Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Response to a Comment on "Homosexuality is NOT a Moral Issue!" -- Part Three

For the preamble belonging to this series, please see the first number of paragraphs in 'Response to a Comment on "Homosexuality is NOT a Moral Issue?" -- Part One.'


You stated that “you are what you are” and that can’t be changed. The documented evidence paints a much different picture.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

Please see my previous comments on this subject in Part Two.  I have nothing more to add.    

It’s apparent there is a concerted effort by government, judiciary, the homosexual lobby, the media and the education system to promote and support the gay agenda. Anything  contrary to this program of indoctrination is ridiculed, opposed or suppressed.29]

I don't believe for a moment the government, judiciary, homosexual lobby, the media, or the educational system promote and support the gay agenda.  (Again, I have no idea what the gay agenda is, and I'm a gay man.  Don't you think if there were one, I'd be aware of it?)  Rather, I believe they are finally recognizing a lot of gay people make up the population at large, and those gay people deserve to be treated the same as everyone else--not better, not worse, just the same.  Let's not forget the point I've tried to make in countless blog posts:  Gay people are human beings first, and gay second.  As human beings, we are entitled to the same rights and privileges as everyone else.  It's not because of our sexual orientation that we're not.      

The denotation of indoctrination is:  "teach a person or group a set of beliefs uncritically."  I think enough criticism has been leveled toward gays and lesbians throughout history on any number of subjects.  You can understand why we, as a group, are fed up with being criticized for who and what we are, over which we have no choice (which I wrote about extensively in Part Two).  It's past time to move beyond criticism to acceptance.          

As Shakespeare astutely once noted, “the truth will out.”30]

Yes, "The truth will out."  And the truth is homosexual people are here to stay.  We have always been here (even in Shakespeare's time), and we will always be here.   It's time society gets over it and moves on.  Let's focus on what makes us similar rather than what makes us different.  And believe me, we're far more similar than we are different.     

“Heterosexual” is the state of sexual normalcy. It’s our God-given design. There remains no credible or replicated scientific evidence to the contrary.

A statement like this is nothing more than simple arrogance--like heterosexuals, as a whole, are somehow superior to homosexuals simply because 1).  God made them that way, and 2). they are able to procreate.  

Sometimes, I've wondered if God created homosexuals because, if He hadn't, the world would be even more over-populated than it is now.  The fact is, homosexuality exists in all species of animals, including human beings (my apologies to anyone who thinks the comparison between human beings and animals is inappropriate).  Is it possible God created homosexuals in all species as a natural mechanism to ensure the population didn't grow out of control?  I'm just asking.  If it hasn't already, the human population has exploded far beyond what Earth can realistically support, and it's only a matter of time before we cross the line of no return and find ourselves in a much worse position than we are now.  

Homosexual conduct is but one of many sexually deviancies, including Pedophilia, Pederasty, Incest, Sadomasochism, Exhibitionism, Transvestism, Voyeurism, Ephebophilia, Zoophilia and Necrophilia. The irrefutable evidence demonstrates they are abnormal and unhealthy behaviors that negatively impact all of society. Even Darwin’s theory of evolution, which imagines “survival of the fittest,” would seem to bolster this self-evident truth.

There's a whole lot of wrong in this paragraph beyond my ability (or interest) to address, beginning with lumping homosexuality with everything from pedophilia (discussed previously) to necrophilia.  Consider this possibility:  I'm going to go out on a limb here and state the vast majority of gay men and lesbian women are no more interested in any of these sexual behaviors than the vast majority of heterosexual people.  And one more point:  You don't have to be a homosexual to be into any of these other behaviors.  How homosexuality continues to be grouped with all the rest is beyond me.  Does anyone out there seriously think because I'm a gay male, I enjoy having sex with young children, family members, animals, or dead bodies?  I don't get it.       

I'll challenge anyone who thinks homosexuality negatively impacts society.  If anything, it may negatively impact other homosexuals, for the reasons the writer of these comments and I agree on.  

But how does my being a homosexual negatively impact you as a heterosexual person? Sure, I can't procreate.  Frankly, I know I'd be a horrible father, so I think not being able to procreate is a good thing, in my case.  And, let's face it, if all heterosexual people think they're doing the world a lot of good by having children, well, take a look at how some of those children have been raised and what's been unleashed on us as a result.  Really, just because they can doesn't mean all heterosexuals should give birth.                   

Clearly, the moral and ethical path to follow is one of biological correctness, not political correctness.

I don't believe heterosexuality constitutes biological correctness.  Heterosexuality is nothing more than a sexual orientation alternative that the majority of people possess. Doesn't make them superior to anyone else. And despite everything the writer of this extensive comment has written, I'm not in the least convinced heterosexuality is necessarily the moral and ethical path to follow.  Nothing here supports that. 

In closing, I would ask this… if Homophilia was in fact a normal, healthy and traditional form of sexuality, why would anyone have objections to it, and why would it have to be tolerated, or put up with, in order to be accepted?

This is a loaded question.  Unfortunately, we live in a largely Judeo-Christian world, where people have taken a literal reading of the Bible, which is supposedly God's word, and applied it inappropriately to a group of people God created just like everyone else. Throughout history, Christians, as a whole, have used God's word to justify all manner of deplorable conduct toward fellow human beings, thereby, in my opinion, missing the point of God's word altogether.

Some people have objections toward other people, and thus tolerate them--in this case, homosexuals-- because they come from a place of superiority, thinking they are better than everyone else, using God's word to assume that mighty position.  This is not my understanding of God's teachings.  Not by a long shot.  My God is a God of love, and He loves homosexual people as He loves heterosexual people.  They are no different to Him.  

And, in fact, I believe my God looks down unfavorably on those who don't accept homosexual people (as well as other kinds of people) and will hold them accountable on judgment day.  If you are heterosexual, think you are better than homosexuals, and don't have acceptance and love in your heart for gay men and lesbian women, I hope you'll have an adequate explanation for the deplorable and arrogant manner in which you conducted yourself while on Earth.  You'll need it.               

An attraction to the opposite sex and an ability to procreate is what has historically been the normal and accepted lifestyle, and that universal law will never change, regardless of whatever someone else contends. Imagine where you'd be now if your parents held the same ideology that you do.

I have nothing further to add to this comment except to make the point that, in all likelihood, heterosexual parents give birth to--or at least have a hand in creating--homosexual children.  So, yes, heterosexual people are responsible for procreating and ensuring the survival of the human species, but the survival of the human species includes gay people.  That's just the way it is.    

And if you want to debate dictionary definitions, it seems self-deprecating that anyone attempting to convince society their behavior was commonplace or worthy would choose to identify themselves with a term like “queer”. Demented, unnatural, unbalanced, freakish, psycho, deviant, phony, twisted and perverse hardly sound normal or something to aspire to.

The word queer is nothing more than a word, a term that many homosexual people--not me among them--have adopted in order to take it back from heterosexual people who have used it against them.  The same goes for faggot, again, a word I dislike immensely, because of the number of times it was used against me, but that many gay men use to remove the sting in it, to neutralize it, so to speak.

If you've read my other blog posts, I don't think gay people should use the word queer to refer to themselves.  But I don't have control over what other gay people do.  I can only control what I do.  And I would never refer to myself as queer because the term in no way describes me or the way I live my life.  But, in light of what I wrote above, I understand why some homosexual people use the word, and that's their choice.      


[23] "Homosexuals have been known to change." - International Journal of Psychiatry.
[24] "The majority of homosexuals come from homes where the father figure was either absent or neglectful". - Dr. Lorraine Day, acclaimed surgeon from the University of California who has treated hundreds of homosexuals.
[25] "There is no DNA or medical test to determine if someone is homosexual. Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. - Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)
[26] Homosexuality and the Truth
 [27] Living Proof that Homosexuals Can Change
 [28] The National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, a branch of the American College of Pediatricians, offers effective psychological therapy for homosexual men and women who seek change.
 [29] Gay Reversal Advocates Say School Libraries Banning Their 'Ex-Gay' Books
 [30] The Three Stages of Truth

“We cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own up to that and face up to that.” - National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Leader, Matt Foreman.

I don't know in what context Matt Foreman used this word.  Elsewhere in this series, I made my position clear on whether or not I believe HIV or AIDS is a gay disease.  For the record, I don't.    


And so, we've come to the end of this series.  A few parting comments, if I may.

1).  Vanessa/Anonymous put considerable time and effort into trying to prove homosexuality is indeed a moral issue.  I respect her for that.  It's obviously important to her.  Did she prove her point?  I guess that all depends on what side of the fence you fall on.  I'll let you decide for yourself.       

2).  I'm struck by the academic tone of these comments, accompanied as they are by extensive footnote references and clarifications.  Does Vanessa/Anonymous think by using footnotes, her argument is stronger and irrefutable?  Perhaps.  But academic arguments are no different from legal arguments.  Anyone can use any information, turn it around to serve her purpose, and believe she's proven her point beyond a doubt.  

More important to me is what your gut tells you is right, what your heart tells you is right.  If your gut and your heart tell you homosexuality is immoral, that gay people should be derided, then I feel for you.  Somewhere along the line, human compassion has to come into play.  And your compassion for other human beings should tell you most homosexual people are just like you in their daily march toward the grave, trying to do the best they can with what they have.       

3).  Did I intend, by using Vanessa/Anonymous's comment as the basis of this series, to convince her homosexuality is not a moral issue?  No, not at all. Vanessa/Anonymous has obviously made up her mind, and I know I can't influence that.  Did I hope to use this opportunity to share with my readers how I feel on a myriad of subjects I haven't written about here before?  Absolutely.  Now you know me a lot better, good and bad.  

4).  As I come to the end of this series, I'm struck by how unimportant all of this feels to me now.  I've had my say, now I'm moving on.  My blog has evolved and is no longer about defending myself as a gay man.  Rather, using my own experience, my intention is to help gay men and lesbian women see the role internal homophobia plays in their ability to love themselves, and to accept true love from significant others within the context of long-term and committed relationships.  If you don't love yourself, who will? 

Thanks for reading.   


  1. The only point I have to a very wonderful, and well written series is this:

    Homosexuals CAN and DO procreate. It's just not in the "typical" form of fornication. Many choose not to, some do. Take from this what you'd like, but know that just because it's not acceptable to you, doesn't make it wrong. However, many heterosexual individuals AND couples procreate in "atypical" forms as well, without fornication.

  2. IT HAs never been about procreation, but instead who can provide loving nurturing homes for raising children, as evidenced by homosexual couples who have opened their home to rejected, abandoned children of heterosexual unions.

  3. Thanks so much, chaoticGRRL, for the kind words. I really appreciate them.
    And thanks for the comment about gay men and lesbian women being able to have children using methods other than that between straight couples. Of course, you are right. Many options exist for gay couples who want to have children.

    And, feetxxxl, I couldn't agree more. In the end, who cares how children are conceived as long as, whether they are parented by straight or gay people, they are nurtured and loved. Great point about gay people sometimes being better parents than straight people. As I wrote in the piece, just because straight people can create a child doesn't necessarily mean they're the best parents for that child.

    My thanks to both of you for your contribution to my blog.

  4. > . . . As I come to the end of this series, I'm struck by how unimportant all of this feels to me now . . .

    Wow, Rick. I am *really* impressed that you put so much time and thought into your (three!) posts. I never would have had the patience to do what you did. I'm also very glad to hear that you're not stuck in a place of just being reactive to the negativity so earnestly expressed by your anonymous poster. Life is way too short for that.


  5. You know, strangely, after I came to the end of this series, finding time in amongst completing home renovations that I didn't have, I realized, much to my satisfaction, how defending myself as a gay man doesn't matter to me anymore. What a revelation. Perhaps that's a function of getting older. I don't have time for that now. I don't have the inclination to help people see my point of view, or to get them to like or approve of me (which I have no control over anyway).
    I was surprised by my reaction but pleased, too. People like the one who left the original comments have their points to make, and they will always be out there. In one way or another, I suppose, we'll always have to deal with them.
    Or--this has just come to me--perhaps we'll just leave them behind. Increasingly, they are more and more in the minority. Only they will realize for themselves, perhaps, how irrelevant their feelings about us are in a world that moves ever closer to finally embracing us as it should. But, honestly, this exercise was good for me, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to dig into it and discover what I did. Now, as I wrote before, the time as come to move on.
    Thanks for your kind words, Anonymous (not the one who left the comment). I really appreciate them.

  6. Sorry, Sarah. I should have referred to you by your real name.