Is Homosexuality Justifiable?

Photo by Rohan Reddy on Unsplash

Moral Discernment

The topic that is deemed as controversial within the church would be the tolerance or rejection of homosexual unions. As a theopneustic Christian, I do not consider using the biblical literature as supreme and indisputable evidence for marriage to be exclusive, because other issues like polygamy and patriarchy found within the Old Testament can also be justified as a result. The argumentation of “because the Bible says” is not a persuasive or effective methodology to affirm and justify an outlook. There should be other methods of argumentation against homosexuality and for the exclusivity of marriages. The main reason people affirm homosexual relationships is due to misguided compassion, lack of intellectual scrutiny, and the social manipulation of our culture. Christians should not affirm this kind of “marital” ideology which lacks coherency to human nature and to phronimos logos (i.e. wise logic).

Reason #1: Beneficial Necessity

This is the moral argument stating that if such an action is unavoidable, and beneficial for one’s welfare and others, then it is justified. This argument would apply to human necessities like eating/drinking, sleeping, loving, and procreating. The biggest issue with homosexual union is its exaggerated appeal to loving the other person, except homosexuality isn’t fundamental to loving another person. Psychotherapy doesn’t depend on a romantic partner since stable family, friends, and professional therapists exist as alternatives. Of course, one will insist that having tolerance for homosexual unions will benefit the mind of homosexuals, but this isn’t the case (I’ll explain in Reason #5). Another argumentation from homosexuals would be the appeal to overpopulation, yet this argument has always been debunked. This argument fails because there is a lot of landmass, which still is no where close to overpopulation. If overpopulation were true, there would be other factors for it like the successful preservation of others from dying unnaturally or spontaneously, and the increase of the lifespan of humans.

Sexual desire is not on par with the necessity of food, sleep, love, and procreation. While expanding on procreation, children are necessary to prolong and perpetuate the lineage of humans. Though, they’ll argue that heterosexual intercourse leads to undesired and unwanted children, which stumbles into child neglect and suffering. Yet this is due to immaturity and the selfish abuse of pleasurable functions. But this potential risk for heterosexual intercourse should teach us to take responsibility and become morally mature since without consequence, it is nigh impossible to become mature and considerate of others. I also know heterosexual couples become better people (in character) when they have a child, so this “child suffering” argument alone doesn’t suffice.

Reason #2: Melior Alternatio (Better Alternative)

The hypothetical argument proposing that if there is an alternative model, action, or choice other than something that’s naturally and morally inferior, then such a lesser model or action is unjustified in light of an easily accessible outcome that is superior. If someone had the power and choice to heal a suffering victim from their prolonged illness, but chose to kill them out of mercy, then such an act would not be justified. Likewise, if someone has the power and choice to engage in a heterosexual marriage, but chose an alternative model for marriage, then such a decision would not be justified. An opponent can challenge this argument by claiming, “What if there are only two homosexuals in a lone location?” But this argument can be countered by the first argument proposed, “Is homosexual interaction in this situation of beneficial necessity?” Also, homosexuality has a higher tendency to lead to oral and anal sex, and mutual masturbation due to the lack of a physiological compatibility. If there is a choice [and power] to abstain from sexual interaction, then the homosexual act cannot be justified under these terms. Based on the logic of Melior Alternatio, for example, if a brother was stranded on an island with his sister, would sexual intercourse become morally justified if they gave each other consent? And what if the brother was infertile, does this become a moral justification for consensual sex between them? What about a rapist desiring sexual affection? Is that justified? It is never morally justified because it is not a necessity on par with eating, drinking, and most importantly, loving others. If there is a model that’s more in align to physical nature and proper morals, then no one should follow any other model that contradicts with a superior model of nature and morals.

Reason #3: Natural & Logical Plausibility

The nature-ontological argument stating that if nature is designed in a way that reveals the functions of certain parts, then anything that contradicts the design of such, it implies that it is not the correct usage or treatment of such parts. If the penis was designed for its counterpart, then mere masturbation [i.e. either solo or mutual], oral intercourse, and anal sex are not logical and natural usages of the penis/vagina. Advocates for homosexuality would state, “If homosexuals can’t act in mutual masturbation, and oral or anal sex, why can heterosexuals?” Although, I am not advocating for heterosexuals to act in oral or anal sex. Just as it is unjust for homosexuals to contradict these natural functions, so it is unjust for heterosexuals to only engage in oral and anal sex, and mutual masturbation. But none of these unnatural acts of sex are of a legitimate intercourse. If the penis and vagina are designed for heterosexual intercourse, then there is no practical reason for these parts to be applied on the contrary. If God desired us to be homosexuals, or if human nature should be homosexual, then God would’ve made everyone sexually compatible, or then human nature would not be rigid for a reason. If within human nature, homosexuality cannot be deduced by reason from our current physiological design, then homosexuality has no natural and logical origin. It is merely a contradiction to human nature, and it is a disorder from the human mind [i.e. consciousness, not the brain].

Based on the logic of melior alternatio [found in Reason #2], if there is a better alternative model that is innately and evidently natural, then there is no persuasive reason to adhere to a lesser model [i.e. homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and masturbation]. Bestiality is wrong because there is no physical correspondence. Homosexual unions are wrong because there is no physical correspondence. In similarity to the previous two examples, polygamy cannot be logically derived and morally justified from two sexual counterparts, yet heterosexual monogamy is the only deducible conclusion from nature and logic. Incest may have physical correspondence but it’ll lead to genetic consequences. Monogamous homosexuality and consensual pedophilia cannot be morally justified based on mutual consent. A misguided person, for example, could consent to the stealing of property out of pleasure, which in turn, teaches the thief to be wrongly entitled to robbing others. Likewise, mutual consent and respecting homosexuality teaches them to be entitled to their sexual preferences, blinding them from the error of it.

Reason #4: Unique Relationship Status

The mystical and relational argument stating that if God created an intimate system to be unique and exclusive like mankind and Himself, then marital relationships for men with women should be deemed unique and left exclusive. The apostolic writings compare Christ and the Church [and the inclusion of mankind] as the Bride and the Groom. As a patristic universalist or hellish purgationist, the argument of an exclusive heaven and salvation doesn’t refute the unique status of intimacy between God and mankind. Revelation 22:17 implies that the Spirit and the Church invite the lost or those being saved by fire to join them in the Kingdom. (So then, since this isn’t a story related to patristic universalism, I’m not going into detail for the defense of this view). If there is an intimate system that suggests a unique and exclusive status, then marital communion should also be regarded as unique and exclusive in status. The notion of penile-vaginal intercourse proves that marriage is an exclusive heterosexual relationship, because penile-vaginal intercourse cannot be replicated by a homosexual relationship. Homosexual “intercourse” is a failed imitation of what is logically possible in a heterosexual union and of what is created by God.

Reason #5: Psychotherapy and Trauma

The psychological argument claiming that if such a behavior always/more-than-often results due to origins of sexual and emotional abuse, or confusion and deceit, then such a behavior is proven to be immoral, which operates from mental detriment. This logical position might be offensive, but it’s not out of malice intent. This argument isn’t to say that only homosexuals have a psychological burden from their past, but homosexuality has a tendency to occur due to confusion, deceit, and/or emotional and sexual abuse. Homosexuality has been a symptom of emotional and sexual abuse, which indicates that it is an offspring of malice action. This sexual preference transpires also due to the tolerance of spontaneous suggestions, frequent apathy, and insatiable curiosity. Also, the belief of one’s homosexual preference might be due to an event where their genital was spontaneously aroused when they saw the same sex. This kind of confusion and misunderstanding might happen in childhood or adulthood.

Of course, one will insist that having tolerance for homosexual unions will benefit the mind of homosexuals, but this isn’t the case. Tolerating the perpetuation of a trauma or confused state or even ignoring it, does not benefit and refine the person’s mind. In order to help the psyche of a person, the trauma itself must be confronted and resolved, so as to increase the mental state and behavior of the person. It seems problematic to confuse love with romance, or loneliness with the necessity of sexual communion, or psychotherapy with a consensual homosexual union. Another reason for homosexuality could be due to the bad dating experience of the opposite sex, the social anxiety for the opposite sex, or the lack of a emotional connection with the opposite sex. It could also be a hopelessness for attracting the opposite sex. Another issue is basing one’s conscious identity on sexual orientation, that is, the belief of being homosexual by identity, which is prone to compel someone to engage in homosexual activities. And because of this deceitful belief, it leads the person to practice homosexuality in their mind, which creates a compelling homosexual preference as a result. Also, heterosexual relationships are helpful to building our confidence and perception of the opposite sex. Homosexual unions don’t offer that alternative but a tendency for the segregation of both sexes.

This might be offensive to suggest: if someone is discontent and intolerant of natural reality, and insist his/her own preference above the natural world (i.e. God’s created order), then such a person is operating from methodical pride and opposes objectivity. This kind of entitlement is very dangerous, because such entitlements will only lead to the lack of fulfillment, lack of proper belief, and this constant hedonistic craving. I believe the solution to this issue is contacting an emotional support group, seeking a stable environment, and a pursuing a healthy communion with God. Because no manner of indulgence from the material world will ever satisfy the void of one’s heart. Only God is the key to that empty void of one’s heart. There’s a link about homosexuality being a symptom from childhood and sexual abuse and etc. So conclusively, if homosexuality is not a beneficial necessity, not a better alternative model, not a natural and logical plausibility, not a unique status as heterosexual unions, and not a mentally stable symptom, then it fails to be in the standard of moral acceptance. Homosexuals are accepted but not the belief and practice itself. End of discourse.

Check out the link [the correlation of male homosexuality and trauma]:

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
George M. Garcia

George M. Garcia

A writer interested in theology and the supernatural. A Christian with divine experiences and a vast understanding of Scripture.