What gives you the right to teach that homosexuality is wrong when you can’t be sure you’re right?

Question:

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your quick and detailed answer – even though I guess that you must be very used to writing answers to people with progressive and not 2,000 years old moral ideas.

Unfortunately, it is quite obvious that every single part of your argumentation can more or less easily be rebutted – which is what I am going to do in the following. In view of the fact that I consider a structured makeup of one's views as inevitable for an effective and objective disputation, I'd like to illustrate my point of view by responding to the points you have made one by one.

Let me start with your accusation that I support censorship by opposing the spreading of homophobic theses over the Internet. Of course, the freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in our modern society and it would be ridiculous to question it since it's the basis for a society whose values and viewpoints are not ruled by central institutions as the church did for example for hundreds of years.

But quite obviously, you have pretty much misunderstood the principles of this right. Freedom of speech does indeed mean that you are allowed to express your thoughts, no matter if they are accepted by the majority of our society or not. But nevertheless, everybody ought to reflect and think if his own thoughts are really well-founded or just product of blind dogmatism and mythmaking before influencing insecure minors with those thoughts.

Even though you claim having done this, I highly doubt it and so it is also my right as a citizen of a society where freedom of speech is an important value to criticize your ideas and to ask you not to preach your obviously quite crude and biased opinions – even though I can't force you to stop, of course.

Let me start my rebuttal with your first point: “I oppose homosexuality because it is unstable.”

Apart from the fact that in my opinion, it is everyone's right to choose if he or she wants to live promiscuous or not – an opinion which is probably a bit too radical for a priest – your argumentation isn't really what I would call convincing.

Have you always been taking promiscuity as a predefined behavior of homosexuals that can impossibly be changed? Or have you ever thought about the question of why homosexuals often have sex with lots of different partners? Obviously neither of them, because on the one hand you're warning against the promiscuous behavior of gay men, but on the other hand you're obviously assuming that as soon as gays are turned into straights, their obsession with changing partners will disappear. Why should a man who used to assassinate every guy's butt suddenly abide by his new girlfriend? Because your character makes a U-Turn as soon as you're heterosexual? Doesn't really make any sense at all, does it?

So why is it that especially homosexual men are often showing a promiscuous behavior? The answer is truly not simple. But we should at least try to find an answer instead of just saying “Well, they obviously are, so let's make them straight!”

A theory that makes sense to me is the following: thanks to the mass of ultra-conservative intellectuals respectively fewer intellectuals on this planet, homosexual preference still usually remains a secret in western society and in particular in the United States. Of course, under these circumstances it's more or less impossible to have a diversified, stable and fulfilling relationship – you can't even take a walk through the park holding hands with your partner. On the other hand, everybody needs to live out his or her sexual preference. Heterosexuals do that by finding a partner they don't have to hide, and homosexuals who can't come out of their closet have to find a more discreet way – so they have only one choice: having non-binding sex with other males instead of building up a relationship they can't live out as they want to.

Concluding, homosexuals are obviously not born promiscuous but made promiscuous by our intolerant society – and even if they were born with a “promiscuity gene”, they wouldn't be turned into angels when made (pseudo-)straight.

Your next point is “I oppose homosexuality because it is deadly.”

To prove this these, you're referring to a really brilliant source (http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm) which says on its homepage “Winning the Sex and Gender Wars!” - well, sounds pretty objective and reliable, doesn't it?

Anyway – the content of the link you have sent me could be considered either dubious or just ridiculous. If I may give a little quotation:

“Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners. […] Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.”

Wow! These guys must really have some strong points if they're introducing their essay in such a manner. If I may reply to their argumentation with some equally strong points: “Typical human behavior includes the inability to use showers, washbasins, and clysters.“

Well, I don't want to harp too much on this laughable introduction – since the rest of the text should get some rebuttal as well.

Basically, the text is referring to two main points: the lack of old people in historical records on homosexuality and the low life expectancy of homosexuals in the 1980s and 1990s.

For both observations, you can find reasons which make a lot more sense than “God's wrathful fist”. First of all, it's really no wonder that most censuses show a small number of old homosexuals – for the simple reason that older homosexuals grew up in a society in which homosexuality was about as tolerated as satanism, murder or being a traitor to the family. In other words, there have always existed plenty of homosexuals of all different ages, but only the younger ones were brave enough to stand by their sexuality. Speculating that the lack of old homosexuals is simply caused by their deaths is totally unfounded.

Also, the essay lists the medium death age of homosexuals in the 1990s which is very low. Well, the reason for this is pretty obvious: it's because of the AIDS epidemic and I don't doubt that at all. Fortunately, some truly clever scientists have found a way of preventing AIDS to spread – it has to do with the term “condom” and I'm pretty sure you have already heard of it. A condom makes sex, no matter if between two males or a male and a female, almost completely safe. And that's a matter of fact.

Concluding, the lack of old gays and lesbians only has to do with the lower coming-out rate amongst old homosexuals. Also, homosexuals are able to protect themselves from getting AIDS by just using condoms, which was different in the early 1980s, when most people didn't know about the AIDS problem.

Your next point is very interesting: “I oppose homosexuality because it isn't how the human reproductive system was designed.”

Unfortunately, discussing this point would pretty much mean a debate on the principles of rationalists and dogmatists.

Indeed, your religion tells you that humans are designed to have sex with the opposite sex and that everything else is wrong. Evolution studies, on the other hand, say that homosexuality does make a sense in the ecosystem since homosexual members of a tribe are very often those who care for the heterosexual's children – of course, I'm not talking about human tribes, but about animal tribes. And there we have another proof for the theory that homosexuality is not a choice but determined.

All over the animal kingdom, several examples of homosexuality have been found (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm) – the reason for this is illustrated in the following by Nathan Bailey:

“Same-sex behaviors—courtship, mounting or parenting—are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations. But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviors might act as selective forces in and of themselves.”

As someone who has a master degree in science, I would really expect you, to accept the facts and not to latch onto Christian creationist views even though I can't forbid you of course to remain Christian which I don't intend to do – the facts, however, are the following: Homosexuality is obviously intended, be it by “Him” or “Her”, nature or whatever.

Your next point is: ”I oppose homosexuality because God said it is sinful.”

I want to make it short: there are far more than 100 religions on this planet. All their followers claim to possess ultimate wisdom – which you do as well, and which is your right.

But as I said: as an owner of a master's degree, you should be able to face the facts: there is no evidence that the Christian choice is the right one. There could be God, there could be Allah, there could be Yahweh, there could be a guy called Bill, ruling heaven with his wife Sarah, or there could be absolutely no one.

That's a matter of fact, and by not knowing if God really exists – and you can't know that, sorry – you also can't know if homosexuality is wrong. Nevertheless, you definitely claim to know it and influence many teenager's lives, not knowing if in a good or in a bad way. And it's certainly adequate to call this behavior irresponsible.

I doubt that I have to conclude anything here – that was surely perfectly understandable.

Your last point is “I oppose homosexuality because it deludes its followers.”

And I have to admit, I have claimed something as a fact that certainly is no fact (determination of sexuality in the uterus, caused by hormones) which was definitely neither objective nor fair and I apologize for that.

Nevertheless, your arguments are definitely easily disprovable.

To prove your statement, you have been sending me another link to a pseudo-scientific essay from the website “Answers in Genesis.org”. To be honest, I neither had enough time nor enough will to fully read this text, which seems to be mainly focused on a highly biased point of view.

What I read was, for example, a chapter on the evolution explanation of homosexuality, criticizing the evolutionist viewpoint as “leading to a society without right or wrong because all the human behavior can be interpreted as a perfectly natural attempt to keep the human race alive”.

If I may express myself politely: this is nonsense. Of course, there are several mental diseases or pure insanity, leading to behavior that doesn't support the spreading of the human race but highly damages it, for example, murder, theft or malicious lying. All these are, by the way, misdeeds which the Bible condemns as well because they are harmful toward other people.

But regarding homosexuality by looking at the question if it's harmful to the society or not, there's no point in seeing it as a danger for our society – except if people consider it as immoral because of totally unproven Bible verses, in which they have a right to believe of course but which they ought not to spread all over the world, as I said.

But apart from the fact, that there's no reason to consider homosexuality as immoral, there's also no reason to consider it as a personal choice, as you said:

“What I know is that there has been no study to date that has proven the cause of homosexuality beyond it being a personal choice. ”

That's simply wrong. As I said and cited, homosexuality has already been proven in numerous arts of the animal kingdom.

Based on the Christian theory that humans are the only creatures possessing free will, it can thus be considered as impossible that homosexuality is a personal choice. Sounds pretty plausible, doesn't it?

Concluding, I'd like to sum up the points I have just given, hoping that I will receive an answer that satisfies my liking for an objective, well-funded disquisitions.

Seeing it as proof that homosexuality is not a personal choice, there are several dogmatic, but no objective points that are able to justify a negative attitude towards homosexuality.

The accusation that homosexuals are on average more promiscuous than heterosexuals can be considered to be appropriate but is no justification for the attempt to turn gays into straights, since homosexual promiscuity is mainly caused by our intolerant society and, if it wasn't a product of homophobia but natural, wouldn't change.

Dangers of homosexuality considering a higher AIDS or syphilis infection rate can easily be eliminated by making sure that condoms are used for homosexual and sexual activities in general. Studies that try to prove that there are hardly any old homosexuals are absurd because they ignore the social circumstances under which older people very often grew up.

Arguments that claim that homosexuality is against Creation and sin in the eyes of God can impossibly be proven as long as God doesn't decide to tell us his own personal opinion by going to Oprah Winfrey or Larry King. You are still authorized to believe in Creation and homosexuality as a sin, but it's irresponsible to influence other people's lives in a more than a debatable way with theses you can't even prove.

Mr. Hamilton, in the 16 years of my life there has never been any doubt for me that I only have feelings and sexual attraction towards other males and not towards females. My relationship both to my mother and to my father has always been perfectly intact and was not damaged in any way by my coming out, as my reputation at school wasn't damaged either. In view of that I can say that I'm a perfectly self-confident person who doesn't need to override any inferiority complexes by offending people who teach the cruel truth that our Almighty Father has sent to earth by a book that forbids us to cut our hair, forbids women to participate at the mass and gives us one single advice not to kill and thousands to kill – oh right, I forgot, the Bible shouldn't be taken too literally.

I'm glad about living in secular Germany

P.S. I apologize for every form of sarcasm in this text and hope that we will be able to have this correspondence on an objective level. Seriously.

P.P.S. I may add that considering me as an atheist isn't right, although I might have claimed myself as one. Basically I believe in what I see but don't necessarily disbelieve in what I don't see which is why I'd rather consider myself as an Agnostic.