The Homosexual Relationship
The male-female relationship in human society is the most fundamental and important type of human relationship because it is not only the cornerstone of procreation, but also the unique bond in the principally perfect union of the two complementary halves of humanity. As such, this bond is special and its unique qualities should be acknowledged and strengthened, not denied and degraded by regarding it simply as one of the many alternatives.
The homosexual activists and their supporters have had considerable success in favorably framing the issues in terms of what they want to focus on, and coining the language to their liking in the contemporary debate over homosexuality. Indeed, the core issue of homosexuality, that of the essence of the relationship itself, has been lost in the debate and secondary issues such as tolerance, acceptance, civil rights, adoption and homosexual marriage have been promoted to take the center stage. In effect, the underlying relationship has been accepted as valid, and as a result, the rest of the claims will have to be accepted because they logically follow. But, these issues are not fundamental and only flow by implication from the basic assumptions about the normalcy of the homosexual relationship.
In this essay, I refocus the attention on the essence of the homosexual relationship. I will argue that, despite the popular and often irrelevant claims to the contrary, homosexuality is a pathological condition of the sexual system. This argument is in the bigger context of the sexual system and the fundamental, gender-based, and complementary relationship between male and female. Because men and women are not interchangeable, a homosexual relationship cannot be a valid substitute for a heterosexual relationship. The fundamental harm which lies in homosexual tendencies and behaviors results from the depravation of one sex from the complementary characteristics and influences of the opposite sex.
I will briefly touch on many aspects of this debate for completeness and to rebut the oft made and invalid arguments on these basis.
The Homosexual Aspirations & Agenda
There has been a trend in recent years, and becoming more widespread, where people with certain identifiable problems try to redefine their problems as traits of diversity. For example, in a recent news story a deaf child was born to deaf parents (who were, incidentally, a lesbian pair). The child's impairment could be treated and cured but the parents refused to allow treatment on the grounds that deafness is not a defect but a culture! Their argument was based on that deaf people have their own language and way of life and therefore are a distinct culture and by curing their child they would be turning their back on their culture. It is hard to imagine a more selfish and absurd argument. They want to deprive their own child of a major sense because they think that their physical impairment amounts to a culture.
This quest for normalcy, through the redefinition of problems as diversity traits, is a strong and emotional driver for activists to promote acceptance and normalization of their condition. The conviction behind this activism is further strengthened by the historical bigotry and unreasonable discriminations that people with these problems were made to bear. They are now united partly because of this common discrimination that they endured over the decades and centuries past. This is one reason why they feel so self-righteous and are so dedicated to their causes.
To this end, the homosexual activists and their supporters now want to get as much media exposure as they can, promote their condition as normal through educational establishments and entertainment outlets and gain sympathy and acceptance by irrelevant comparisons to racial minorities and arguments on the basis of civil rights. Even past this stage, they have reached the point of coercing the rest of the society to accept their viewpoints by judicial decree and favorable interpretations of law. This is a classic case of the tyranny of minority.
Trivialized Male-Female Differences
Probably the most important of the intellectual and emotional enablers of the current permissive and positive attitudes towards homosexuality is the trivialization of the differences between men and women in pop culture, politics and law. This attempt at trivializing the differences stems from the emotional quest for equality through sameness. After all, if we are all the same, there can be no argument about who is better or worse in a particular respect. But this quest is misguided in its approach. By denying the differences, they are also denying the unique and irreplaceable values that each sex brings to the table. Ironically, one of the negative results of the feminist movement has been the under-valuation of femininity. From the inception, the feminist movement tried to deny and trivialize male-female differences and directly or by implication regard them as a social strategy devised by men to keep women down. They aggressively promoted male behavior and manners in women to "show" everybody that women can do everything just as well as men. Unwittingly, the feminists are also sending the message that women can only have value if they act like men, undervaluing their potential based on their own feminine traits.
If we accept the proposition that men and women are basically the same (other than some obvious anatomical differences) in terms of behavior, traits, and inclinations, then we can logically conclude that they are interchangeable in general. This fallacious proposition is largely responsible for the justification and acceptance of the homosexual relationship because if men and women are interchangeable, then based on one's inclinations, be they biologically based or not, one may validly choose either a man or a woman as his/her sexual partner. That is, anything goes.
Of course, men and women are very different in their behaviors, traits, and inclinations. The differences are very visible at all levels of their existence from sub-cellular level XX & XY chromosomes, to the highest levels of cognitive characteristics as I discuss below.
What is the Sexual System?
Sex is often identified with mating and that is probably the most visible manifestation of the sexual system. But there is a lot more to the sexual system than mere sex. The sexual system is a means of diversifying and thus strengthening the gene pool by requiring the mixing of the chromosomes of two individuals, the male and the female. But it doesn't end there. In advanced animals and especially in humans, this is a multi-level system where at each level there are complex adaptations that support the particular sex's (i.e. male or female's) sexual strategy for survival. Some of the identifiable levels include sub-cellular (e.g.: chromosomes), cellular (e.g.: sex cells), physiological (e.g.: hormones, circulation), anatomical (e.g.: do you really need an example for this?!), emotional (how we feel about a given event), behavioral (how we react to and deal with events), and cognitive (how we understand and view intellectual matters) levels.
Male and female are different in each of the levels mentioned above. What is more, these differences are complementary to those of the opposite sex, not arbitrary. At some levels, such as the sub-cellular and cellular levels where you consider the makeup of XX-XY chromosomes and behaviors of sperm and egg, respectively, this complementation is obvious. At other levels the complementation is more subtle, but it is there. Some of these levels are discussed below.
At the cognitive level, generally, both men and women can do everything, but how they do it and how they approach problems and solutions are different because of their different outlooks on life necessitated by their gender. Women tend to be more holistic in their approach to problems and men tend to be more black & white and focused. These differences are neither trivial nor incidental. They represent two fundamental and complementary approaches to problem solving and dealing with life's challenges. In some problem areas we need to focus intensely, be methodical, and dig deep, while in other areas we need to consider all factors and relationships involved. This may partially explain why men tend to be the technical specialists while women excel in management skills, multi-tasking, and social relationships. It is noteworthy that in adopting one of these problem solving strategies, it is not only the capabilities that are important but also the inclination and enjoyment involved because people tend to do what they enjoy in the absence of ulterior socio-political motives.
At the behavioral level, one of the differences is that women tend to react to conflicts with more physically peaceful means (although the attitude may be combative), whereas men are more likely to resort to physical violence to settle the dispute. The complementation lies in that both types of reactions are sometimes called for and neither one alone can resolve all conflicts. Hence, the two together complement each other and create a balanced strategy for dealing with all situations.
Because sex is the differentiator of male and female at many levels, it follows that "homo" - "sex" is a contradiction in terms. In this context, "sex" means difference. So, these gender-based differences are fundamental (i.e. it applies to everybody), not incidental, they are complementary, not merely collaborative, and they are gender-based, not individual-based. It is important to note that in addition to these sexual characteristics within the individual, the functioning of the sexual system also depends upon the coming together of the sexes to fulfill the complementation. So, it follows that the sexual system may be impaired in two ways: one, by a defect in one of the levels listed above within one individual (intra-sex problem), and two, by one individual failing to join with his/her complement, namely the opposite sex. The latter could happen in the form of lack of attraction to the opposite sex (inter-sex problem).
It is important to recognize the difference between complementation and collaboration. Collaboration means the two collaborating entities basically perform the same function but more of it. Whereas, complementation means the two complementing entities perform different functions to achieve a common goal. The four wheels in a car are collaborative because they merely divide the load, while the engine and the transmission perform different functions of power generation and power transmission, respectively, to achieve the common goal of motion. When two same-sex individuals form a partnership, the partnership is necessarily and fundamentally collaborative, whereas when two opposite-sex (i.e. a male and a female) individuals form a partnership (marriage or otherwise), they necessarily complement each other with respect to fundamental functions of life. The fact that a heterosexual couple may be mismatched does not negate this principle, just as a badly made car does not negate the principles of physics.
The book Brain Sex, by Anne Moir, is instructive about male-female differences.
Where is the Harm?
Because inter-sex attraction is an integral part of the sexual system and a requirement for its proper functioning, any impairment in this attraction is a pathological condition. Homosexuality, therefore, is harmful precisely because the lack of inter-sex attraction deprives the individual from the complementary characteristics and influences of the opposite sex. Additionally, a committed homosexual in a relationship with another partner is doubly harmed by getting a false sense of fulfillment, regardless of personal feelings and enjoyment, and by getting further reinforced in his behavior. The unmarried, or otherwise unattached, heterosexual individual is also deprived from the influences of the opposite sex, but with one important difference, that he has an attraction towards the opposite sex and the potential to partner with one is always there. This harm is the fundamental issue and is at the very foundation of all other harms. Furthermore, it manifests itself over the long-term and is not trivial.
Other secondary harms ensue when the homosexual activists promote and propagate this harmful behavior to other vulnerable people, especially the youth and children who are extra impressionable. Another means of inflicting greater harm on society is created by people in positions of power and high visibility, such as judges and senators, who are openly homosexual and are often activists in their cause. In these situations, they further normalize the behavior, making it more acceptable to others and lowering the "barrier to entry", so to say. That is, when moral inhibitions are eliminated, people may just try it for many different reasons, including desire to make a political statement, desire for attention, or because they are impressionable, especially in the case of youth.
It is important to understand that human sexuality, like most human traits, is malleable and flexible. It is even more important to recognize that just because you are flexible it doesn't mean anything you do is ok. That is, flexibility does not negate any of the principles we discussed above or alter the nature of harm caused by violating them. Consider heroin, for example. It is literally a toxic substance for human body, and yet, in absence of education and inhibition, one can try it and consequently get addicted to it to the ultimate detriment of himself and society. Just like heroin is not a natural food substance and is harmful and yet some people try it, some people may also be inclined to try a homosexual experience. So, it is pure demagoguery to assert that heterosexuals are not affected by the normalization of homosexuality. Many people, especially youth, are susceptible and many homosexuals often do attempt to "recruit" new people into their ranks precisely based on the knowledge of this flexibility.
Confusion of small children, especially those below the age of five, about human relationships is also a major concern. A small child who does not have a firm gender identity yet and does not fully understand and appreciate the range and nature of various human relationships, may think it is "normal" to marry their friend of the same sex in the absence of any inhibitions, or worse, by seeing a lot of examples of same-sex "couples" in their lives, movies, or even in cartoons.
An additional harm to children raised in a homosexual house-hold is their depravation from two distinct effects created by the lack of heterosexual parents. One effect is that they have no intimate and deep role model for both sexes up-close and personal and on a daily basis. And no, "Uncle Bob's" or "Aunt Mary's" occasional visits do not fulfill this need. The second effect is that they do not partake from the actual influence of each sex in their daily lives and the directions in which their lives are taken by virtue of these influences. This latter effect is the same kind of depravation that each homosexual partner also experiences as described above.
Appeasement Promotes Boldness
Appeasement is really a form of blackmail or extortion: you give undeserved concessions to someone in order to get their cooperation in return. It is generally an unfair and/or immoral exchange involving a sacrifice of principles. In the case of homosexuality, the society has tried very hard to appease them by continuously accepting more and more of their claims and viewpoints. With each step the party appeased becomes bolder and bolder and feels more and more self-righteous. The first and most damaging acceptance was that of the homosexual relationship itself as a valid counterpart of the heterosexual pair bonding relationship. And so, the first step in reversing this trend is to recognize the homosexual relationship and its implications.
Are You Stereotyping Again?
Stereotyping means jumping to unjustified and generalized conclusions about a group of people based on a few experiences. Some conclusions about groups of people may look like stereotyping but they are not if a large percentage of that population fit a certain description. For example, it is stereotyping to say Mexicans are all drug-dealers, but it is not stereotyping to say Mexicans have a lot of beans in their diet. The former is simply not true about a large majority of Mexicans, while the latter is.
Homosexual activists and supporters use stereotyping as a defense to rebut some assertions about their behavior which are actually true and not stereotypes. For example, homosexual males have a lot of partners and engage in a lot of casual sex. This is not stereotyping. It stems from male sexuality, probably genetically programmed, and male's desire to mate with as many females as possible to spread his "seeds". It is almost universally true about all males in all species with few exceptions. Heterosexual men usually are not successful in "mating with as many females as possible" because the women won't cooperate! Women do not have this behavior in general and thus tend to balance men out in this respect by being hard to get. Whereas a homosexual man finds many other willing male partners to engage in sex because both of them have the same desires and there is nothing in their makeup to inhibit this behavior and so no balancing takes place.
The Numbers Game
One of the standard methods that different groups of people use to make themselves look important and legitimate is to inflate their numbers and size. The homosexual group advertises that up to 12% of the population is homosexual! The proportion of true hardcore homosexuals whose sexual tendencies have a biological (genetic or developmental) basis is probably much less than 0.1%, given that evolution favors the fertile and the types of behaviors that lead to high fertility rates. When you count the self-professed homosexuals who have other reasons and ulterior motives for their sexual deviance, the proportion may rise to about 1-2%. These other reasons include bitterness against anything traditional or established, desire for attention, making a political statement, and general behavior flexibility (including sexual behavior) in absence of inhibitions, among others. In any event, their numbers are far less than the advertised 10-12%.
The homosexual movement could never have achieved the notoriety it has, if it wasn't for the complacency of the silent non-homosexual majority and the support of non-homosexual minorities and the politically correct crowd. Much of their support comes from women and minorities who identify with the pains of discrimination and the politically correct who want to be perceived as real "open-minded" and "progressive". These supporters generally identify with the homosexuals because they believe that they have experienced similar treatments from the majority in the past. But, their support is misplaced because even though there are similarities between some of these minorities' plights and the homosexual agenda, there are also important differences, as discussed, and adverse consequences that merit careful attention and re-evaluation of their support.
Another motivation for many of the supporters is the "common enemy" or "common goal" principle, which means you team up with others to defeat a common enemy or achieve a common objective, even if you don't directly care about your "teammate's" interests. Sex-based values, such as chastity, long held by society at large, and religions in particular, go against the perceived interests of many groups of people and professions which in one way or another depend on explicit sexual activities and expressions. Examples include some people in arts, theater, movies, adult film industry, and prostitution (yes, prostitutes can vote too). These people support any type of sexual freedom because it agrees with their values and fuels the fire of their industry.
Weapons of Mis-Instruction: Language & Terminology
In the battlefield of social and political dialog, language is the weapon of choice. Language drives social images, images drive emotions, and emotions drive decisions. The homosexual activists have successfully coined catchy terms and phrases which convey the messages they want. For example, they almost universally identify themselves as "gay" instead of homosexual, reducing the negative connotations. They commonly attack anybody who objects to their ideas and promotions by labeling him as a "homophobe". They use superficial slogans such as "Hate is not a family value", or "Equal rights are not special rights", which lack any rational or logical validity, but achieve their propaganda purposes rather well by creating the desired images. Language is important. To reveal the flaws in these arguments, it is imperative that these terms be taken out and their fallacious nature be exposed.
Another facet of the use of language to manipulate emotions is the use of some special words that have been given a sort of "sacred" status. By throwing these words into a sentence or context, the speaker hopes to justify anything else being asserted, no matter how unreasonable or ludicrous. At the top of the list are the words "love", "culture", "diversity" and "tolerance." For many people, when you throw one of these words into the mix, everything else you might want to assert seems to be automatically justified; no additional reasons required. And then, any resistance to such assertions is treated like heresy. So, for example, if they say "a homosexual couple love each other and therefore their relationship deserves special protection," all other issues and concerns are treated as secondary and trivial because of the presence of the word "love". After all, what could be more important than "love"?! Similar situations exist for the words culture, diversity, and tolerance.
The problem is that none of these words have value in and of themselves. Their values are entirely dependent upon and derived from their objects or contents. Whether love is good or bad depends not on love itself, but on what you love. A heroin addict loves heroin but that doesn't make it a beautiful relationship. Similarly, the value of culture or tolerance is dependent upon the contents of the culture and the objects of tolerance. Thieves, drug dealers, and prisoners have their own "culture" and lingo too and they are far from sacred. Tolerance of a bad thing is bad and intolerance of a bad thing is good.
Religious Arguments Are for Religious People
Some of the popular arguments against homosexual rights are made based on religious values and texts, such as the Bible. The problem with these arguments is that only the faithful believe in them and even among the faithful many interpret the verses to suit their own convictions. After all, how many homosexual priests have we seen recently who openly profess that homosexual relationship is equivalent to a heterosexual relationship in the sight of God? (This is not a trick question; the answer is many.)
Another side-effect of religious arguments is that people who are anti-religion or don't like religious intrusions in their lives try to deal a blow to religion by supporting things that are against religious teachings, in this case, homosexuality. This is another emotional driver for such supports. That is, they are against religion, not necessarily for homosexuality per se.
No Fault and No Cure
An often mentioned defense of homosexuality is that it is biologically based and therefore it is not the fault of the homosexual. Additionally, and in the same vein, they claim that there is no cure for it and so therefore it is a normal condition. Well, not really. This is a faulty argument. Lack of fault and/or cure does not convert a problem into a virtue or a normal condition. If you are blind, you have a sensory impairment. The fact that it was not your fault that you are blind and there is no cure for it does not change the problems associated with blindness. Rationally, this point is clear enough, but emotionally, a lot of people seem to relate to this excuse and tend to want to support the underdog, that is the homosexual, in their views, which of course, is a misplaced sympathy that does more harm than good.
What about Love, Commitment, and Stability?
Yes, what about them? As discussed in the section on language, none of these qualities have value in and of themselves. Their values are entirely dependent upon their objects. Whether love is good or bad depends not on love itself, but on what you love. Similarly, you may have a very stable and committed relationship with your local tavern too, but that doesn't make it a beneficial relationship. In order for love, commitment and stability to have special values, the underlying relationships must have special value first.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution people have a right to the equal protection of law. Without getting into the details of the applicable Constitutional analysis involved in these types of cases (i.e. suspect groups, strict scrutiny, etc.), we must note that there is a difference between application of a law to a particular group of people and conditions that define the applicability of that law in general. A particular law or regulation for public taxi drivers does not apply to bicycle riders. This is not discrimination against bicycle riders as a group. The law is simply not defined to be applicable to them. Similarly, laws of marriage are defined to be applicable to a married couple consisting of a man and a woman, not same-sex partners. Therefore, it is not a legally valid point to claim unequal treatment of homosexuals under the Fourteenth Amendment. Definition of law is not the same as application of law.
Homosexual Marriage, Civil Union, and Adoption
Government generally has two types of legal devices for shaping the behavior of its people: one is the law, the obedience to which is obligatory, and the other is incentives which are only persuasive in their application to public. Any law or regulation is an example of the first type, while an example of the second type is tax breaks for particular voluntary actions. Laws are generally for the protection of people's rights and privileges, while incentives are for the promotion of actions which benefit public interest, but are not mandatory. Marriage belongs to the second category. It is better for social order and benefit if people marry and have stable and functional families based on the inherently beneficial male-female relationship, so, government should and does provide incentives to that end. Based on the discussions above, not only a homosexual relationship does not confer the same benefits on society, it imparts certain harms on it as well. Accordingly, neither homosexual marriage nor civil union should be encouraged by government.
The matter of child adoption is a bit different. There are children who may benefit by being adopted by a homosexual couple, on the basis of the lesser of two evils, if their situation is such that any amount of attention or resources would help them. But again, the homosexual harm is so fundamental that very careful consideration is in order before granting any such adoptions. And most assuredly, a heterosexual couple who meet adoption criteria should be given priority over any homosexual couple in this regard.
Comparison to other Minorities
A rather offensive and misleading strategy adopted by homosexual activists is comparing their situation to minorities and drawing a parallel with them, especially with blacks. This comparison is often in the context of marital rights. The basic fallacy here is that a heterosexual black and white marriage is principally no different from a heterosexual single-race marriage. A man (or woman) of a different race is still a man (or woman), regardless of minor and superficial racial differences such as skin color or hair type. Whereas, there is nothing minor about the differences between a man and a woman when substituted for opposite sex in a homosexual relationship, as discussed above. Again, this comparison has an emotional appeal but rationally, it is completely invalid.
Where Are All Those Homosexual Animals?
Beyond the careful analysis of the sexual system, one must really use his common sense too. To do so, all we have to do is to ask ourselves if homosexual behavior is a natural variation and not a pathology, how come there are NO homosexual animals among literally billions of individual animals in hundreds of thousands of species? Isn't that just a bit strange? To any reasonable mind this should be an immediate tip-off that something is wrong.
The very few examples of apparent homosexual behaviors observed among some species of animals all have non-sexual explanations. Among the species that sometimes exhibit what seems like homosexual behavior are bonobo chimps and some antelopes. Bonobo chimps use sex as a tool for social bonding in their clans. There is no orgasm involved in same-sex sexual interactions, making these interactions very different and far less than "having sex". This is similar to dogs licking or sniffing each other's genitals in a pack or other apes grooming during social interaction, albeit a bit more sexual in appearance. On rare occasions, some young male antelopes sometimes attempt to mount other young male antelopes in their zeal for reproduction under mistaken identity, thinking the small male is a female. Of course such attempts do not go very far and are rejected immediately and once the young males become more experienced these incidents do not happen. The homosexual activists and feminists have been quick to seize on the bonobo chimp's bonding habits, touting them as a great role model for human society! How absurd can one get?!
The common-sense bottom line is that there is nothing right with the idea of homosexuality and its associated behaviors, not biologically, not socially, not evolutionarily, and not rationally.
The general attitude towards homosexuality should be the same as towards any other affliction or problem. Diabetes can serve as an instructive model for guiding our attitude: the diabetic is generally not at fault for his condition, there is no cure for it, we are against diabetes not the diabetic, there are border-line cases that with the proper care and treatment can live normal lives, there are hard cases that have to do the best they can living with their problem, all people are susceptible to contracting it to varying degrees, society and law should respect the diabetic as a person but not promote or defend diabetes as a condition, and diabetes has always been in human society but it is not a good thing.
If you substitute "homosexuality" for "diabetes" and "homosexual" for "diabetic" in the above paragraph and add the principle of complementation between men and women, you get a substantially accurate picture.
Copyright © 2004 by Farjam Majd
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.