Logical and Spiritual REFLECTIONS
Book 6. No to Sodom
Chapter 16. A call for recovery
If we admit that the mere desire expressed by homosexuals is proof of some real need and right, then all ethics and law disappears. For then any other category of individual or group can come along and present felt tendencies as justifications – and indeed, this is just what is already happening!
For instances, pedophiles (“why, bonono monkeys do it!”) and zoophiles (“animals are our cousins!”) are starting to make claims of their own (and ominously, according to news reports, some of them are in the legal and other significant professions, note). For the time being, they are suppressed by the authorities, the media and public opinion; but if their numbers multiply sufficiently, who knows what will happen?
And once something is legalized, it is made to appear “moral” and can then be freely taught and encouraged. Any attempt to block further expansion is argued to be discriminatory. Few people seem to have the self-confidence and moral courage to resist such developments; so that ultimately, if no one reacts, it seems probable, all law will be dismissed as arbitrary imposition, and hedonism will be given free rein.
The current social trend towards more and more homosexuality was made possible by the forbearance of the “silent majority”. To reverse this trend, it is necessary for people who disapprove of homosexuality to voice criticism of it, in every civilized way and at every appropriate opportunity, openly and without fear of censure.
Even in a non-democratic system, the people is ultimately responsible for the acts of its masters, assuming they could with courage oust them; all the more, in a democracy, we are all guilty of the weaknesses of our leaders if we do not speak out and reprove them.
Instead of opting for appeasement and compromise, we must demand, in the name of ordinary decency and for the sake of future generations, the progressive de-legalization and re-criminalization of homosexuals. The purpose of such legal recovery would not be to persecute existing homosexuals, but to prevent the further spread of homosexuality.
Homosexuals should, in a first phase, at the very least, be legally and constitutionally forbidden from adopting children. It is unthinkable that innocent orphans should be legally handed over to sexual deviants, who might abuse them, and who would in any case spiritually corrupt them.
Secondly, same-sex marriage must be banned in all jurisdictions. To allow this is to imply that society in general blesses and participates in such unions; and moreover, giving homosexuals the legal status of wedded couples or something like it constitutes financing by society of homosexual activities.
Thirdly, all public manifestations, pornography and extolment of homosexuality should be banned. If consenting adults wish to practice this form of sexuality, they ought to at least do it in private, and not flaunt their deviance in front of the public (directly or through whatever medium or forum), and particularly not in front of children.
But ultimately, it is the practice of homosexuality as such that has to be made in principle illegal again. A society that tolerates, let alone promotes, such corruption cannot expect to survive long. If any lesson is to be learned from the permissiveness of the last few decades, it is that people come to think that what is “legal” is “ethical”. They interpret tolerance in practice as approval in principle.
In theory, something can be unethical but still legal. We cannot expect the law to enforce all of (or even most of) ethics – this would be a formula for totalitarianism. The meaning and moral authority of ethics lies precisely in the fact that people can freely choose to follow it or not. But in practice, too many (ignorant) people confuse legal permissibility with ethical permissibility, and this observation must be taken into consideration in formulating social policies and the laws to impose them.
To declare something illegal is to mean it to be punishable in some way. If breach of the proposed ban were without material consequence, the law would not be obeyed. The threat of some sort of retribution is intended not so much to avenge, but to dissuade. At least some people would think twice before engaging in homosexuality. There is no need for a “witch hunt” – but there is need for a sign of firm resolve by society to stop such practices.
Thus, what is being advocated here is nothing less than a radical reversal of the pro-homosexual cultural and legal trends of the last few decades. Society must ask how it will turn out if it continues to yield in the face of the current homosexual assault. The public must react responsibly, and with determination recover its collective lost sanity and strength. There is good reason to be intransigent.
Society is morally responsible for the directions it takes. When we consider the impact of legalization of homosexuality, especially its propagation to people who would otherwise not even think of it, it is clear that we have a disastrous spiritual failing on the part of society as a whole, a criminal moral abdication of too many of its cultural and political leaders, lawmakers and judges.
Instead of protecting the pure and innocent, they encourage further corruption. The present words are clearly not a call for violent repression, but for rational reflection on ways and means to legally prevent further spiritual and social disintegration. Laws and amendments can be passed, which forbid and suppress certain practices; there is nothing immoral about such legislative measures.
To actively seek such social and legal reform is to exercise our democratic right and duty to determine the shape of society. Some people might be threatened with legal retribution, under some current laws, for such activism; but reflect that in no democratic régime is it truly illegal to call and work for changes in the law.
 Consider ancient Rome and other historical examples.