Sunny Days in Heaven
Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven


Saturday, June 15, 2002  

A few thoughts on homosexuality

I don't understand human homosexuality. I understand how sexual depravity leads to homosexuality such as this article illustrates briefly about Hugh Hefner by Mercer Schuchardt:

"Hiding in plain sight in the June 2001 issue of Philadelphia magazine is Ben Wallace's essay "The Prodigy and the Playmate." In it Sandy Bentley, the Playboy cover girl and former Hefner girlfriend (along with her twin sister Mandy), describes Hugh Hefner's current sexual practices in just enough detail to give you a good long pause:

The heterosexual icon [Hugh Hefner] . . . had trouble finding satisfaction through intercourse; instead, he liked the girls to pleasure each other while he masturbated and watched gay porn.
Yes, you read that right. There it is, attributed to someone who ought to know, the stated fact on the public record. It may seem shocking or it may seem trivial, but it amounts to a significant confirmation that Hugh Hefner embodies what his detractors have been saying for years: All pornography is ultimately homosexual. All pornography stifles the development of genuine human relationships. All pornography is a manifestation of arrested development. All pornography reduces spiritual desire to Newtonian mechanics. All pornography, indulged long enough, hollows out sex to the point where even the horniest old Viagra-stoked goat is unable to physically enjoy the bodies of nubile young females. "


But this is a psychological descent of pure narcissism.

Biological homosexuality which is what we are asked to find acceptable is something different. Not only accept but endorse as equivalent to heterosexuality and the human desire for emotional intimacy and fertility. Thus we are asked to accept homosexual practice, marriage (and divorce), and acquisition of children either through adoption or in vitro fertilization for females.

I find these things completely unacceptable (but not all for the same reasons) even if we put aside the issue of God's will and various Scriptures, religions, and their disapproval. Homosexuality practiced in open defiance of normal human instinct and feelings, harms society and children. It is a decadence from which societies do not recover from except by the most painful means - destruction and later re-organization. In itself, this homosexual decadence doesn't cause destruction, but is part and parcel of a social emasculation which leads to death.

So purely on utilitarian grounds, I would oppose open expression and acceptance of homosexuality. That this might cause some folks a bit of suffering does not bother me. If you're not suffering in this world, you're doing something wrong. The fact that people are going to suffer from restraint of desire (or constraint) is not horrible in itself.

Andrew Sullivan and others ask, "What real harm is there in me doing as I please in this private area of life. Do I not have a right to both sexual and emotional closeness and intimacy with another human being? After all, what's it to you? Really? What does it have to do with you?"

Well, Andrew you can be right and still be wrong. I won't attack your argument with the worst case scenario of the pedophile who finds a willing young partner - why shouldn't he have his desire satisfied if it's acceptable to his object of desire? There is that argument, but it's not Andrew's or many others. (Even though some are beginning to make that argument.)

My universe won't go crash bang because you 'marry' your boyfriend and smooch your way through various dinner parties and teas. My daughter's universe will start to go bad (for reasons I mentioned above as to decline in one's civilization) but it's still moot even then. She'll get through from the cradle to her grave as we all do, anyhow.

No, the universe doesn't come to a halt because Andrew gets weird pleasure. Homosexuality is wrong (for one reason) because 98% of humanity is revolted by it; and we outvote homosexuals. I don't believe at all that same sex attraction is exactly the same feeling or experience as different gender attraction. I don't believe that a homosexual (for the most part and as children) are put off at seeing their loving parents kissing or sleeping together; or seeing males and females exchanging tokens of affection like kisses or imagining that they might have sex with each other.

I accept that the homosexual does not share the desire or attraction to the other gender, but I don't believe he or she is particularly revolted (unless they are suffering from serious psychological scars or abuse).

Homosexuality is a deviance and not an equal sexual alternative. The practice of it does harm to the person and society, whereas the abstention from it does no harm. The same is true of inordinate heterosexual desire and practice - it harms the person and others, and is worthy of disgust and revulsion.

As a person of faith, though, I must add that even though God does not often remove an affliction from a person, it is possible to live with affliction and bear it nobly and honorably. Intimacy, close friendship with another, and having children is not a right nor guaranteed, while communion with God is a certainty for those who desire it with their whole hearts. And God has ways of making up for all our other kinds of losses without fail.

No society or church is obligated to accept deviant and disgusting human behavior, but in fact has every reason to oppose and outlaw it. Compassion is not about approval, but empathy for suffering. But suffering, in this world, is not without merit, meaning, understanding, nor acceptance. Our suffering is acceptable to God, also.

When I hear homosexuals (among other kinds of folks) insisting on the goodness of their unnatural desires, I can only think - "You want what you want and nothing else is really the issue. You want to be your own God and not let God be God to you."

posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:20 AM |

links
archives