Logical and Spiritual REFLECTIONS
Book 6. No to Sodom
Chapter 6. Deviance and suffering
Secondly, since homosexuals have similar instead of complementary sex organs, the nature of their sexual activity is not exactly comparable to that of heterosexuals. Admittedly, some of the activities of the two groups resemble each other: e.g. mutual masturbation, oral sex and anal sex, are possible in either mode. But these are precisely the activities that are not biologically justified!
When a man loses his sperm through such extraneous activities, whether his partner is male or female, he not only fails to engage in ordinary coitus (theoretically capable of reproduction), but he moreover physically incapacitates himself for reproduction (at least temporarily, through loss of erection and sperm). Therefore, such activities are to be avoided on biological grounds.
Furthermore – and this is equally applicable to a woman – by diverting natural desire towards unnatural objects, a heterosexual or homosexual gradually (by habituation) psychologically incapacitates himself or herself for the demanding task of straight heterosexual sex and living. Even if a man or woman is initially bisexual in outlook, homosexual behavior surely takes its toll and eventually cuts him or her off from heterosexual activity.
It could of course be argued that homosexuals are doing the rest of humanity a favor by not reproducing. In view of the world population explosion, with all its nefarious consequences on our economic and social wellbeing, and its ongoing destruction of the environment, it may be regarded as a public service not to reproduce. Perhaps that is the idea of the public health officials who encourage such practices; but is that idea kind?
It could also be argued that, by failing to reproduce, homosexuals voluntarily place themselves outside the category of those fit to survive (as in the Darwinian “survival of the fittest”). That is, their sexual disorientation can be viewed biologically as an expression of some inherent unfitness for this world – which causes them to be “naturally selected” out of it.
Let us move on, now, to a more psychological analysis, and raise a third objection to the argumentum of the proponents of homosexuality. They claim that homosexuality makes some people happy – or at least “gay” (i.e. jolly with pleasure, characterized by joie de vivre). If this were true, it might constitute a biological argument for homosexuality, aside from reproduction. But is it true? It can very much be doubted.
It may seem true for some people in the short run, but all tends to indicate that such appearances are deceptive and that sooner or later painful consequences will be felt by the individual concerned. For most homosexuals, the negative consequences are evidently not long in coming. And even when the homosexual maintains a brave, “gay” face (for purposes of self-justification) on the outside, he or she well knows the pain and suffering going on within.
This is true even in today’s Western society, which permits and defends homosexuality, and not just in more traditional societies, which forbid and persecute it. For it should not be thought that the private unhappiness of the homosexual comes from social rejection; rather it comes from the fact that homosexuality goes against the grain. Being psychologically, as well as physically, unnatural, it is bound to lead to suffering (i.e. to more suffering than heterosexuality entails).
The use of the word “gay” (and for that matter “pride”) is clearly just an advertising ploy, a show of bravado (a pretense). It is a pity that the English language has, since this word was kidnapped by homosexuals, lost a valuable word (which has become impossible to use without evoking the new, homosexual connotation). Linguists are well aware of how words are often used with the exact opposite of their original meaning.
 My own observation of homosexuals, male and female, which I have by chance met over the years, has left me with an impression that they are very immature, in some basic, tragic way; and a sense of some deep rot about them, as if their world is a very sad, grey place indeed. All their outer cheer seems to me a nervous veneer. Given an opportunity to be themselves in public, they show their profound rudeness and vulgarity (not surprisingly, considering their impure thoughts and deeds).
 Even if homosexual youths might in a first phase appear clean-cut and normal, they will in due course naturally suffer shame and guilt, and other negative effects of their aberrant thoughts and deeds. This is a law of nature – equally applicable to heterosexual youths who opt for a licentious lifestyle. A person’s way of life even eventually gets written on his or her face and body language: The Picture of Dorian Gray is excellent testimony to that common observation by a famous homosexual (Oscar Wilde).
 For example, the verb ‘to sanction’ may mean to permit or to punish. Note that not only the word “gay” has been hijacked, but also the word “pride”. The latter word is, of course, intended to convey that homosexuals are “proud” of what they are (rather than ashamed, as others consider they should be). But the phrase “gay pride”, applied to street demonstrations by homosexuals, uses the term “pride” in the sense found in “lions pride” (meaning a social group of lions, the kings of the jungle). The latter, too, is a word-theft that forever diverts and sullies the original sense.