Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people,

its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved. John Paul II

Whats Wrong With Homosexuality?

The argument in favor of the acceptance of homosexuality goes something like this: Its a matter of freedom. What someone does in their own bedroom affects and harms no one else, so people should be free to do as they please. Besides homosexuals are born that way, so society has no right to ask them to be different. In a world that regards homosexuality as simply a personal preference little different than preferring vanilla over chocolate, the vehemence of Biblical injunctions against the practice are jarring to most. Even many self-professing Christians flinch from a position of outright prohibition and lean toward tolerance and understanding. Yet unbiased inquiry leads the reasoned examiner to a respect for the logic and purpose of the scriptural condemnation. The scriptural prohibition is extremely clear. Leviticus 20:13 reads, If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. This statement leaves little room for doubt the Bible strictly condemns the practice of homosexuality. It was clearly considered a vile act which was to be treated as a capital offense. The prohibition was also not exclusive to the Old Testament. It continues in the New Testament as well. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death (Romans 1:26-27,32) In examining the topic of tolerance or prohibition of homosexuality, the first issue to resolve is that of liberty. Homosexual advocates attempt to frame the subject as an argument over freedom. But the fact of the matter is this is an indefensible position. Tolerance for homosexuality is not a net extension of liberty. A reasoned analysis yields one very obvious fact. A policy of tolerance, ironically, cannot tolerate practices that abridge that tolerance. A society that allows the practice of homosexuality, by allowing it, in turn is forced to restrict the liberty of those who oppose it. For example, a society such as the U.S. that wishes to be tolerant cannot allow a particular state to execute homosexuals even though its residents might conceivably want to employ the Biblical teaching on the matter.

Even barring what many would call that extreme, a tolerant society still must broadly restrict the free exercise of the beliefs of any opposition to the practice. For a homosexual to be free to practice his lifestyle he must be able to live without impossible repercussions. For instance, if no one in a community will employ an individual engaged in the lifestyle then that individual is not practically free to practice his preferred lifestyle because its practice leads to his inability to survive. Thus adoption of an attitude of tolerance by a society forces that society to prohibit the practice of beliefs that discriminate against the newly accepted practice. A tolerant society ceases to be tolerant of any who oppose the practice. Further, homosexuality has a natural tendency to lead society toward totalitarianism. This happens because the homosexual lifestyle is inherently counter-culture. It is an inevitable fact any culture that has ever arisen must first have held a common expectation of heterosexual coupling. Children are not born without it and any culture first requires the birth of a large group of people to create it. Acceptance of homosexuality thus is also a de facto endorsement of ignoring cultural norms. But a societys widespread adherence to cultural norms is what allows real freedom in any society. For example the expectation one should not steal from another is a cultural norm. When that norm is commonly observed there is little need for law enforcement. But the more the normal expectation is ignored the more forceful regulatory intervention becomes necessary. Another cultural expectation is that one must work for a living, and a society in which its members widely adhere to that cultural norm can function freely. But a society in which that cultural norm is widely ignored will be forced to legislate and governmentally push its members toward production or else take from those who do produce to support those who do not. When it becomes acceptable for an individual to live outside of a cultural norm so fundamental that society cannot continue without most people adhering to it, such as the expectation of heterosexual unions, other fundamental cultural norms will also likely be questioned and discarded. And when a society can no longer expect its members to act in accordance with commonly accepted fundamental standards, it must instead regulate their actions through legal force. So reason shows us homosexuality is fundamentally not an issue of freedom. Either path of allowing or disallowing the practice restricts someones freedom. It is just a matter of whose freedom. There is no neutral path. And homosexuality inherently undermines the common cultural standards that normally regulate interaction between people leaving a society in need of a more heavily regulated state. Acceptance of homosexuality logically means less freedom, not more. The next facet of an examination of homosexuality involves moving on to the benefit or harm caused by the practice itself. Advocates present homosexuality as a confined choice without repercussions outside of what mate is chosen. Contrary to this popular belief, homosexuality is a very invasive practice involving far more than just one preferential choice by an individual. A homosexual is different than his heterosexual counterpart in many ways. Studies have shown a large number of brain differences, cognitive differences, and differences in the way he interacts with his environment. Among these are differences in proportionate size of brain hemispheres, differences in pheromone secretions and preferences, and

higher activity in the emotional center of the brain in relation to sexual stimulation in homosexual men. Recent studies have found these and dozens of other differences are turning up all the time which indicates the physiology of a homosexual is significantly different than that of a normal individual. The prevalence of and fundamental nature of these differences are used by advocates to argue for a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. And from this their argument then demands acceptance due to the perceived lack of choice. But this argument breaks down on two levels. The first flaw in this argument is the fact of involuntary genetic predisposition is not at all clear cut. It is true many of the differences that exist appear to be deeply embedded in the brain and apparently unconscious. But where these differences derive from is the question that remains unclear. Many of these differences may conceivably be triggered by hormonal influences. But hormone levels can be affected by choices people make. They can even be influenced by simple thoughts. For example, testosterone levels rise in men when they feel successful and drop when they feel defeated. Estrogen levels drop in women as a result of intensive exercise. The fact is life choices people make affect their bodies in ways not entirely understood. It is wholly possible the seemingly involuntary propensities that accompany homosexuality are a result of voluntary choices made at earlier times in the persons life. The field of epigenetics is also beginning to reveal the extent to which our life choices impact our descendants genetically. We now know that life choices made by an individual can alter the genetic expression of his descendants through multiple generations. A man who experiences social defeat can pass on a tendency for depression to his grandchildren. It is fully rational to speculate a propensity for homosexuality may actually be the result of lifestyle choices made by a father or grandfather. While this is not the choice of the individual directly affected, it is still the result of choice, leaving the idea of involuntary genetic predisposition muddled at best. And regardless of the understanding of the cause of homosexuality another flaw sinks the advocates argument. The second flaw in the argument of demanding acceptance because homosexuals are born that way is that just because someone is born with a certain propensity does not in any way imply that propensity then must, or even should, be regarded as normal or acceptable. It has long been known that some people are born with a genetic propensity for alcoholism. This in no way implies alcoholism then must be regarded as normal or acceptable behavior. Alcoholism is damaging to both the individual and the society around him. It is harmful and is rightly regarded as unacceptable even though people are born that way. Similarly there are people who are born with a propensity for addiction, depression, and studies show some people may even be born with a propensity for crime. This in no way implies society should accept these activities as normal choices forced on these people by nature. A propensity does not force a person to make the predisposed choice. It only constitutes an urge, a weakness. Most men are naturally born with a preference toward women, yet most of these same men manage to restrain themselves from propositioning every woman they come across. Merely having a predisposition toward something does not mean a person must act on that predisposition. So even if homosexuals are born with a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, the fact is they still ultimately choose to embrace and act on it or refrain from it.

Advocates also argue homosexuality does not affect others. But the fact is homosexuality not only carries broad repercussions on the individual engaged in the activity but very likely does affect the society around him. For instance the greater activity present in the emotional center of the brain of gay men when exposed to sexual material implies a likelihood of a higher propensity to engage in sexual activity than is present in straight men. Thus it is reasonable to assume homosexual men may be more prone to promiscuity than their straight counterparts. Another example of an effect on society is the fact that heterosexual male pheromones have been found to play a role in the regulation of the female menstrual cycle making the cycle of a heterosexual female involved in a relationship more regular and also reducing the intensity and duration of menopause. This is a benefit enjoyed only in heterosexual relationships and is absent in lesbian relationships. Because advocacy is obviously threatened by any adverse effects homosexuality may have on the surrounding society, studies rarely directly examine these effects; so it is as yet unclear what the implications for society of all these differences are. The modern fashion is to simply discard the differences associated with homosexuality as insignificant, but reason does not allow this. Too many possible serious implications exist to easily dismiss. For instance we know the mother-child bond is facilitated at least in part through pheromones. Since lesbians secrete different pheromones than heterosexual women, it is entirely reasonable to speculate lesbian womens mothering instincts may be impaired and children raised by lesbians may be harmed. Many of the differences mentioned so far remain unexplored and thus speculative, though entirely within the bounds of reasonable possibility. But the Bible implies one fundamentally damaging effect of homosexuality that is undeniable and is harmful enough to justify complete prohibition and eradication of the practice. The Bible lays out specific gender roles for both men and women. Women are instructed to bear children, keep the house, and obey their husband. Men in turn are held to the responsibility of provision and protection of their families. But the Bible tells us homosexuality abandons the natural use of the woman. Acceptance of homosexuality as a choice undermines and destroys those natural gender roles. Civilization itself is built on those gender roles commanded by Gods Word. What is the natural use of women? Of course the first concept that comes to mind is child-bearing. No matter how much modern attitudes wish it were not so, human civilization requires child-bearing for its very existence and for its continuance. Western civilizations current experience with low fertility rates should show any observer the danger of abandoning or even significantly discouraging this natural function. The future the western world faces today is a harsh one due at least in part to declining population. The ability to care for elderly populations is seriously in question because the younger generation is simply not large enough. The economy, the dominance of our culture, even basic infrastructure all face severe struggles because of a simple decline in the birth rate. These are not light

problems. Every culture in history that fell into a similar population decline eventually was extinguished. None survived. Of course homosexuality does not produce children. But further, it also undermines the desire for children in the remainder of the population. The act of raising a child carries with it a great deal of responsibility. A man working to feed not only himself but also his children naturally sacrifices because of it. In a heterosexual society that is the normal expectation. But a gay man naturally has no children and works to feed only himself. He does not sacrifice his labor for his children and his labor goes to benefit only himself. As a consequence gay men tend to be able to devote more time and energy to their careers so they tend to have higher incomes and greater wealth. And without family obligations they also have more leisure time. In an exclusively heterosexual society people without children are regarded as either mildly selfish or pitied because they are unable to have children. There is underlying social pressure to bear children. But when homosexuality is accepted as normal the naturally childless state of this portion of the community also becomes accepted as normal and possibly desirable. When society regards that situation as normal and acceptable it stands as an example vindicating the choice to forego a family. Listen to this excerpt from a Huffington Post article entitled Silly Things People Have Said to Me When I Tell Them Im Not Having Kids, Oct. 21, 2013: We've come far as a country, haven't we, when a well-established journalistic bulwark recognizes that -- gasp -- married couples might actually chose to subvert the cultural paradigm and elect to never need a minivan! What'll they come up with next? Gay people having babies? What sorcery is this? Listen. I'm being real here: I need my sleep much more than I need children. Does that sound selfish? That's probably because it is!

Notice the direct reference to the absurdity of gay people having babies used as a sarcastic defense of the choice to remain childless. Notice also the author recognizes the selfish nature of her decision but displays a blas attitude toward that assessment. Homosexuality stands as a testimony to the benefits of living without children and helps legitimize a selfish devotion to ones self. But of course child-bearing is not the only purpose of relationships. Marriage was meant to last well into old-age, well past child-bearing years. The scriptures use of the term natural use of women references something else as well. What does a relationship with a woman produce in a man? The answer is civilization itself. Ask any employer the question: who is a more reliable employee? A single man or a married man? The answer is the married man. He has responsibilities. He will tend to act more responsibly. Who is more likely to commit a crime? To engage in drug use? To be gainfully employed? A single man or a married man? Studies show it is the single man (The Impact of Marital and Relationship Status on Social Outcomes for Returning Prisoners, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Jan. 2009) Insurance rates drop

when a man marries. Why? Because he tends to act more responsibly. The fact of the matter is a relationship with a woman inspires responsibility in a man. Women do inspire responsibility in men. Men build houses for their wives, while bachelors live wherever is convenient. Through the centuries, civilization has been built by men to provide for and protect their wives and children. But the key in discussing the subject of homosexuality is why this is true. A man sharing an apartment with a friend does not receive this same inspiration to responsibility. This drive is a result of the position of authority the man has traditionally taken in the marriage relationship. Responsibility is naturally coupled with authority. Throughout history men have been the providers, protectors, and leaders of their families. It is only recently that this gender role has come under assault, and to this day the traditional gender role still plays a large role in shaping the attitudes of the populace and driving men to responsibility. Homosexuality on the other hand is an equal relationship. It allows the most basic male drive sexual desire to be satisfied without taking on this role of authority and the consequent responsibility that goes with it. Homosexual men in general do not take on a role of leadership or responsibility in their relationship. And even when one partner does, this in turn means the other does not. A society that sanctions homosexuality as acceptable is making a clear statement to men that they may satisfy themselves without building or protecting society. Accepting homosexuality as normal teaches society that men living wholly selfishly and without responsibility for others are entirely normal and acceptable. Of course equalitarian advocates argue marriage roles are interchangeable, that either a man or a woman can fill any role equally. Thus in a homosexual relationship, they argue, any necessary roles can be filled by either partner so no deficiency exists. But this is factually incorrect. Men and women are inherently different and there are roles that can only be filled by men as well as roles that can only be filled by women. Take the ability to inspire desire and the consequent protective responsibility that goes with it. This ability is inherent to women and is not possessed by men. For example, across the globe most militaries ban women in combat. This is due to a general protective attitude most societies harbor toward women. Militaries the world over have also expressed concern over the protective nature men express toward women which can lead to a loss of control in combat situations. Another example is advertising. The advertising industry uses women far more than men because women naturally inspire benevolent feelings much more easily than their male counterparts. So while it is possible, in a homosexual couple, for one male partner to attempt to take up the role of head of the family; the other partner is not naturally capable of filling the womans role as heart of the family. Men simply do not inspire the same protective reaction that women inspire. Similarly, women are incapable of filling the necessary male role. Just as women inspire men to protection and responsibility, men serve a role in womens lives. Men provide accountability and restraint to women.

Women are not natural disciplinarians. Studies show tremendous damage to families when a father is absent. On their own, women do not provide the same disciplinary influence that a man does. Eightyfive percent of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes. Ninety percent of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. Eighty-five percent of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes. And the list goes on. Certainly the women that lead these families are attempting to fill the disciplinary role, but the fact is men fill a leadership role that women simply cannot naturally fill. Children need the accountability that fathers offer. Women also need the accountability that the husbands tradition role of authority offers. Contrary to popular modern thought, this accountability is necessary and beneficial to women. Many today discard this notion, believing that after leaving childhood, authority is no longer necessary over adults. But adults do continue to require authority in their lives. Accountability is the most basic purpose of government in general. It is also the basic purpose of the institution of the church. Both seek to limit harmful behaviors of adults. And the experience of history tells us the absence of government creates anarchy and benefits no one. Adults clearly continue to need accountability in their lives. But societal institutions like government and the church do not provide the same level of accountability to women as they do to men. They werent designed to hold women accountable. Remember women inspire protective emotions in people. Women and children first is built into mankinds nature. If you were in a shopping mall and saw a woman slap a man you would most likely wonder what he did to deserve it. On the other hand, if you saw a man strike a woman you would most likely step up and try to restrain him. In general, society strives to protect women. It is natural to view and react to men and women differently. Laws are generally created to protect women, not restrain them. But this means these institutions do not provide the necessary accountability to women that all adults need. And women do need accountability. Without a structure of authority over them, people tend to elevate self-interest and diminish the interests of others. All people do this including women. Marriage has historically been the natural authority structure over women and even to this day remains a restraining force in womens lives. Evidence of this is visible in the comparison of voting patterns between single women and married women. For example, a majority of single women support abortion while a majority of married women oppose abortion. As a group, this means single women display an elevated priority for self-interest, e.g. control over their body. On the other hand, married women as a group prioritize the interest of others, e.g. the right to life of the child. What has become known as the marriage gap is becoming more evident as a larger portion of the female population remains unmarried. Single women tend to vote with an elevated priority on issues of self-interest while married women show a pattern of voting that displays a restrain on that self-interest. Marriage offers accountability to women and through it, civilizes women. And this disciplinary function is not interchangeable. It is a male role that women are not capable of filling. One glaring example of this is one of the most disastrous pieces of regulation the world has ever

seen. The Womens Christian Temperance Union was an organization that exemplified the ideal of women not requiring male accountability. They believed women were morally superior to men and thus opposed the traditional authority men held in their relationship with women. This led to their spearheading the issue of womens suffrage. They were the primary organization behind women gaining the right to vote in the United States. But they were also the primary organization behind Prohibition. They favored prohibition out of an elevated concern for their own self-interest while showing little understanding or concern of any kind for all the other people the law affected. Prohibition was possibly the most ill-conceived and irrational piece of regulation the world has ever endured. And it was pushed on the nation by a group of women who were accountable only to themselves. The traditional male authority role is beneficial to women. It is not degrading to women. Studies have shown women were happier under this structure than they are today (The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2009, The American Economic Journal). Women are not inherently capable of filling the male authority role for children or for other women. In a lesbian relationship they are not inherently capable of offering the accountability a husband offers. Lesbianism is an equal relationship. Accepting it in society creates a societal norm without gender roles. Thus it encourages the unaccountable female, leading to a more spoiled, less happy, and politically damaging female population. So whats wrong with homosexuality? Acceptance of homosexuality diminishes freedom. It attacks the common cultural norms that hold society together. It reduces responsibility in men. It discourages accountability in women. Homosexuality attacks the most basic foundations of civilized society. Pope Benedict XVI, speaking in reference to gay marriage, made a very insightful statement in 2012: (Marriage) is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.