| Home >> Politics

Does "Homosexuality" Exist?

Jean-François Millet. First steps.
(Jean-François Millet. First steps. Source)

Please read A Reading List for Homosexual Persons before reading this text.

1) Introduction

No, this is not a joke. I'm serious: Does "homosexuality" really exist? Of course, I am perfectly aware, just as you are, that there are persons with homosexual attractions, and among those persons, some of them claim these attractions are part of their identity, and even have sexual relations with other persons of the same sex. That is not what I'm asking.

2) Does "homo-agriculture" exist?

Let's take a metaphor. We all know what agriculture is, and we know that farmers grow things in their fields, like soybeans or corn, etc. What if somebody claimed that there was a new kind of agriculture, called "homo-agriculture"? What if this person said that "hetero-agriculture" was the kind that made things grow, like soybeans or corn, but "homo-agriculture" was the kind that didn't make anything grow at all?

This is just a metaphor, so it doesn't prove anything. But let's see how it compares with "homosexuality". The Science of Biology teaches us that "sexuality" is related to reproduction. Human sexuality is of course far more complex than just reproduction (After all, we have a spiritual soul created in the image and likeness of God). Nevertheless, we are also animals, and as animals we perpetuate our species by sexual reproduction.

We all agree that there is such a thing as correct sexuality, and that there are such things as sexual deviations. We are not going to send a husband, who feels sexually attracted to his wife, to see a psychiatrist. And we are not going to approve and encourage a man who tries to have sex with children or beasts.

So where do homosexual attractions fit? One thing we know for sure is that if there were such a thing as "homosexuality" (in the sense of "another kind of sexuality totally unrelated to human reproduction"), then of course sodomy would be a good thing, and pseudogamy ("gay marriage") too.

But is that the case? How are we going to decide in which category we must put homosexual attractions? I claim we need more science, and less unproven assumptions. And certainly, the simple claim that some persons have always had homosexual attractions is not in itself a proof that "homosexuality" exists. Otherwise, "children-sexuality" and "sheep-sexuality" and "corpse-sexuality" would also exist, and they would constitute the "identity" of the persons having such sexual attractions.

3) What is the difference between "homosexuality" and flying spaghetti monsters?

We often hear that things like ghosts, angels and flying spaghetti monsters are not scientific, because it's impossible to detect and measure them.

Can "homosexuality" be detected? If you randomly pick someone off the street, can you know whether he's a "homosexual"? If you ask him, and he lies, do you have a way of finding out whether he's lying?

How can we explain the proliferation of vaguely defined terms more or less associated with "homosexuality", like "gay", "lesbian", "two-spirited", "transgendered", "bisexual", "transsexual", etc.?

How can we explain the many documented cases of people who claim to have gotten rid of their same-sex attractions? Are they all liars? And why should we believe them less than those who claim to have discovered that they were "homosexuals"?

Who invented the word "homosexuality", when was it invented, and why? Was this word invented a long time ago by a scientific community that was describing something precise, or was it recently introduced by one single person who had sexual behaviors he was trying to justify?

The more we examine this question, the more it seems we're not talking about a physical object, something that can be described in terms of kilograms and centimeters, but of something mental, something which mostly exists in someone's mind, and which therefore has the variability and the imprecision of things which are psychological rather than physical.

4) If "homosexuality" exists, many things change

If you don't ask the question about the existence of "homosexuality", you'll run the risk of being trapped. Let's imagine a metaphor. It's the 100 meter sprint at the Olympics, and one of the athletes takes a big rope, ties one end to the bleachers, and makes a slip knot at the other end. This athlete then offers to put this rope around your neck, "so you'll be able to run faster", says he.

You can laugh if you want, but when I look at some persons trying to defend real marriage in Canada, I have the impression they themselves put the rope around their necks, to then run off as fast as they can!

Many voices who try to defend real marriage give self-destructive arguments. Instead of insisting for scientific proof of the existence of "homosexuality", they implicitely grant it, then offer lame arguments like:

4.1) "Traditionally, marriage in Canada has been between one heman and one woman". So what? Traditionally, in Canada, large gas-guzzling SUV's have been a symbol of wealth and happiness, instead of sheer stupidity. It's not because we've done something for a long time, that it's necessarily the right thing to do! Moreover, if we were missionaries in a country of barbarians where traditionally people got married with their horse, we would need to change the traditional definition of marriage!

Please, don't talk about "traditional marriage". Say real marriage, as opposed to false marriage.

4.2) "Many major religions support traditional marriage". So what? Many major religions also support female excision and chopping off the hands of thiefs!

4.3) "A majority of Canadians is in favor of traditional marriage". If that were true, then a majority of German voters in the 1930's would have been right to elect Adolf Hitler! Truth about Natural Law is not defined by quantity.

In my opinion, as soon as you start using the word "homosexuality", you've already ended the debate. To return to our agricultural metaphor, if "homo-agriculture" really did exist, then spraying your fields with Agent Orange, burning your crops and destroying your tractor with a sledgehammer would be quite all right!

5) Conclusion

The debate on homosexual attractions and same-sex unions must urgently be taken into the domain of Science, since it's not only a question of religion. Or to put it another way:

"I'm not homophobic, I'm Science-o-philic!"

| Home >> Politics