The Immorality of Homosexual Sex

In October, 2007, Illinois Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama added singer Donnie McClurkin to the cast of a gospel concert that his campaign was hosting. McClurkin, a self-professed "former gay," has been a vocal opponent of gay rights over the past several years. He has publicly stated that homosexual sex is unnatural, and that acting on homosexual desires is entirely based on choice. When Obama realized the controversy he had created by adding McClurkin to the bill, he asserted that the purpose of choosing McClurkin was to show the importance of bringing people together, even if they disagree.

However, this didn't work as well as Obama may have hoped. Many of Obama's supporters are African Americans living in the southern states, individuals who are statistically more likely to oppose granting more rights to homosexuals because of strong religious ties. According to Washington Post-ABC News national surveys this year, only 22 percent of black Democrats support gay marriage, compared to 43 percent of white Democrats. Around half of all black Americans, 52 percent, don't support civil unions or gay marriage for gay couples, compared to only 26 percent of whites.¹ Obama supporters who are against homosexual sex and marriage feel that Obama, rather than ignoring the issue of homosexuality, should publicly condemn it as immoral. In opposition to individuals who feel that politicians who speak on the issue of homosexuality are overstepping their bounds, some feel that it is the role of a nation's leaders to speak out on moral issues.

Political leaders should not be silent on the unethical nature of homosexual sex in exchange for opposite-minded constituents. Instead, leaders ought to voice their opinions on this topic and stick to them. I, as a voter, want to know which candidates plan to champion homosexual causes and which endeavor to denounce homosexual sex acts as unethical and thus preserve the sanctity of heterosexual (true) marriage. I want to know where candidates stand because I believe that homosexual sex is a practice that is contrary to natural law.

Some individuals argue that homosexual sex should be permitted because it is a practice that doesn't hurt anyone. However, sources seem to suggest that homosexual sex is harmful to the participants based on correlation studies. First of all, despite gay rights spokespersons' claims that sexually active homosexuals are no more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts, evidence says otherwise. In 1996, an NHSDA (National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) survey indicated that both female and male homosexuals reported more sexual partners in the previous twelve months than heterosexual individuals of similar backgrounds.² Although it is statistically unsound to assume causation from studies which exhibit strong correlations, there seems to be some connection between homosexuality and other immoral behaviors.

A separate study suggests that homosexual sex is mentally damaging to participants. In 2003, a Canadian Community Health Survey and ADD Health Investigators stated that "both male and female homosexuals exhibited poorer overall mental health compared to nonhomosexual counterparts."³ This means that there is a strong correlation between the need for psychiatric counseling or medication and the practice of homosexual sex. While this may support the hypothesis that homosexual sex causes mental problems or the hypothesis that homosexual sex is a symptom of a greater psychological disorder, these statistics may simply reflect how difficult life can be for homosexuals in a society that does not universally condone their behavior.

No matter how one chooses to interpret these statistics, they simply cannot be ignored. According to expert Paul Cameron in Psychological Reports, these studies are significant because "no other area of social science has reached such high empirical consensus by different investigators of divergent opinions, conducting studies in so many varied venues at so many different times."⁴ In his opinion, this collection of studies contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 2003 and supports "traditionalist assertions about the personal and social harms associated with homosexual activity." ⁵

The 2003 Supreme Court case of which Cameron writes (Lawrence v. Texas) is one in which a police team, acting upon an unrelated warrant, entered an individual's home to find the homeowner engaged in private, consensual, adult sexual acts with another man. The two men were arrested under a standing Texas sodomy law. The Supreme Court decision repealed the sodomy law, stating that "In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence,

outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds."⁶However, many individuals disagree with this Supreme Court ruling.

One of these individuals is Justice Scalia, author of the dissenting view. Scalia explains that the court's assertion that sodomy laws are unconstitutional because they restrict the freedom of the homosexual's lifestyle is incorrect. In the same way that laws against public nudity are targeted against prohibiting nudist behavior, sodomy laws prohibit homosexual behavior. According to Scalia,

Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to homosexuals as a class, that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality.⁷

Scalia goes on to explain that the Supreme Court ought to uphold the values of the nation, rather than trying to impose specific beliefs on the population. He says, "It is clear... that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."⁸

Scalia concludes his statement of dissention by arguing that the court really isn't aware of what the common person wants in regard to homosexual legislation. He writes, "So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not mainstream."⁹ Scalia seems to believe that, simply because there are individuals who want to (and do) have homosexual sex, does not mean that they ought to be able to do so legally. He feels that, because homosexuality has become more fashionable in current pop culture, the court seems to believe that such acceptance of homosexual sex is more universal than it actually is.

I, like many other Americans today, feel that homosexual sex is unethical. Immanuel Kant's ethics support my opinion in a couple of different ways. Consider his categorical imperative in its first formulation, "Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings."⁹ First of all, according to this concept, homosexual sex is unethical because it cannot rationally be willed to be universal. If one wills that homosexual sex (non-procreative sex) be universalized, they would be essentially willing themselves out of existence, which Kant would argue is completely against human nature.

While I believe that the first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is strong support for my opinion, some have objections to this argument. For instance, some argue that, if the whole point of sexual intercourse is procreation from a married couple, then what about married couples who are infertile? Since no one is trying to condemn sex between infertile married (heterosexual) people, some individuals feel that it cannot condemn homosexual sex on the grounds of inability to procreate. However, I feel that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are fundamentally different. Heterosexual sex, even between married individuals who are diagnosed as infertile, still carries the slight

possibility of procreation whereas homosexual sex carries no possibility of procreation

whether the partners are fertile or not.

It is also worthwhile to consider the second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative, ""Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means." Kant believes that homosexual sex acts are examples of individuals using their bodies and the bodies of others as a means to achieve pleasure, not as an end in themselves.

Support for my position against homosexual sex can also be derived from Kant's

concept of duty ethics. For Kant, when a person's actions are determined by a moral principle, that person is acting from a sense of duty.¹⁰ This means that an individual may have to act contrary to their desires in order to be moral. To Kant, homosexual sex acts are "crimes against nature." For individuals with homosexual desires, Kant's duty ethic translates into the practice of celibacy.

Because of the sanctity of marriage for Christians, Christian ethics leads to a conclusion similar to that derived from Kantian duty ethics. Whatever does not support the sanctity of marriage (adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sex, homosexual sex) threatens it. There is some debate about whether or not homosexual sex is explicitly condemned in the Bible, and I believe that it is. However, even if the Bible is silent on the subject of homosexual sex (which, as I will soon explain, I don't believe it is), it can be inferred that homosexual sex is immoral. Much like in the case of the scarcity of mention of Jesus' humanity in the gospel of John (although it is clear that his humanity is not meant to be brought into question), just because the Bible does not explicitly state something does not mean that there is no message there.

One of the first passages from the Bible that I feel supports my stance that homosexuality is immoral is Genesis 1:27-28. This passage reads as follows: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply..."¹¹ Here, a clear distinction is made between sex for procreation (moral) and

non-procreative sex (immoral). God intended each human being to pair up with another human being of the opposite sex in order to keep the human race going. Since homosexual sex cannot result in procreation, it is clear that there is really no room in God's plan for humanity for homosexual sex or union.

Further support for my position on homosexual sex is found in Genesis 2:23-24.This passage reads: "The man said, 'This [woman] is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'... For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh."¹² In this passage, it is clear that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Because we know that sex is meant to be shared only by married individuals, we can once again conclude that sex between individuals of the same gender is simply unacceptable. God created Adam and Eve for each other. Their

bodies and souls are meant to unite during the physical act of sex, and thus they are symbolically joined as "one flesh."

A third example of condemnation of homosexual sex is found in the story of Sodom and Gomorra (Gen 19). In this passage, Sodomites gathered around Lot's house and demanded that he send out the two visiting angels so they might get to "know" them.¹³ The implication here is that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors as a symbol of dominance over them. Later, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra because of the behavior of the Sodomites. Although there is some disagreement over what the term "know" really means in this context, it makes sense to interpret it in this way in light of

the practices of the time.

Lastly, I feel that Leviticus provides the strongest support for my views on the immorality of homosexual sex. Unlike the other passages I have discussed thus far, Leviticus 18:22 has a clear meaning. In the King James Version, we are instructed that "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."¹⁴ This is perhaps the clearest example of condemnation of homosexual sex in the Bible. It is clear from this passage that sex acts are meant to be shared between a man and a woman-anything else is shameful and immoral. Leviticus 20:13 repeats this condemnation, with

an added penalty for those who commit homosexual sex acts-death. This passage is especially significant because it makes it clear that homosexual sex is immoral at all times, not just in the case of rape. ¹⁵ Whether homosexual sex is consensual or not, it is still an abomination in the eyes of God.

Therefore, Christian ethics had to conclude that homosexuality is a choice, not an innate identity. This is clear because, if God is perfect and human beings are created in his image, God could not have created beings that 'can't help' being homosexual. Furthermore, God would not have created human beings who do not fit into the 'plan' we see outlined in Genesis 2:23. God doesn't create imperfect beings. It is the human being who renders himself imperfect through sin and failure to adhere to God's word.

Although this may seem purely theoretical, there are also some concrete facts to back up the Christian ethicists' conclusion. In The Journal of Psychology Paul and Kirk

Cameron explained the results of a study which showed that students who had had a homosexual teacher sometime in their education were more likely to be homosexual later in life than students who had only heterosexual teachers. Overall, 17.5% of heterosexual men and 57.7% of bisexual or homosexual men claimed to have had a homosexual teacher. 16.8% of heterosexual and 52.5% of bisexual or homosexual women

said they had had a homosexual teacher.¹⁶ It seems clear from this study that there is a greater incidence of homosexuality in individuals who had a homosexual teacher at some point in their education.

Although these statistics seem to support Cameron's hypothesis that students with homosexual teachers are at risk for exhibiting homosexual behavior later in life, critical analysis of this study exposes the possible unreliability of Cameron's achieved statistics. Since the information was gathered through surveys administered to the (former) students, we cannot necessarily assume that their opinions or beliefs regarding the sexuality of their teachers are accurate. Teachers may not share information about their sexual orientation with students for a variety of different reasons. It is possible that homosexual students are better able to identify homosexual teachers, or that homosexual students feel more comfortable in classroom environments presided over by homosexual teachers.

While many research psychologists have arrived at conclusions similar to Cameron's, some believe that they have found evidence that homosexuality is not the result of any environmental impetus, but rather that it is an innate characteristic of some individuals. One such example is the study done by Whitam, Diamond, and Martin, which sought to find a genetic basis for homosexuality by studying the occurrence of homosexuality in twins and triplets. They felt that if there was a significantly higher occurrence of homosexuality in pairs of twins in which one twin was homosexual, this would show that there must be some genetic link. Nevertheless, they concluded that they couldn't really be sure if there was any genetic connection.¹⁷ "There are several possibilities that remain: (i) sexual orientation has a high heritability... (ii) sexual

orientation is partly genetic, and partially socially derived... (iii) sexual orientation is not genetically determined."

This study received a lot of attention in the field because it was one of the first that proposed the possibility that homosexuality may have a link with genetics. However, I feel that this study was approached incorrectly because it did not discern between twins who were raised together and twins who were raised separately. Since the primary objection to the claim that homosexuality is genetic is the statement that homosexuality is a result of environmental factors, the researchers should have confronted this objection head on. Instead, the result only provided statistics on monozygotic and dizygotic twins (with no mention of whether the twins or triplets were raised together or apart, etc), which is really not at the heart of the issue.

In The Journal of Homosexuality, James Haynes argues that, despite researchers' attempts to prove the cause of sexual orientation, "no one theory has proved satisfactory."¹⁸While twin studies attempt to establish a genetic basis for homosexual behavior, Haynes feels that they consistently fail to address the true questions regarding homosexual behavior. Haynes says that the argument that genes do not determine homosexuality is more convincing because scientists have yet to explain how "a gene favoring a homosexual orientation but not reproduction could continue to exist in any population."¹⁹ He says that, if homosexual orientation is the result of a particular gene

sequence, there is no way to account for individuals who chose to engage in sexual relations with individuals of both sexes. Ultimately, Haynes concludes that genetic inheritance of homosexual orientation seems unlikely at best.

Whether or not Cameron's study provides infallible evidence, it is certainly possible that there is a correlation between homosexual influence during formative years and later homosexual behavior. Both Whitam et al as well as Haynes grant that this is a possibility. In the discussion of his study's results, Paul Cameron writes, "Much of the work in counseling homosexuals, as well as surveys of homosexuals, has shown higher rates of sexual victimization among them (e.g., Doll et al., 1992; Hickson et al., 1994; Keane, Young, Boyle, & Curry, 1995; Laumann et al., 1994)."²⁰ This, as well as the results of the study of the effects of homosexual teachers on their students, supports the biblical assertion that there is no such thing as a natural born homosexual. Rather, it seems that individuals who partake in homosexual behavior are doing so because of a deviation from the moral path in life. This deviation may be the result of misguidance (like the students with homosexual mentors or role models) or mistreatment (like those who are sexually victimized).

In fact, some psychotherapists have concluded that homosexual behavior can be "cured" as a result of their experiences with patients seeking help with overcoming

unwanted homosexual desires. For example, psychologists Sy Rogers and Alan Medinger argue that homosexuality is a form of sexual dysfunction that originates in "early childhood difficulties" and that can be reversed through psychotherapy. They're not alone in this belief by any means. In fact, they cite a book by Dr. Robert Kronemeyer called Overcoming Homosexuality, which was written almost thirty years ago. They credit Kronemeyer with saying, "For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'" ¹⁸ They cite the results of psychotherapy of Masters and Johnson which yielded a success rate of 71.6% in 81 gays "desiring reorientation" after a six-year period.

Based on these unrelated studies, I believe it is evident that homosexuality is a form of sexual dysfunction. Furthermore, I believe that if everyone was aware of the psychological research and biblical references that point to the unnatural nature of homosexual sex and its probable causes, far fewer individuals would be accepting of this practice. I believe that homosexual sex is unnatural. Not only is it contradictory to God's very plan for human beings, but its correlation with other negative moral and psychological states is impossible to ignore. Because of this, it is essential that our nation's leaders vocalize their true feelings regarding homosexual sex. Rather than trying to avoid offending anyone, our leaders and potential leaders should be confident enough in their own morality to serve as a moral example to the rest of us.

Endnotes

1. Perry Bacon, "Despite Protests, McClurkin's Guest Star Turn for Obama a Crowd Pleaser," Washington Post, October 29, 2007, final edition, via Internet,

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/29/post_159.html/

2.Paul Cameron, Thomas Landess, and Kirk Cameron, "Homosexual sex as harmful as drug abuse, prostitution, or smoking," Psychological Reports 96, no. 3 (2005): 957.

3. Cameron, "Homosexual sex as harmful as drug abuse," 958.

4. Ibid, 960.

5. Ibid, 961.

6. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 41 S. W. 3d 349 (2003).

7. J. Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. No. 02.102: 17 (2003).

8 J. Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. No. 02.102: 18 (2003).
9. Ibid. 19

10. Robert Johnson, "Kant's Moral Philosophy," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#DutResMorLaw/

11. Gen 1:27-28 KJV

12. Gen 2:23-24 KJV

13. Gen 19 KJV

14. Lev 18:22 KJV

15. Lev 20:13 KJV

16. Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron, "Do homosexual teachers pose a risk to their pupils?" The Journal of Psychology 130, no. 6 (Nov 1996) via Academic OneFile, Gale, http://find.galegroup.com.ps2.villanova.edu/ (accessed Nov 14, 2007)

17. Frederick Whitam, Milton Diamond and James Martin, "Homosexual Orientation in twins: a report on 61 pairs," Archives of Sexual Behavior 22, no. 3 (1993), Research Library.

18. James D. Haynes, "A critique on the possibility of genetic inheritance of homosexual orientation," Journal of Homosexuality 28, no. 1-2 (1995), p 99

19. Ibid. 106

20. Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron, "Do homosexual teachers pose a risk to their pupils?" The Journal of Psychology 130, no. 6 (Nov 1996) via Academic OneFile, Gale, http://find.galegroup.com.ps2.villanova.edu/ (accessed Nov 14, 2007)

Bibliography

Bacon, Perry. "Despite Protests, McClurkin's Guest Star Turn for Obama a Crowd Pleaser." Washington Post, October 29, 2007,

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/29/post_159.html/

Cameron, Paul, Thomas Landess, and Kirk Cameron. "Homosexual sex as harmful as drug abuse, prostitution, or smoking." Psychological Reports 96, no. 3 (2005): 950-972.

Cameron, Paul and Kirk Cameron. "Do homosexual teachers pose a risk to their pupils?" The Journal of Psychology 130, no. 6 (Nov 1996) via Academic OneFile, Gale, http://find.galegroup.com.ps2.villanova.edu/.

Haynes, James D. "A critique on the possibility of genetic inheritance of homosexual orientation." Journal of Homosexuality 28, no. 1-2 (1995). p 91-113.

Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#DutResMorLaw/ (accessed Nov 16, 2007).

"Kant and Sexual Perversion." The Monist 86, no. 1 (Jan 2003) via Internet, http://fs.uno.edu/asoble/pages/kmonist.htm/

Rogers, Sy and Alan Medinger. "Homosexuality Is Not Normal Sexual Behavior." Opposing Viewpoints: Human Sexuality (1995), http://find.galegroup.com/

Whitam, Frederick L, Milton Diamond and James Martin. "Homosexual Orientation in twins: a report on 61 pairs." Archives of Sexual Behavior 22, no. 3 (1993). Research Library.