A great injustice to homosexuals
I came across a news report of a teacher of Raffles Institution who had his 2,000-word coming-out blog post removed under pressure from the Ministry of Education. Just google his name “Otto Fong” and you’ll find lots of stuff on it. Is this an injustice that is being done to homosexuals?
We know that for some time, homosexuals have campaigned for and succeeded in obtaining the legal right to ‘marry’ in some countries. Is forbidding homosexuals to marry a injustice done to them?
In Singapore, up until recent years, homosexuals were not even allowed to commit homosexual acts, and it is still, on paper, against the law. Is this an injustice to homosexuals?
Perhaps, but I would propose that the greatest injustice done to homosexuals was not done in recent years, but in 1973. What’s the big thing that happened that year?
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a disorder from the Sexual Deviancy section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In other words, the APA declared that homosexuality was not a psychological disorder. This declassification is largely based on the research of Alfred Kinsey, who showed (through flawed statistics) that 10 percent of all people are homosexual, hence homosexuality wasn’t so uncommon.
This study was done in 1948 and 1953. More recent studies have been unable to duplicate the statistics that Kinsey acquired. Remember the South Korean scientist who faked his own results regarding cloning? People only realised something was wrong when his results could not be duplicated. Similarly, people are now, or have been since the 1990s, been realising that there is something wrong with Kinsey’s research, since his results could not be duplicated.
The highest percentage of homosexuals in any population in any study that has been properly conducted and verified by its scientific peers is 2.5 percent. And this is the result now, in present day. Do you think there would have been more homosexuals (or people who declare themselves homosexuals) today or back in 1948? Obviously there is something wrong with Kinsey’s data. But what?
The reason that Kinsey’s data is flawed is that he threw out more than 75 percent of samples acquired from the normal population, and kept only those that matched what he wanted. He chose to take samples largely from prisoners, and not only regular prisoners, but those who had been imprisoned for sexual crimes.
Any amateur scientist can see the one fundamental flaw in Kinsey’s research - he didn’t set out to discover the truth. He set out to match the data to fit his own ideas. Having found the data to match his own ideas, and throwing out all the rest, he presented it to the public who eagerly lapped it up without thinking to consider his research techniques. He gave the public what they wanted to hear, not the truth.
Even today, people are citing that “10 percent”. I know of homosexuals who continue to cite it, despite knowing that it is an inaccurate figure. But this 10 percent figure is what resulted in the APA removing homosexuality as a psychological disorder.
I say that this is the greatest injustice done to homosexuals because it indicates to homosexuals that the condition they have is normal. It is not, and I think all homosexuals deep down know this. No homosexual chooses to be the way he or she is.
Leslie Lung, founder of Liberty League, believes that homosexuals are essentially people whose psychological development has been interrupted. Homosexuals, I believe and he agrees, are people who have not accepted themselves as a man or a woman. But Leslie goes one step further and proposes that the best way of helping a homosexual to accept his manhood or her womanhood is to show him or her love, respect, understanding and acceptance.
He should know… for Leslie himself was formerly a sexually-broken transsexual. And a beautiful one to boot. Today, Leslie has devoted his life to working with homosexuals who desire to become whole.
In short, the greatest injustice that has been done to homosexuals, is not preventing them from the legal right ‘to marry’, it is not external pressure to keep their sexual disorder hidden… it is the continued propagation of the lie that homosexual is a valid sexual orientation, rather than sexual brokenness manifesting itself in a psychological disorder. After all, if no one classifies it as a disorder, no one will try to bring order back to it, and almost any homosexual who does want to become sexually whole, will be denied treatment.
Resources:
- more information about Kinsey’s skewed research can be found by googling “Judith Reisman” or visiting her webpage at www.drjudithreisman.com. It is currently under construction, but you can find an older version of the page here.
- Liberty League is a non-profit, non-religious organization dedicated towards helping homosexuals heal their sexual brokenness.
Related articles:
Filed under: Homosexuality, News, Truth
have you ever considered asking why everyone’s exgay testamony is about being ripped apart from a promiscuaos life style of sexual addiction. im still waiting for the one……..”i had a committed relationship wit another of the same sex. our relationship embraced the fruit of the fruit of the spirit………………………yet having intimacy with someone of the same sex tore me apart.
yet no one still has made a connection of living a life style of sexual addiction thru sexual promiscuity with those of the same sex
we have the same thing among heterosexuals its also called sexual addiction.
regardless of the reason for the change of status in the apa if homosexuality is a diseease, then how come active homosexuals have never been found to be wanting in any sector of society, as brothers, mothers, fathers, neighors, congregants, managers,counselors, lawyers, teachers,soldiers, corporate administrators, or pastors compared to heterosexuals.
didnt jesus say that you will recognize them by their fruit.(Matt7) that good tree cannot bear bad fruit , but only good fruit.(good fruit being the fruit of the spirit and bad fruit being the things of the sin nature.
yet homosexual couples produce loving nurturing homes for raising children equal to married heterosexual couples, and their sexual intimacy enhances this nurturing environment. do you think the same could be said of those who indulge in orgies, are given to fits of rage, are alcoholics, or sexually addicted.
Hi John,
I’m glad you mentioned that you are still waiting for the one ex-gay whose testimony is about “I had a committed relationship with another of the same sex… but something tore me apart”. That something is, as David Morrison, author of “Beyond Gay”, would say, discipleship. David Morrison was a former gay activist, but he found that the homosexual sub-culture did not and could not provide enrichment for the whole person.
There is nothing wrong with men having healthy intimate friendships with other men, or women having healthy intimate relationships with other women. In fact, it is good and healthy for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation. Deep down, whether we are homosexual or heterosexual, we are all looking for love, and that includes the sexually promiscuous ones among us. We are just looking for love in all the wrong places.
As I said, there is nothing wrong with having healthy intimate friendships with people of the same gender as ourselves. It is only when you introduce genital activity into such relationships that something goes wrong. Even among heterosexuals, when we see a person who goes and has sex with a friend, we know that there is something wrong with that person, because genital activities are not meant to be part of friendships. They are meant for married people, for only in a marriage can sex find its proper meaning - the complete union of male and female. Let me explain why.
Two people of the same gender can never find enrichment and fulfilment in genital activity, simply because the parts don’t fit. Without even taking religion into the picture, and taking into consideration only the purpose of sex in nature, we know that there is no purpose in homosexual sex, because no life comes from it.
But if you add religion to it, specifically Christianity, since this is a Catholic blog, homosexual sex goes against God’s very first commandment to mankind - “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). In fact, any form of sexual intercourse or genital activity that is not oriented towards babies and bonding (not just one, but both) is a violation of this commandment.
This commandment is written into our human bodies, for as we can see, the human person is not a whole organism without a complementary partner of opposite gender. We know from science that living organisms reproduce. A human being is not a whole organism because it cannot reproduce on its own. Only when paired with another person of opposite gender can these two complementary human beings be considered a complete organism.
We find that this science matches perfectly with what we find in nature, and what we find in Christianity. This is how we are created - male and female (Genesis 1:27), and how we are to “conquer the world”.
In Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, the pope explains that God has written in our bodies the very secret of how we human beings can become whole - through love. Not just any kind of love, but the kind of love that Christ has for his Church, the kind of love that each husband is called to have for his wife (Ephesians 5:29-33). It is a love that is free, total, faithful, and open to life.
If you want to know one thing that homosexuals have been found wanting in society, it is the most crucial - procreation. The homosexual lifestyle is not normal. If it were, what would happen if overnight, every person in the world turned homosexual? We would see the end of the human race, because the homosexual lifestyle is not life-giving. It leads to a dead end.
Homosexual couples and heterosexual married couples can never be equal. The main difference between a homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple is that the married heterosexual couple can bear children. The homosexual union cannot and has to obtain their children from another source outside their union. And that source is heterosexual in nature.
Thus we see that every marriage, and every sexual union ought to mirror the covenant between Christ and his Church - free, total, faithful, and open to life. It is in sacred marriage between a man and a woman that the Good News of Christ is given to the world.
This is the Good News of our Lord Jesus Christ has for our sexual brokenness.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Resources:
- You can find more information about “Beyond Gay” by googling it, or by checking out the website at http://www.beyondgay.com
I’m willing to bet that “ex-gay” therapy is a lot more traumatic and damaging to a gay/lesbian than any homosexual or lesbian intimate relationship.
I have lesbian friends, and observation of their behavior indicates no distress or anxiety about their sexual orientation. They are far from being promiscous, and have no sense of guilt about their liifestyle choices.
Yes, same-sex couples can’t have children, but that fact doesn’t make them bad people.
Conservative religious fanatics have to be the most pent-up ,sexually frustrated group of people in America. Perhaps some members of this site are in-the closet homosexuals and lesbians waiting for the right moment to step out of the closet…… Some Catholic Clergy already have.
Leave the gays and lesbians alone. Until you find a “heterosexual” gene, you can’t prove that a small percentage of human beings weren’t designed to be gay/lesbian.
Perhaps God threw a little wrench into the mix so that we can learn to overcome our own insecurities and pre-conceptions regarding human sexuality.
Hi Joe,
A heterosexual gene?! That’s got to be one of the saddest things I’ve heard! The very way the human body is made is heterosexual. Think about the purpose of our sexual organs (and I’m not just talking about the genitals).
You said it yourself - same-sex couples can’t have children. So even if there is a homosexual gene, it can’t be passed down from generation to generation unless homosexuals reproduce, which is not possible in same-sex couples. The only way any gene (let alone a heterosexual or homosexual gene) can be passed on to the next generation is if two humans engage in heterosexual intercourse.
Recall that ex-gay therapy is only for gays who have problems with their being homosexual and want out of it. Ex-gay therapy would obviously not work for those who have no desire to change, and if such people were indeed made to go through therapy to change, it would of course be traumatic. Not so for those who do indeed want to change.
The bottomline of whether or not a woman or a man will be sexually happy is whether or not s/he has accepted who s/he is as a woman or a man. It is a great injustice done to homosexuals when they are put in a situation that prevents them from accepting who they are as a man or a woman. Part of this acceptance is the understanding of why they were made man or woman, and what that entails.
Approval of same-sex couples eliminates the differences between men and women, essentially saying that there is no difference between male and female. That’s not true, and I think you know where lies come from. Certainly not from God.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Hello,
Its been a long time since I started to think about whether or not homosexuality should be ‘acceptable’ et al. Though I haven’t experienced proximity with any openly homosexual person, I have managed to form opinions based on what I believe to be the fundamentals of human living (And ‘living’ is NOT equal to ‘existence’).
You have, in a commendably simply manner said, “We are just looking for love…”
My only question is, WHY must this sense of ‘purpose’ be attached to every single thing we do?
We don’t complain when one takes a moment out from his hectic schedule to watch a bird in flight, in all its pristine glory. For that one moment, the person in question has “ceased to produce fruit”, if you may.
I am a big fan of doing some things, just because they make you happy inside; admiring beauty, pausing on my way to college to watch 2 little children play with a sense of unbridled and untouched bliss, among infinitely many others, are activities I associate with the said heading. This very heading, by your definition of fruit, would then be blacklisted.
Though I choose to believe in a slightly different interpretation of ‘fruit’, even if we WERE to be concordant on that for just a while, if a homosexual person manages to find a semblance of respite &/or joy &/or love, in his relationship with another human being, who are WE to label that as “fruitless”.
Yes, man is supposed to reproduce, it being one of its primary functions, but seriously, we are NOT machines, assigned the task of ensuring the continuance of the human race, by contributing the quota of ‘n’ children to the world.
(In addition, would you in effect denounce heterosexual couples, who aren’t fortunate enough to be able to conceive?)
Coming to what I believe God meant by ‘fruit’, when He tells about bearing good fruit, is it not just a LITTLE bit more probable, that the ‘fruit’ being referred to here, is the manner in which we affect those around us; what we contribute to the endless potpourri of love, goodness and all their complementaries, that is life, RATHER than the number of children we produce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
This is an example which has affected my views on this issue hugely. WHAT authorized us, to condemn this man to a life of humiliation and indignity, after ALL that he had done to serve humanity?
Why must one’s preference on one aspect of life lead to him becoming a pariah.
And since the ideal of equality stands firmly in place, I extrapolate the rights of the person above, to all who wish to live the way they want to.
Awaiting your views…
Best Regards,
Justin.
Hi Justin,
I wouldn’t say that a person who stops to watch a bird in flight has “ceased to produce fruit”. Such a person is, perhaps, admiring the beauty of the bird in flight and in turn, he might be contemplating the Creator. Contemplation of our Creator is one of the highest ways of producing fruits, in my opinion.
Doing things that make you happy inside… this is questionable because there are things that we think makes us happy inside, and there are things that appear to make us happy inside, and there are things that really make us happy inside. Unless we are very honest with ourselves, the things that make us happy inside can be quite different from the things we think will make us happy inside.
The speaker I referred to in my article was a transsexual who thought that by changing the way his body look, he would be happy inside. But just before his operation, he realised that no matter how much he changed his external appearance, it was not his body that had the problem, but his mind, and that changing his appearance would not really make him happy. I have read testimonies of other transsexuals who have gone through the operation and although they say they are happy, their sadness shines through; they’re not really happy at all.
What really makes us happy? Love makes us happy. Love comes to us in the form of unconditional acceptance of who we are. Very often, we must first be loved by others before we begin to unconditionally accept ourselves for who we are. And that’s what we are all looking for. Acceptance and to be loved.
Certainly a homosexual can find joy, friendship and even love from another homosexual. What he (or she) cannot find is a sexual relationship that is unitive and life-giving. This is, after all, what sex is for. Without even talking about the inability to bear fruit and give life, the homosexual person cannot even ‘unite’ himself with another man. The parts simply don’t fit. What this gives rise to really is dissatisfaction, discontent, and a lot of frustration. It is no surprise that sexually active homosexuals have a lot of pent up frustration, and that is why many of them direct their frustration towards gay activism.
Homosexual acts are definitely not life-giving in any sense of the word. Friendships between homosexuals, yes, but not sexual relationships between homosexuals. If anything, homosexual acts are killing homosexuals. After all, the expectant lifespan of a homosexual male is half that of a heterosexual male.
Regarding Alan Turing, we are assuming (wrongly) that his “acts of gross indecency” has no effect on the society in which he lived in. Each person who ‘chooses’ to live a homosexual lifestyle is choosing a lifestyle that is harmful to the society in which he lives in. In so doing, the society has the right to condemn a person if the person’s acts are harmful to the society. If the society chooses not to defend itself and accepts such lifestyles in its midst, then the society is only killing itself. Incidentally, if the homosexual lifestyle (which usually includes homosexual acts) is really a ‘choice’, then why are homosexuals not given the ‘choice’ to live a celibate lifestyle? There is plenty of emphasis by other homosexuals that homosexuals should embrace the homosexual lifestyle , but nothing is heard that celibacy is also a choice.
Knowing that many STDs are spread through homosexual acts, it would seem natural that celibacy be a lifestyle that homosexuals take to protect themselves… but then again, homosexual acts are hardly natural, are they?
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Seriously now, the ideals of unity, and life-giving-ness have GOT to have a more solid base than, “The parts simply don’t (or in the hetero case, DO) fit.”
To clarify my view, yes, even I would consider a man admiring nature’s limitless glorious beauty (which is testament to His grace and love), as paying a tribute to The Creator.
Just the very “economic” tone in which you said that homosexuals were not producing fruit, prompted me to tell you what you sounded like.
Anyhow.
Yes, I think I would agree with you on the inherent sadness that drives people to change the way they look et al, in a desperate attempt to feel happier.
It would seem natural to me too, that their sorrows do not come to an end with an overnight change in their bodies.
BUT, giving as I always do, room for the sheer infiniteness present in the range of human emotions He’s blessed His children with, I can say FOR sure, that one can NEVER guarantee how another human being feels and why. As in, the workings of the mind and consciousness go beyond the realms of perceptible, deterministic modelings. If anything, our best estimates on the state of another human being’s mind, leave alone happiness and the possible lack of it, are very little more than short sighted guesses. I say ’short’, because I believe the depths of His Creation are beyond our comprehension, and shall be so always.
The purpose of all that I’ve said above, was simply:
Yes, its true that a change in the body is perhaps not quite what they need, but it really is NOT for us to judge or decide on what is good for whom. One never knows WHAT might catalyze a change in the mind.
I shall leave the issue of transsexuals for now, till I am in a position to give a slightly more informed opinion.
Coming to the ‘general’ class of homosexuality.
You said, “Certainly a homosexual can find joy, friendship and even love from another homosexual. What he (or she) cannot find is a sexual relationship that is unitive and life-giving. This is, after all, what sex is for.”
Indeed, sex IS the means for the end that is human procreation. But creating human beings is surely not the only form of ‘fruit’ one can bear.
To draw a slightly crude analogy, not everyone with hands works on creating ‘physically tangible’ products. Some choose to write, some think; some create missiles, some flowers; some do this, some do that. The entire human race, in an inescapable sense of equilibrium, creates different objects, obeying the general laws of economics and logic, to give us the maddeningly beautiful gamut that is life on Planet Earth. I’m PRETTY sure thats how He planned it.
WHY then, must you expect every single human being to contribute to the production line of human beings?
As I had said in the previous post as well, I feel it is what we add to our lives, and to that of people around us, which really defines how much we’ve ‘produced’.
If you were to then question the very act of sex, albeit ‘unnatural’, in the case of homosexuals, I think the sense of spirituality and the ‘being one in spirit’, really MUST be at a level that transcends the constraints of productivity, and parts fitting well together.
Also, as the Beatles had so beautifully said all those years back, “All you need is love…”.
Yes indeed, love IS what makes us happy. But to rule out the possibility of “true love” between two homosexual human beings, I feel would be WAY beyond our jurisdiction as mere mortals.
If someone finds all the ingredients of love and bliss with his/her life partner, who are we to question its authenticity?
Coming now to Alan Turing, and the general effect a homosexual can have on society around him/her.
I would like you to elaborate on:
“Each person who ‘chooses’ to live a homosexual lifestyle is choosing a lifestyle that is harmful to the society in which he lives in.”
Pleading honest ignorance to ‘exposure’ to openly homosexual beings, I really look forward to your insight behind branding my ‘assumption’ on the socially benign nature of homosexuality as wrong. Though I AM sure, at least, of the fact that homosexuals are not walking talking carriers of the plague and all its friends and family.
Also, with a little social more acceptance, I’m sure protection would help them too, just like it has the ’straight world’.
Society, is a body of the masses. And be it for good or for bad, the ‘majority’ always comes up the winner. A Hindi proverb I adore comes to mind,
“Jiski laathi uski bhains.”, translating to “The one with the stick (read power) owns the cattle (read authority, property, the world)”.
Now just because 99.9% (NOTE: random figure!) of the world may be hetero, does NOT make the remainder of humanity ANY less human; ANY less God’s children; ANY less worthy of the fundamental rights to freedom.
When Alan Turing was accused of “gross acts of indecency” and forced to mental and physical treatment, society took a man who had helped halt Hitler (alliteration inadvertent!) and doomed him to a life of ignominy and disgrace. Someone who, all his life, had been the tree producing the fruit humankind needed MOST at his time, was stunted, as he was considered too “harmful” to society.
To think, that what a person does in his personal life holds such an influence on his social legitimacy, smacks of today’s tabloid mentality, only more serious, more harmful and downright more cruel.
Celibacy, is a personal ‘choice’. And I don’t see any reason why homosexuals cannot be celibate. More on that issue later, owing to my aforementioned dearth of ‘exposure’.
Though it DOES seem to me, that celibacy goes against your fundamental principle of ‘bearing fruit’ and ‘giving life’. Please clarify.
To your final point, please note that the ailments in question are “SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES”, and not “HOMOsexually transmitted…”.
You say,
“Knowing that many STDs are spread through homosexual acts, it would seem natural that celibacy be a lifestyle that homosexuals take to protect themselves…”
How would you respond to:
“Knowing that many STDs are spread through SEXUAL acts, it would seem natural that celibacy be a lifestyle that HUMAN BEINGS take to protect themselves.”
and yes, in the process, violate the 1st law of human procreation!
Incredibly fulfilling it is, this little discussion.
Thanks a lot Catholic Writer,
Looking forward to your reply and insight,
Justin.
PS: Luke 6:37, 38.
God Bless.
Hi Justin,
The ideals of unity and life-givingness certainly does have a more solid base to it, but what can be more solid than the body which we can see and touch? I would say that anything else is far harder to understand, but let me try, taking from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC):
- God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him.” None ofthe animals can be man’s partner. The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity. (CCC n.371)
- Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal in persons (”bone of my bones…”
and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”, they can transmit human life: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work. (CCC n.372)
And indeed it is unique, because try as we might, nothing else but sexual communion of persons can transmit human life. This is why homosexual unions aren’t really ‘unions’, because they can’t unite. And because they can’t unite, they cannot transmit human life. Homosexual unions are not part of the order that God created human beings to be; they are not able to be a true “communion of persons” that can cooperate with their Creator’s work.
You are right: it is not for us to judge what is good for whom; it is for God to judge this. We should not even judge what is good for ourselves, but to rely on God to judge this for us. This is found in the CCC as well:
- God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. (CCC n.396)
When we go against the laws of creation and the moral norms that govern our use of freedom, we are, in fact, deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil, when this judgement should be left to our Creator.
On sex:
The purpose of sex is for bonding and for procreation. A person who has sex without the intention to procreate (without good reason) is misusing the gift of sex.
However, you are right that not every single human being has to contribute to bringing new life in the world in this way. Certainly we know that homosexuals are usually very creative people. Many are designers, artistes, painters, writers, dancers, singers, etc. Do you not think that it is fair that God has gifted homosexuals with wonderful ways of producing fruits, as they are not able to produce fruits through sex? I am all for homosexuals (or anyone else in fact) contributing to society and producing much fruit with their special gifts which God has endowed them with. But I draw the line when homosexuals (or anyone else in fact) insist that they be allowed to misuse sex solely for pleasure.
Coming back to sex, we humans are made body and spirit. We can’t see our spirits, but we sure can see our bodies. The body makes visible what is invisible. When we unite our bodies in sex, our spirits also unite in the ecstasy of the moment. We know this because the body makes visible what is invisible. When it comes to homosexuals having sex, we cannot say that their spirits are united if their bodies are not united, because the body makes visible what is invisible. If the two bodies cannot unite, then it shows that the two spirits cannot unite either. They are not “one in spirit” at all because they are not “one in body”. To separate the spirit from the body is… inhuman, and certainly not natural at all. Think of disembodied spirits and corpses.
True love IS possible between two persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, but true love IS possible without sexual activity. There is no denying that there is true love between me and my parents, but does that mean that I must have sex with my parents in order to show that there is true love? No, because there are other ways in which our bodies can show true love. My parents show me love by the acts of sacrifice that they make to bring me up. I show my parents love by in turn making sacrifices and being filial and obedient (although I have yet to clean up my room!)
There is also true love to be found in friendships. I am willing to bet that there is true love to be found between you and your buddies, the ones who are there for you when you really need them to be. But that doesn’t mean you need to go and have sex with them just because there is true love.
True love does NOT require any sexual activity to take place between the persons.
On the effect acceptance of homosexual unions can have on the society around them:
I am specific in the choice of words here because it is homosexual unions (and related homosexual acts) that I am against, not homosexual persons. A society that accepts homosexual unions simply because two people of the same sex want to live together and want the rights of a married couple is discriminating against all other sets of two people of who are living together e.g. two sisters sharing the same apartment, two brothers sharing the same house. Why should these sets of two people of the same sex living together not get the same rights of a married couple either? Is this not discrimination? Is there no true love between these siblings?
If we allow two homosexuals to have the same rights as a married couple, then where do we draw the line? Why not allow an incestuous mother and son (or father and daughter) to do the same? Why not allow threesomes or foursomes? We can’t draw the line any more because allowing homosexual unions has already undermined the meaning of marriage.
While marriage does involve very personal feelings, this does not mean that marriage is merely a private matter. Whether a marriage succeeds or fails has a huge impact on the couple, their children, those around then, and the entire society. As an institution, marriage is the business of everyone in society. Therefore anything that undermines marriage undermines society as a whole, because marriage (and the family that comes with it) is the basic unit of society.
STDs aside, the reason homosexual unions and acts kills society is because it runs contrary to marriage, and the only protection we have against that is not to accept or allow such threats to society to exist.
I totally agree with you that the majority should not make any person any less worthy of the fundamental rights to freedom. But what is freedom? Is freedom the right to do anything you want? That’s not freedom because if it is, your freedom stops when you trespass the freedom of another person. We have seen how homosexual acts trespass the freedom of other people in society. That means no one can truly be free, if we use this definition of freedom.
I propose a different definition of freedom, and one that was originally used before our current understanding of the term.
Freedom is the ability to do what is right and good. Hence, a person who is not able to do right or good is one who is not free. In other words, homosexual persons who commit homosexual acts are not free, not because they cannot do what they want, but because they do not do what is right and good. And what is right and good? We have seen right from the start of this response that what is right and good is decided by our Creator, not us.
Regarding Alan Turing, as I wrote above, what a person does sexually is never private, because sex is ordered towards marriage. To misuse sex in any way is to undermine marriage, which is not a private matter, but a matter of concern for the whole society. I agree that it was wrong for Turing to be forced to go for mental and physical treatment. I think that it should have been a choice that Turing had to make, rather than to have it forced on him. But what if Turing had chose not to undergo treatment and to continue to undermine marriage in the way that he had been doing so? Would society not have the right to protect itself from him? Does society not do the same to other threats it faces?
On celibacy:
Celibacy does not run contrary to bearing fruit and giving life because it is not a misuse of sex. In fact, it is a non-use of sex. You cannot misuse something if you’re not using it.
On STDs:
The Church does indeed recommend that Catholics, and indeed all people, protect themselves from spreading and receiving STDs by practising celibacy until marriage, and then faithfulness to one’s spouse during marriage.
However, one practical reason why homosexuals are more vulnerable to STDs, especially those that are transmitted through blood, is simply because the anus is not meant for penetration. The skin around the anus is much more sensitive and bleeding frequently occurs, if not always, during anal sex.
Hope this helps. If you are interested, there is a good article on Catholic Answers on gay marriage here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
It’s lengthy because it answers a lot of frequently asked questions concerning this topic. If you’re interested, you can read it on your own time.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
P.S.: Matthew 19:4-6
10%. 2.5%. If your criteria for whether homosexuality is ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ is based on their numbers in the population, then have you considered how many people In Singapore scored all As in their exam? Are these scholars abnormal?
I find your assertion about Kinsey cherry-picking very interesting. That’s precisely what a lot of people did when they said slavery is not wrong, that women should stay in the home, that inter-racial marriage should not be allowed. That’s also what a lot of people is doing when they assert that being gay is wrong, that gay men can turn straight.
Leslie Lung was a transexual. A transexual is someone who feel that he’s a girl trapped in a man’s body. Or vice versa. A transexual is not a homosexual.
A homosexual has no confusion about his sex. A gay man knows he’s a man and he doesn’t want to be a woman. A lesbian knows she’s a woman and she doen’t want to be a man.
The injustice towards homosexuals is to treat them as sub-human, the same way black men were treated as sub-human in the American South, the same way women were treated as 2nd class citizen.
Hi Gwo Yinn,
This post was written a while ago, and my understanding of homosexuality has developed somewhat over this time.
“Are these scholars normal?”
>>> I believe the term given to them is “gifted”. I believe that gifted children are also discriminated for and against… especially during National Service.
“That’s also what a lot of people is doing when they assert that being gay is wrong, that gay men can turn straight.”
>>> According to my understanding and based on Father John Harvey’s 50 years of experience with persons with same-sex attraction, 1 in 3 homosexual persons can and do adopt a predominant attraction to persons of the opposite sex, given sufficient motivation, usually religious.
>>> It is not wrong for a person to be a homosexual. Show me a person who says that it is being homosexual is wrong, and I’ll show you a bigot. What is morally wrong are homosexual acts. Being a persons can never be wrong, and are always good in the eyes of God. What is wrong are certain behaviours which are harmful to society (explained further below).
“A transsexual is not a homosexual.”
>>> What homosexual persons have that defines their sexual preference is “same-sex attraction”. In the case of Leslie Lung, he is a man who wanted to become a woman, and was attracted to men. In other words, Leslie suffered from same-sex attraction, or what is called homosexuality. To be sure his case was more complex, but what he went through, especially in terms of discrimination and emotional experiences, is largely similar to what other homosexual persons go through.
“The injustice towards homosexuals is to treat them as sub-human.”
>>> In Singapore, homosexual persons are not treated as sub-human. They have equal rights as any other Singapore citizen. If any homosexual person has been denied his civil rights, then there is reason to make a complaint about it, but I do not believe this is the case here.
>>> I would go one step further to say that the people who treat homosexual persons as sub-human are those that refer to such persons as gays, lesbians, transsexuals, homosexuals, etc. Why? Because these terms are not nouns, but adjectives i.e. descriptions of certain behaviours or characteristics. I’ve used them in the past, and I apologise for it, because I now see that using such terms reduces persons to objects. I now understand that a person should never be judged and categorized solely on his or her sexual behaviour.
As for why homosexual acts are immoral, here’s a further explanation:
It is true that the majority of men and women in the population have a natural physical attraction to the opposite sex. This attraction is meant to lead to an intimate permanent union of a man and a woman in marriage who look forward to children. This is call “complementarity”.
Complementarity exists in homosexual relationships as well. It is not uncommon to hear of homosexual persons refer to themselves as active/passive, ones/zeroes, etc. This is an attempt to replicate complementarity based on personalities or emotional characteristics. But only a man and a woman can actually give and receive in a complementary union of bodies; homosexual acts cannot, and there is no true union of bodies.
The philosopher Michael Pakaluk argues that marital intercourse “has a special status that makes it different from other human activities… We say sex is special because it is a sign of the union of the persons who engage in sex. The sign is the union of bodies, and the sign signifies the union of persons. Thus, it is correct to say that when a man and woman engage in sex, the union of their bodies signifies the union of their selves.” He adds that “sexual intercourse has a certain meaning independent of our choices; it signifies a union of selves.” Thus, we cannot change the objective meaning of sexual intercourse.
Moreover, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman has a reproductive character. The act tends to produce offspring who combine the characteristics of husband and wife, and in so doing promote the unity of the spouses. As we know, homosexual intercourse has no such power.
Homosexual acts and same-sex unions attempt to redefine marriage, on which families are founded, and on which society is founded. As such, homosexual acts and same-sex unions are immoral because they harm marriage, and therefore families, and society itself.
But I stress that I mean this in reference to homosexual acts. I repeat that there is nothing immoral about being a homosexual person.
I would like to continue this dialogue with you, so please do respond.
Thank you and God bless,
Catholic Writer