A Test for Evil: Homosexuality

Posted on August 6, 2004 in Morals & Ethics Sexuality

I’d like to suggest a test for evil and use homosexuality as the subject. The test is simple: an act can be called evil if it causes harm. Killing undeniably harms. Theft may harm. Adultery may harm. But what about homosexuality? Does it harm?

Critics of gay and lesbian lifestyles state these harms: they spread disease and they divert their practitioners from engaging in reproductive sex. I reject the idea that “homosexuality is unnatural” for consideration as a harm because, quite frankly, because it is vague and selectively applied. Unnatural suggests artificial. I do not see many critics of homosexuality giving up driving or riding in cars because it prevents them from the natural act of walking.

The same can be said for the other two harms that I have seen stated in the case against homosexuality. But unlike the unnatural argument, they point to specific detriments. Therefore, they merit more a more in-depth consideration. Let us begin with disease: yes, homosexuality spreads disease. I do not deny this. AIDS captured the imagination of both pro and anti-homosexual forces because it dramatically showed the dangers of unchecked and unprotected sex within the gay male community. I will say that acting hedonistically, without regard for the health and safety of others qualifies as a bona fide act of evil. Straight people have also spread disease through unchecked sex. And in both these sentences, the concept that unites them is that of acting without regard for others or one’s personal health. It could be a sin of neglect or a sin of deliberate intention. It zeroes in on a specific attitude and a certain way sex is engaged in that does not necessarily single out homosexual lifestyles. Can one live a homosexual lifestyle without endangering the health of oneself and others? The answer is yes. Therefore, the case for evil based on this does not stand, except in certain specifics.

The second substantial argument against homosexuality is that it distracts people from engaging in reproductive sex. Let me begin by granting the harm — for the purpose of thought experiment. Who else is distracted from engaging in reproductive sex? I am being distracted right now because I am writing this blog instead of mating. Unless you are a sexual athlete, you are distracted right now by reading this. People who drive, who go to the movies, who dance, who read books, who daydream are all distracted from having reproductive sex! Therefore, we must condemn these activities because they do not further the reproduction of the species.

But in defense of all of these, I ask: is our species being threatened by extinction because we opt out of having reproductive sex for some or all of our lives? Absolutely not! If the last people were a lesbian and a gay man who refused to have sex with each other, you might have a case for condemning them but this is not the case in our modern world. Homsexuality is in no danger of leading us to the brink of extinction: if this is your concern, you are better off worrying about the arms race and global warming. We make children just fine. The species will survive if we manage to deal with these other problems in the context of overpopulation.

So what about hating gays and lesbians for being what they are?* I can mark this as a certain harm. Proponents of the idea that being gay or lesbian is bad want to deprive other people of the freedom to perform activities which do no harm. Sometimes they want to physically attack people or even kill them. This qualifies as evil. And our best defense? Exposing its fallacies and speaking the Truth boldly.

---

*Scientists have not yet discovered a homosexuality gene, but they have documented homosexuality in other animals including sheep and chimpanzees. My bet for a genetic reason for homosexuality stands on pheromones. Anyone’s genitals can be excited by anyone. The question is attraction. I believe that we will find that those who profess to be homosexual from childhood have a different sense of smell from their same-sex peers. Men, who are normally turned on by the scent of a woman, find the scent of a man more compelling, for example. Is this unnatural? It’s not the product of genetic engineering — it came out of Nature. If my theory holds true, the only thing we can say is that some people are born with this reversed sense of smell just as some are born with gat-teeth.