Logical and Spiritual REFLECTIONS
Book 6. No to Sodom
Chapter 14. The defenders and promoters of homosexuality
The many people who try to object to this imposed moral and social revolution are silenced by intimidation or ridicule – they are made to feel like reactionaries or retards. They are personally attacked, in order to neutralize their criticism. It is insinuated that their public opposition to homosexuality might be due to their having subconscious homosexual tendencies, which they want to deny to themselves or hide from others.
The advocates of homosexuality, on the other hand, are implied to be sexually pure, or at least honest. No one seems to question the sexual inclinations, sanity or integrity of the legislators who are forcing it down people’s throats (excuse the pun). One may well wonder how these politicians were enlisted to this unjust cause – some were no doubt complicit (themselves already immoral), but surely many were amoral mercenaries (who would do anything for votes) or moral cowards (fearing popular rejection or ridicule).
Many homosexuals were, of course, themselves intellectuals, who had or acquired positions of some importance in the media, in academia, in politics, and throughout society. These people made their weight felt over time, and succeeded in changing society as they wished. Not all advocates of homosexuality were themselves practicing homosexuals or even people with homosexual tendencies, but a large portion must have been. People do not normally pursue public goals without a personal axe to grind of some sort.
I have seen an American university professor, lecturing on psychology at Geneva University, shamelessly manipulating a lecture hall full of eager students with false facts and statistics, or tendentious reading of facts and statistics, to convince them of the naturalness, normality or at least great frequency of homosexuality. I have read a “dear Abby” type newspaper column, where a youth struggling with emotions or feelings he could not fathom was effectively advised by the columnist to become a homosexual.
Slowly, slowly, through such pinpointed verbal interventions from positions of authority, society was turned around (literally).
Some advocates of homosexuality are, of course, themselves homosexuals; some have homosexual tendencies they would perhaps like to actualize. Some advocates do not advertise their homosexual orientation, or even conceal it, while others frankly admit it. It is understandable that such people would want to legitimatize their own behavior or lusts. Also, by defending homosexuality, they become personally more attractive within their peer group; and by promoting it, they produce new potential partners.
But what of the defenders of homosexuality who are not themselves homosexual in orientation. What is the motive of these people? The motive a person claims to have whether sincerely or dishonestly may not be the true, functioning motive. Are these people selflessly pursuing justice, as they pretend to be doing – or are they trying to establish a world in which their own petty sexual or other impurities are not frowned upon?
Moreover, whatever a person’s alleged motive, what counts are the real consequences of his or her actions. Are these people being kind, as they imagine themselves – or are they in fact senselessly causing harm to the very people they claim to defend? It must be said that there is no justice or kindness in encouraging someone to do himself or herself some harm, or even in not discouraging such behavior.
On the surface, it may seem like a helpful and friendly thing to do, so that the person on a self-destructive path at least does not feel bad about it and goes “gaily” to his or her fate. But it is evidently more benevolent to urgently forewarn the endangered person, and even help him or her escape the danger. The mere fact of not intervening cannot be considered good, nor can the mere fact of intervening be considered bad. The motive and (more importantly) the consequences have to be looked at, before any judgment can be made.
Heterosexuals have varying attitudes towards homosexuals. Some heterosexuals easily tolerate homosexuals. If the latter are of the same gender, perhaps the reason is they are not competitors with them for the favors of members of the opposite gender. If the homosexuals are of the opposite gender, their homosexuality is not necessarily repulsive to some heterosexuals; it might even be felt as an added attraction or challenge.
Some heterosexuals find homosexuals intolerable, perhaps because they do not want to be drawn in to the repugnant or depressive world of homosexuals. Such people are labeled (by the advocates of homosexuality) “homophobes”. This is intended to imply that opposition to homosexuality is somehow sick, based on irrational fear or hate, reprehensible. It is presented as a mere emotional reaction, as if no rational dissent is conceivable. Some homophobes are indeed moved to verbal abuse or violent repression; but most are critical in a more civilized way.
If this loaded term is to be used for all opponents of homosexuality, then all its proponents should be called “homophiles”. Homophobes ought not let homophiles make them feel ashamed of their rejection of homosexuality; it is a healthy posture, of which they can feel proud. Homophiles may well accuse homophobes of prejudice and inhumanity, but they (the homophiles) are not shining moral examples or pure spiritual guides. Their coarseness of spirit is such that they love what is bad and hate what is good; they are merely apologists for immoral practices.
 I heard recently on TV that Alfred Kinsey, who pioneered experimental “sexology” in the 1950’s, was himself a homosexual. As I recall, this fact was not advertised when I read about his work in the media during the 70’s. This relevant fact was cunningly concealed at the time. He was made to appear an objective, scientific researcher. Among his “findings” was a claim that (as I recall offhand) 15-20% of the U.S. population had had homosexual experiences, i.e. were either exclusive homosexuals or bisexuals. Certainly, the credibility, and power to change society, of such claims would have been much reduced if Kinsey’s personal inclinations were publicly known.
 To various degrees: sometimes, with a touch of contempt; sometimes, with an amused smile; sometimes, with concerned friendliness.
 And needless to say, such uncivil behavior is not what is being advocated here.