? This type of argument can be either a straw man or an appeal to ridicule, or both. In any case it is an illogical argument.

I do not make the claim that homosexuality is a conscious choice. As far as I know, I did not choose to be attracted to females. However, I did choose to physically and emotionally involve myself in relationships with females. This is almost certainly a learned behavior and is absolutely my choice. There is a difference between choosing attraction and choosing to act on it, but the amount that genetics plays in this process is still unknown. The brain is extremely impressionable in the early stages of development as a child, so it may be that it is not genetic but a conditioned behavior learned throughout early childhood. The only thing we do know is that if it is discovered that genetics account for 100% of our sexual behavior, it would be an extraordinarily perplexing anomaly. Either that or we would need to reconsider everything we assume to know about behavior.

Homosexuals’ rights are being denied

The very nature of this argument relies mostly on the acceptance that homosexuality is genetic. People cannot be denied certain rights based on things such as race, gender, and age. The difference between these and sexuality is the fact that one is either born black, white, Hispanic, etc. or a male or female, and that aging is inevitable. Comparisons are made between the banning of homosexual “marriage” and the banning of interracial marriage many years ago, but it is plainly obvious why the interracial bans were unwarranted.

As previously mentioned, sexuality is a behavior and is not at all comparable to the former examples. Homosexuality is not a difference in physical appearance. Our laws protect people from discrimination based on physical appearance, physical abilities/disabilities, and on religious creed. Homosexuality is none of those. It is a behavior. Differences in behavior are not protected under the law and they shouldn’t be. Until there is a scientific discovery that proves homosexual behavior is entirely genetic, there is no basis for claiming a fundamental right that deserves protection under law. Furthermore, unless sexuality in general is discovered to not be a behavior, there will be no law that protects people against discrimination based on differences in sexuality.

Another problem with this argument is the fact that “equal protection” does not mean “equal privilege”. Marriage is not a right protected by constitutional law. There is no right to marry. Many people assume that because certain people are not allowed to marry, that these people are being denied a “civil right”. The problem is this: Marriage is not a government institution…it is a religious one. It just so happens that our government recognizes this religious tradition and presently requires a license for marriage (licensing being something of which I take issue). However, the government cannot require a religious establishment to revise their practices or change them based solely for government purposes. If a local, state, or the federal government creates a law that confers the “right” of marriage to homosexual couples, then religious establishments can be forced to marry people even if it contradicts with their teachings. This is a direct and gross violation of our First Amendment.

Aside from the institution of marriage being a religious one, the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines marriage as, “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.”

So, there is a legal definition of marriage. The government’s recognition and subsequent co-opting of this institution was done with the knowledge that it is a religious institution and there is a specific religious meaning and accepted legal definition of it. It was a deliberate act, approved by the People, and it had deliberate intentions and conferring of privileges. The government cannot change the definition of marriage since it is not their institution and they cannot change the law without the consent of the governed. And since sexuality is a behavior, there are no constitutional rights that are guaranteed to be protected simply for being a homosexual. This is especially true when the institution in question is an element of religion, which absolutely cannot be dictated to by the government.

In states that have not yet violated the Constitution and changed the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still allowed to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Any “equal protection” that may be applied to this argument will allow them to do exactly that. Equal protection does not mean they can force changes on a religious institution and their religiously defined practices.

Closing thoughts

Some people believe that homosexuality is a sin and others find their actions to be utterly repugnant. Although those are not the most logical reasons to oppose homosexuality, people do feel strongly about them and they have the right to express those feelings. In a nation founded by religious people with many laws based on their beliefs and having a population of whom well over 90% claim to be religious or spiritual people, it will not be easy for homosexuals to try to change the perceptions of society. And since behavioral differences cannot be equated with physical differences, the hill to climb becomes more like a mountain.

This is not to say that homosexuals have absolutely no gripe about the practices of our government. The government’s interference with our daily lives affects all of us in a multitude of ways. Being a citizen of this country and a white male, I feel I am one of the most discriminated against persons in the land. That may seem a bit convoluted, but it may very well be true. Although our laws state that nobody can be discriminated against based on physical appearances such as race and gender, it is continually overlooked and even practiced by our own government…but I digress.

It appears that the main motivation for homosexuals and the “gay rights” movement is the issue of legal benefits that are conferred to married couples recognized by the government. If that is the enticement for homosexuals to marry, then it seems they do not fully understand either the sanctity of marriage or the feelings of the religious community to which that institution belongs. If this debate is based on benefits, then it is all an exercise of utter futility. Any couple - married or not - can create legal documents such as wills or power of attorney forms that grant them legal privileges similar to the ones of government-recognized married couples. If it is a matter of tax laws, then I agree that those laws should be abolished, along with the entire Internal Revenue Service and the income tax.

Wanting to marry so that a couple can claim a larger tax deduction is neither a good reason to marry, nor is it a good reason for the government to force (unconstitutionally) a change in meaning of a religious institution.

I hope this article has helped people understand another side of the debate that usually gets little or no attention. Not everyone who speaks out against homosexuality is a “homophobe” or a bigot, and not everyone is condemning homosexuals to hell for being the way they are. The reality of the situation is that homosexuals are trying to find their social identity and they may need help doing so, but at the same time, they must understand that what they are asking for is something outside the accepted realm of normalcy. It is not up to the person who deviates from the norm to decide what is normal and acceptable for everyone else.