How to make a valid secular case against cultural
endorsement of homosexual behavior. Emphasize the following six
reasons:
1) The nature argument. Marriage is not just
about more intimacy. It is about
merging with one's sexual other half or counterpart, a complementary
sexual other. Erotic desire for what one is as a sexual being is sexual
narcissism or sexual self-deception: an attempt at completing oneself
sexually through merger with a sexual same. Most people intuit something
developmentally deficient about being erotically attracted to the body
parts and essential gender that one shares in common with another. See my
online discussion in "Why the Disagreement...?" pp. 30-46
here; and my published entry on "Homosexuality" in New Dictionary
of Christian Apologetics (Intervarsity Press), 327-32.
2) Negative side effects. Attending homosexual
practice is a disproportionately high rate of negative side effects as
regards (a) health (sexually transmitted disease, mental health problems,
and shortened life expectancy) and (b) relational dynamics (short term
relationships, high numbers of sex partners). These problems
are, in the first instance, attributable to the non-complementarity of
homoerotic unions: the extremes of one's sex are not moderated and gaps
are not filled. Approving homosexual behavior will also contribute to the
gender identity confusion of adolescents and, by virtue of denying any
significance or value to male-female differences, will bring about the
destruction of all gender norms and societal endorsement of transvestism
and transgenderism. See The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 452-60,
471-85; more recently, my online "Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and
Scripture: Part II: Science" (here for
pdf, here for
html).
3) Increase of homosexuality. Cultural
endorsement of, and incentives for, homosexual behavior will likely lead
to a higher incidence of homosexuality in the population, affecting young
people at higher rates. This means that more people will develop a higher
risk for the problems discussed in 2 above. For documentation of this
point, see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 395-429; and now with
updates, "Why the Disagreement...?" pp. 30-32, 120-25
here.
4) The intolerance of the homosexual agenda.
Caving into the homosexual agenda will lead to the radical marginalization
of those who oppose homosexual practice and, ultimately, the
criminalization of opposition to homosexual behavior. Homosexual activism
represents the greatest threat to civil and religious liberties for our
children. At stake are such things
as: mandatory indoctrination of our children in all school systems, public
and accredited private, from kindergarten on, through convocations, skits,
videos, workshops, and teacher instruction; loss of one’s job if one does
not sign a statement saying that one “values sexual orientation
differences”; mandatory workplace attendance of “Gay Pride” events and
“Coming Out” celebrations; fines and even imprisonment for speaking out
against homosexual practice, even in church services; having one’s
children taken out of one’s own home for teaching “homophobic” ideas or,
if one’s child professes a homoerotic proclivity, for “child abuse”; loss
of accreditation of all Christian colleges and even seminaries that cannot
prove “non-discrimination” in the hiring practices towards “gays and
lesbians” or that permit any faculty to speak or publish in a manner
critical of homosexual behavior per se; and refusal of colleges and
universities to admit any students who do not sign statements affirming
the value of homoerotic relationships. For documentation of these matters,
see the book by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda.
See also my documentation on
pages
10-18 of my critique of David Balch.
5) The destruction of marriage.
Granting civil union status or, worse, marriage to homosexual unions will
ultimately weaken marriage for everyone. The introduction of same-sex
registered partnerships in Scandinavia has coincided with a sharp rise in
out-of-wedlock births. Granting gay marriage or its functional equivalent
has not helped marriage in these countries; it has made marriage
increasingly superfluous. When eroticism is perceived as merely "more
intimacy" rather than as a means to a "one-flesh" reintegration with a
sexual other into a sexual whole, when the only requisite for sexual
unions is commitment and fidelity (and a truncated definition of
commitment and fidelity at that), when "lifelong" becomes "long-term" and
"long-term" is thought of as a 5-10 year-union, when even the concept of
"serial monogamy" is called into question by the high incidence of "open
relationships" among male homosexual unions, when sexual unions are once
and for all severed in society's perception from a commitment to have and
raise children, and when society rejects as bigotry the notion that a
mother and father are both needed for the optimal development of
children--when all these elements are in place, consistent with the
pro-homosex agenda, the general public will cease to value marriage as a
special and even sacred institution. "The profanation of marriage"
will have gone full circle--both its secularization and debasement.
Imagine society granting marriage licenses to any union that met the
conditions of a committed friendship and ask yourself how long marriage
can survive as an institution. See the links to point 2 above.
6) The normalization of all consensual sexual
relationships, irrespective of number and degree of blood relatedness.
The whole push to normalize homosexual relationships is predicated on
the assumption that there are no structural prerequisites to valid
sexual relationships; that commitment and fidelity are sufficient
criteria, unless society can prove harm to all participants, in all
circumstances, and in scientifically measurable ways. Given such premises,
there is no logically consistent reason why society should resist various
forms of multiple-partner sexual unions, whether traditional polygyny,
"threesomes," or some other arrangement. Since the restriction of the
number of sex partners at any one time to two persons is predicated on the
existence of two distinct and complementary sexes as necessary and
sufficient to produce a sexual whole, the elimination of such a premise
must result in the eventual elimination of a number requirement. It is not
surprising that the recent Supreme Court decision that found a right to
same-sex "sodomy" in the Constitution has sparked a lawsuit to validate
polygamy; nor it is surprising that the ACLU has filed a brief on behalf
of the polygamist, citing the sodomy ruling and insisting that the burden
of proof is on the state to prove that polygamy is always harmful (for the
record: It isn't). Similarly, if consent, commitment, and fidelity are
adequate for establishing a sexual union and, further, if the concept of
too much structural sameness becomes irrelevant, then there is no
reasonable basis for withholding public recognition of man-mother or adult
brother-sister unions. One wonders, in the face of such an assault, how
long resistance to adult-adolescent unions and, eventually, adult-child
unions can be maintained. Note that I am not saying that by approving
homosexual unions we may open the door to something worse: polygamy and
incest. There are good grounds for arguing that homoerotic unions are
worse for society than polygamy and adult consensual incest. Nevertheless,
approving homosexual unions will, in the end, have the effect of
discounting any concept of inherent structural incongruity as regards
sexual unions. See my online discussion in "Why the Disagreement...?" pp.
35-45
here.
Note: Most of the links above are to my online article, "Why the
Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?" at
http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf
© 2004, 2006 Robert A. J.
Gagnon