The widely popular debate about homosexuality can be narrowed down to three arguments. (1) Homosexuality is against the natural order; that there are only two, male and female, sexual orientation and that deviations from these is either abnormal or is only a result of mental construct. (2) Homosexuality is against the teachings of God; that God only created Adam and Eve and that people who engage in same-sex intercourse must be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). (3) Acceptance of homosexuals can prove to be detrimental to society; that tolerance of gay people can bring forth a promiscuous generation driven by malevolence and immorality.

In view of the first argument, it is known that compliance with the natural order is one of the foundations of a great society. That opposing it can bring unhappiness. Then why is it that when a gay person tries to alter and hide (coined as hiding in a closet), his being homosexual, he experiences feelings of being manipulated, fear of socializing with other people, and imaginary speculations of other people about his sexuality? When in fact he’s trying to find a way to change his sexual orientation or in other words, follow the so-called natural order, where only heterosexuals exist? And why is it that when a gay person fully embraces his homosexuality, which is considered against the natural order, he experiences a feeling of euphoria? Wherein he feels he can conquer the world? Wherein he is free from the feeling of being manipulated, free of the fear of criticisms and free of the imaginary speculations of other people? I therefore consider the first argument wrong. Homosexuality is not against the natural order for it brings no harm and despair to the person embracing it.

Leviticus 20:13 which states that people who engage in same-sex intercourse must be put to death is one of the main reasons why the church is against Homosexuality. But it’s also written in the bible that women are forbidden to speak in church (I Corinthians 14:3) and disobedient sons must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Are these passages suppose to be interpreted the way it is? If so, then why is it that women who speaks in church and disobedient sons are not condemned explicitly by the church the way homosexuals are? These passages are but some of the parts in bible that implies what kind of scripture it is. The hard thing about the bible is that it doesn’t come with a manual or a guide to interpret it. People will interpret it based on their own reasons and experiences. That is why from this single book sprung out many Christian divisions such as Roman Catholic, Protestant, Iglesia ni Cristo and Born Again. I therefore consider the second argument invalid, because interpretation of the Bible is subjective.

The last argument is probably the most debatable, for why must society accept homosexuals if they will stir conflict in it? In Economics, we have learned that one of the functions of society is to serve as a “meeting place” for people to satisfy their needs. Because as an isolated individual, you cannot provide on your own the daily needs you require. Having said that, why are we creating standards that push people away from society, particularly the homosexuals? Why should we isolate them when they could prove to be helpful in the progress of our society, like what Ellen Degeneres and Elton John have been?

The same argument was used to oppose the right of women to vote. When women sought the right to vote and participate in politics in many counties, it was believed that the interests of society were put to jeopardy. That it’s also against “nature” of women staying at home and doing housework. But what happened after they were given the chance to vote and participate in politics? Isn’t it that it gave them dignity and paved way to the continuous crusade of women to bring equality? What if we also cease the discrimination against gay? And yield positive results to the advantage of society? Isn’t that worth trying for?

In the issue of morality, it’s common especially in our country that whenever a gay person pass by, especially if his hair is long, he’s wearing mini skirts, backless dress and heels, we cannot help but come to conclusions that that person is promiscuous, pervert and immoral. But then if we delve in to the issue of morality, we will learn that sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. It is the level of education, being rational and the conscience of man that determines the kind of being he’ll be. Being homosexual does not hinder a person from being morally upright, the way being a heterosexual does not guarantee that a person will be ethical.

With these said, I consider the last argument false, for several gay people have already contributed to the well-being of society and that the conclusion that gay people will bring immorality to society is only a product of generalization and the fallacy of division.

For me, the things discussed in the defense argument are but sound proof that the time has come for us to leave the past vehind and head straight to the inevitable direction of change that the current winds of our society are leading us. My belief, supported with my defense, is that acceptance of homosexuals will rattle but not destroy the society and it’s churches. And when such vision is attained, gays and lesbians will finally be given a chance to freely fulfill their highest potential as human being and as sons and daughters of God.

I invite comments, objections and refutations.

 

October 1st, 2008 by Dame Jerome Your truth is as good as my truth.