www.TheLogician.net © Avi Sion - all rights reserved
© Avi Sion
All rights reserved
Logical and Spiritual REFLECTIONS
© Avi Sion, 2008. All rights reserved.
Book 6. No to Sodom
Chapter 8. Changing rationalizations
Our society’s view of homosexuality has gone through numerous changes in the last few decades. At one time, homosexuality was frowned upon on religious grounds, because of the Biblical interdiction of it. Homosexuals were an object of contempt and mockery; people found them disgusting and avoided them as much as possible.
Then came the “sexual liberation” of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when the hippies opted for sexual promiscuity – which though usually heterosexual, sometimes included homosexual encounters.
Around this time, apologists for homosexuality began arguing that it should be regarded as a mental “sickness”, caused by adverse family and social circumstances, and thus compassionately excused. Opponents of homosexuality at first tended to accept this semantic shift, viewing the epithet of sickness as an appropriate insult of sorts, a secular replacement for the religious idea of sinfulness. After all, who would want to be considered mentally deranged (even in the way of a victim)?
Realizing this negative connotation, apologists for homosexuality began proposing that it is normal, in the sense that some people are so programmed by Nature, i.e. some people maybe have these peculiar genes, constituting a sort of third gender (or third and fourth genders, if we distinguish male and female homosexuals). They sought in this way to legitimatize homosexuality as neither a sin nor a psychological affliction, but something natural though relatively uncommon.
However, no “homosexual genes” have ever been found (though some researchers have momentarily gained media attention by claiming to have found such distinctive genes). And if you think about it – such genes are hardly conceivable and very improbable according to the theory of evolution. For homosexuality is by definition non-reproductive; therefore, if such a gene ever arose by a spontaneous mutation, it would soon enough be naturally selected out of existence!
Fanciful notions of “a woman’s soul in a man’s body” or “a man’s soul in a woman’s body” were floated by the poets, implying that souls have a gender and that these can somehow enter the wrong kind of body.
The science-minded suggested that sex hormones might on occasion override the gender determination of the sex chromosomes, ignoring the fact that all cells of a given human contain the same sex chromosomes, so that even if hormonal imbalances produce some unusual visible sexual characteristics, the underlying gender is still genetically engraved (so that no hormonal treatment or surgical sex change can hide the real sex).
The scientists also pointed to hermaphrodites, and similar gender aberrations, some of which are due to unusual hormonal conditions, others to genetic abnormalities. Thus, there are people who have both a penis and a vagina; or again, there are people with a YY sex chromosome combination (or even rarer combinations like XYY, XXX or XXXX), instead of the usual XX of females or XY of males.
However, such cases are extremely rare, and their existence cannot be construed as a scientific explanation of homosexuality, since such people are not necessarily homosexual, and the large majority of homosexuals certainly cannot be classed in this category of physical abnormality.
All such “scientific” talk was of course only meant to hoodwink us common folk into believing that homosexuality is somehow not open to moral judgment. The object of the apologists was to have their cake and eat it too; i.e. to present homosexuality due to unusual physical problems, and thus, though an abnormality, something quite natural – implying that we should feel pity and consideration towards homosexuals (as we would to any physically handicapped person).
But this position left homosexuals a bit less than “gay”, implying them to be (gulp) victims, if not of Society, at least of Nature. It did not fully legitimatize them, but still left them in the position of second-class citizens. At this point, an ethical offensive began, declaring homosexuality a free choice by fully adult, responsible and respectable human beings – a choice as legitimate and even worthwhile as plain old heterosexuality.
Everyone can decide for himself or herself, they argued, and who are you to judge? Various media and politicians pitched in, and the laws of nations were changed. Even constitutions were amended, and a “human right” to sexual “difference” was declared instituted and enforced. Active administrative measures were adopted to ensure homosexuals were treated as equal citizens; people were forbidden to ostracize them.
More generally, a new ideal of humanity was floated, a sort of
androgynous, bisexual unisex creature. Men were told to realize the woman
within them and become less macho; and women were told to realize the man
within them and become more macho. Unisex haircuts and clothing became
fashionable. Men (generally depicted as brutes) were encouraged to become
more sensitive, talkative and weepy; while women (generally depicted as
victims) were advised to get tough and fight back. This general assault on
“sex roles” was of course justified in some cases and to some extent,
insofar as its purpose was social, economic and legal equality between men
and women; but it also served as a ploy in the more specific battle for
In any case, no significant differences in hormone balance between
homosexuals and heterosexuals have been found in general – meaning that
such proposed physical cause is not an adequate explanation.