Many people say that homophobia is from the Bible and is irrational. Is this the case? I would beg to differ. I ask a question that is completely secular, that is to say scientific, that is yet to be answered by pro homosexuality.
The question is:
What positive material benefit has the social acceptance of homosexuality given our culture?
This is a question that is yet to be answered in the culture wars. The reason is that the discussion is cut off before it even starts with the accusation of homophobia. This is irrelevant. If Homosexuality is a positive or even neutral behaviour we should have positive benefits in our culture.
Most people will say toleration is the social benefit. However that is not what the question asks. For tolerance is an immaterial/metaphysical benefit. And even if we are to accept tolerance as a benefit, we need evidence that it is in fact just that… beneficial. And that is the very evidence the question is asking for. E.g. we don’t tolerate incestuous relationships.
Some will try to sidestep the issue by saying tolerance is not acceptance. This is a false differentiation. For when Canada tolerated the sale, purveyance, purchase, viewing, disseminating and owning of child pornography was that not a sign that Canadian society accepted that as a matter of individual preference? And when Canada outlawed child porn in the mid eighties, did that not say we do not tolerate or accept such activities as a society? Of course it did. Pius the IX goes into this in his syllabus of errors
Many will say, but they love each other and are consenting adults. Again, this is not a physical benefit to society. And even so, we do not accept this as a standard either. Let us use the example of the incestuous relationship again. They are both consensual adults who “love” each other. How are they different under that standard? Or a polygamous relationship? Or a relationship with a very young person with an older one? We see problems with these right away. So that is not a standard under this question either.
Some will say, well there have been great artist, composers and scientists that have been homosexuals and contributed to our culture. This is true. And this is even material that can be physically measured. But the question was what has socially acceptance of homosexuality given our culture, not what have individual homosexuals given our culture, indeed, most of these contributions were made BEFORE social acceptance of homosexuality so don’t qualify even if we did include them.
You will also hear that people are born homosexuals and don’t have a choice. This is first wrong, as none has said this in the scientific community since the early 90’s and second the physiatrist that had homosexuality taken off the American list of mental disorders has released his own study that homosexuals can be successfully rehabilitated through therapy. But even if this were true it would not be a valid argument. What is I was born with the impulse to have sex with children? Would that justify social acceptance of pedophilia or child pornography? Or what is I was born with incestuous tendencies? Would that justify social acceptance of incest? Of course not!
So what are the positive material benefits that social acceptance of homosexuality given our culture?
The response you will get is very much like the look on the face of whomever you ask… shocked silence. And there is a reason for this. None has been required to ask the question of themselves or each other. If I had asked “what are the material benefits of the social acceptance of feminism or trade unionism to our culture?” I would receive a litany of responses. I may not agree that they are beneficial, but I would get them. Here we get an absolute blank stare…. Followed by an accusation of homophobia.
What would I accept as physical benefits of social acceptance of homosexuality to our culture? Has is increased the gross national product? Has it created more stable families? has it decreased the cases of sexually transmitted infections? has it increased the gross standard of living? has it decreased the strain on the social welfare system? has it lead to a drop in crime? has it correlated to an increase of sustainable jobs? Drop in sexual abuse of boys? Drop in suicide rates? An overall increase in charitable donations perhaps? These are material social benefits to a culture.
But this naturally begs the question what are the negative effects of socially accepted homosexuality on our culture? Then we simply look for inverted data to the examples we just asked. The sad fact is, that the effects are all negative. Now we can still tolerate behaviour that is negative most of the time. For example, alcoholism, or smoking. But we do not promote them in schools and celebrate them with diversity days. We teach them to be social ills that are to be frowned upon… except when it comes to homosexuality. Because none is allowed to ask the question.
I hope you ask this question of your friends and family when this topic comes up in the upcoming days. Because if they cannot easily answer this question, they should not be able to attack Catholics for being dogmatic when their view is completely without evidence and cannot bear critical scrutiny.
We as Catholics are not in the wrong on this issue. We are firmly ensconced in reason and science. Don’t let anyone try and tell you otherwise. Some say that we have “iron age” morals. Let me show you what the world was like when Christianity came to the tolerant pagan world.
Eusebious writes in 400 A.D.
"Persians no longer marry their own mothers once they have accepted the teaching of Christ; nor do Scythians feed any longer on human flesh. Other barbaric tribes have given up incestuous relations with their daughters and sisters. The men of other races have ceased to burn with mad lust for their fellow men and no longer indulge those other pleasures of the flesh which violate the law of nature." Praeparatio Evangelii, bk. 1, ch. 4)
Now who’s espousing the ridiculous ancient values of a bygone age?
