Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Racism, Sexism, Homophobia and Religion - Part 3

Part 3 of my commentary on a post from a friend's blog.


Getting straight to the point, I do not have an axe to grind against homosexuals, except to defend against the specious argument for "gay marriage"; for it is an oxymoron and I cannot support it. Marriage is and has always been an institution between a man and a woman. Political correctness requires, nee demands, the re-definition of such words, but that doesn't change what marriage truly is. Now, having said that, some will immediately want to label me as "intolerant", "hateful" or a "bigot". Anyone who knows me, knows that isn't anywhere close to being true. In Part 2's discussion on sexism I illustrated some of the societal problems created in part as a by-product of the feminist movement. The calling into question of the family, centered around a mother and a father, and the making of homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of sexuality. To be clear, I am not laying that responsibility solely at feminism's door, but it was, without question, a significant contributor.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines homophobia as:

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
This doesn't describe my position at all. I do not discriminate against homosexuals. Nor do I have an irrational fear of them. I do, however, contend that homosexual acts are objectively morally wrong; and that contention is neither irrational or discriminatory. I base that argument on the Natural Law (see below) as well as the moral guidance of my faith. My disagreement is not the same as a fear. I can reasonably disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt, as is unfortunately so often the case these days, to end any rational discussion with the cry of "homophobe!" really falls flat to me; as it is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

Listen, I understand this is a very emotionally charged issue. I've had the opportunity to discuss the issue in-depth with a former co-worker who is gay and have experienced the emotion first hand. But there is such a thing as objective truth. If you don’t believe in objective truth, then I can see how my contention above would be a problem for you. Relativism by its very nature is flawed. To quickly summarize the basic problems with relativistic truth: 

  1. It is self-defeating.
    The relativist believes that subjective truth is true for everyone, not just from them. This is the one thing they cannot believe, if they are relativist. Therefore, if a relativist thinks it is true for everyone, then he believes it is an absolute truth. Therefore, he is no longer a relativist. 
  2. It is full of contradictions.
    If I believe God exists and you believe God does not exist both would be right. God would have to exist and not exist.
  3. It means no one has ever been wrong.
    No one could ever be wrong since there is no standard for right and wrong. As long as something is true to the holder of that truth; it is true even if it is held to be wrong based on someone else's truth. 
We all intuitively know truth is objective. Admitting it is another issue. Even the Hindu, who denies that truth and reality objectively exist, will look both ways before he crosses the street. Everyone, whether or not they admit it, believes that truth and reality objectively exist. Consequently they also believe that there are actions/behaviors that are objectively right and wrong as well. Isn't this what we teach our children? How can there be a sliding scale of truth? On what is society basing the attempted redefinition of truth?

A Basic Argument against homosexual acts from the Natural Law:
People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural. Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or the infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth. Homosexual acts are contrary to the Natural Law and, by definition, close the sexual act to the gift of life (I am in no way saying "you have sex only to procreate"). They also do not represent a genuine affective and sexual complementarity (see Part 2). In the Christian perspective homosexual acts are not treated any differently than say abortion, the exploitation of children, adultery and rape. All of these are opposed by the call to a high sexual ethic.

There is no hate in what I write, only an attempt to be morally consistent. With no intent to sound trite, this truly is the proverbial case of, "hate the sin, love the sinner". People want to try and equate "gay rights" as part and parcel to the civil rights movement, yet these same people (more than likely), see no problem with the killing of an unborn child. It seems to me that the pro-life movement is infinitely more commensurate to the civil rights movement than the "gay rights" movement, not to mention infinitely more logically consistent.
** Paragraph on Natural Law reproduced in large part from the Catholic Answers tract, Homosexuality. Many other resources on the Natural Law Argument exist and are accessible via the Internet.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search This Blog