Logical and Spiritual REFLECTIONS
Book 6. No to Sodom
Chapter 5. Non-reproductive sex
No one denies that homosexuals exist – but their existence in the population does not by itself prove such behavior to be natural or normal. The proponents of homosexuality sometimes present statistics (some claiming that as many as 15-20% of the population are openly or secretly homosexual) – but such an argument has no value in proving normalcy or naturalness.
Human beings have freewill – so their behavior is subject to ‘ethical’ evaluation, and cannot be taken as a deterministic ‘given’ (like the behavior of inanimate matter, plant life, or lower forms of animal life).
Aware of this weakness of the statistical argument, the proponents of homosexuality next argue that, while it is true that sexuality originally arose for reproductive and species-survival purposes, human beings, as higher animals endowed with freewill, can voluntarily bypass the reproductive aspect of sex, and focus exclusively on the adjacent sensual or emotional aspects (which we may label hedonistic or eudemonistic).
Just as our culture accepts that heterosexual sex need not be aimed at reproduction, so likewise homosexual sex (which is never for reproduction) is – they say – legitimate. In this perspective, the distinction between male and female is irrelevant, and any combination of partners would seem acceptable.
Moreover, they argue, such non-reproductive sexual pursuits still have biological value, insofar as they facilitate the lives of people, making them more pleasant, comfortable or loving. They ask: What is wrong with that? So long as no one is hurt, what objections can moralists raise?
Indeed, they go on, so long as homosexuals are content, they can be useful members of society. They point to homosexuals who have made their mark on history: Alexander the Great, Leonardo da Vinci, and so on. And there are many current examples of homosexuals who are (at least apparently) “well-adjusted” socially.
Such arguments must and can be answered. The first fallacy to note is the implied moral equivalency between non-reproductive heterosexual sex and homosexual sex.
As we saw above, the sensual and emotional aspects of sex are biologically justified with reference to reproduction and survival of offspring. Nature has programmed sexual desire into us, to urge us to reproduce and to stay on with our mate so as to nurture the offspring of such reproduction.
This heterosexual desire is legitimate even when it is not consciously aimed at reproduction, or even when it is consciously intended to avoid reproduction (e.g. by use of condoms or pills), because it can always (and very often does, if only accidentally, but more often through growing attachment) lead to reproduction and subsequent family life.
On the other hand, homosexual sensual and emotional pursuits have no such justification, since they are inherently sterile and non-cohesive. They are ego pursuits without redeeming feature comparable to heterosexual sexual activities. Their only goal is physical or emotional gratification; they are radically divorced from any biological basis.
This is why it is correct to say that homosexuality is not a natural sexual orientation – but one inherently deviant, i.e. one that has lost track of its original goal, and become diverted into incidental objects (i.e. people of the same sex). It is as if we gave a monkey a pen to write with, and he used it instead to scratch his behind. Homosexual sex is in fact a parody of sex, a sort of disoriented role-play.
The above discourse should not be interpreted as an injunction of heterosexual sex at every opportunity in order to make as many babies as possible. This may indeed be seen as Nature’s program; but remember that Nature relies on probabilities to achieve its ends. The point intended is only that, to at all discuss sex, we have to first comprehend the natural significance of it. Without such prior analysis, it is impossible to grasp why homosexuality is unnatural and even against nature.
It is true that nowadays it is possible – or in the very near future, it will be possible – for homosexuals to have children through various medical interventions. But here certain ethical questions have to be asked, like: Has the psychology and happiness of eventual children of such unnatural unions been seriously considered? Can one imagine a worse fate? What is the long-term viability of such artificial ‘families’; what kind of twisted human beings would they produce? Have not all human beings the right to be born in natural circumstances, and raised with a reasonable chance of a normal life?
Similar questions can of course be asked with regard to adoption of children by homosexual couples. It is surely criminal to disregard the rights and interests of unborn children or orphans, just out of a desire to be tolerant towards homosexuals and to treat homosexuals as ‘ordinary’ human beings. The selfishness of those holding such opinions, their willingness to sacrifice children just so as to play the ego-role of tolerance and humanity, has to be pondered on.
 Of course, this tells us nothing, since external success is not proof of inner balance and peace. How did Alexander or Leonardo feel and behave inside after awhile? Moreover, how did they feel about their life of homosexuality just before they died – proud and gay, or ashamed and aggrieved? If moral judgments are based on partial data, they are likely to be skewed; it is important to try to consider the total picture over time, to properly assess conditions.
 With a single partner or every available partner, of the opposite gender. In fact, Nature would seem to prefer humans to stick to one partner (or one at a time), as this tends to ensure offspring are taken care of. But even if many sexual partnerships are made over a person’s lifetime, it does not follow that total promiscuity is desirable. Our natures make us somewhat selective, so that some partners seem more attractive than others. This is admittedly often sheer vanity, but it is also often an instinctive choice of the best genetic combination for one’s line.