As children be young and innocence pure,
To degeneracy indeed! We must find a cure!

Preliminary remarks.

Recently I had the honour of engaging in an interesting discussion on the topic of the LGBT ideology. The discussion transpired on The Heights Room Podcast and can now be viewed both on 868 Media’s YouTube channel and through our website.

As I reasoned against the entire ideology itself and the main arguments used to justify the normalization of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender actions, one of the not so moderate moderators of the discussion continually pressed upon me to explain how it is, or, why it is that I say homosexuality is wrong. As I proceeded to make the point, I was then interrupted by another moderator and therefore never really got my point across. To make matters worse, on a follow-up episode of The Heights Room the very same host claimed that he never received a clear answer due to my own fault and mental gymnastics rather than due to the fact that another host interrupted me. This however is an important question making the first moderator right in demanding an explanation but the second wrong in preventing me from doing so. Most importantly, however, it is disingenuous of The Heights Room to claim that it was due to my own fault that they never received an explanation on this point. Therefore, in this article, I will make my position unambiguously clear as I unpack and address why it is that homosexuality is objectively wrong.

Defining the terms.

When we say a thing is objectively wrong, we are not saying that it is merely my opinion that the thing is wrong. Rather we are stating that it is wrong despite our opinion in relation to the matter. For example, theft is objectively wrong and even if someone were to claim otherwise, that person would simply have the wrong opinion in relation to the matter. Simply put, what I am to claim is not that I disagree with homosexuality, no.  I am to argue that even if I agreed and supported homosexuality, I would objectively be wrong just as I would be objectively wrong in saying that two and two make three.

Additionally, when we say something is objectively wrong, we are saying that it is universally wrong. By universal, we mean that it applies to all cultures, nations, and races of people, in other words, an objective wrong is wrong everywhere. The most commonly understood objective evil is the murder of the innocent.

The natural law

These preliminary points on objective morality are obviously based on the premise that universal objective morality exists. So, what is universal objective morality? Objective morality means that there are actions that are right or wrong, despite the time, opinions, and even circumstances surrounding them. Objective morality is not contained by any one religion but is to be respected by all religions. If a religion tries to make something morally good which is not, they would simply be wrong in their religious morality. For example, it would be wrong for religion to teach that theft is ok.

So, what determines whether an action is morally good or evil? Human actions are either right or wrong depending on whether or not they are in accordance with what is known and best titled the natural law. The natural law is described as “the law above the law,” meaning that it is natural to man. The natural law is scientific in that it is based on what man is and it is in union with scientific truths pertaining to the nature of man and his actions.

During the discussion on the LGBT ideology, I argued that one could not say homosexuality is right based on the premise that homosexuals exist and are large in number. I made the point that murder could also be justified by the use of this logic since they also exist and are large in number. To this point, the host got very upset saying “we know why murder is wrong, categorically, but how can you say so for homosexuality?” It would have been very interesting to ask the host to explain why exactly it is, or, what exactly it is that makes murder wrong “categorically.” What we find is that there is a natural law embedded upon the human conscience and that some things are simply wrong because they are wrong and others right because they are right. This is because there is a natural law that dictates this moral reality to all men. For many actions, it is possible to show how they are either in accordance with natural law or not. It is possible to show why it is that homosexuality goes against nature and therefore the natural law by examining what exactly homosexuality entails.

Proving homosexuality to be wrong.

In coming to the object of homosexuality itself we must analyze what exactly it entails. Generally, accepting homosexuality means seeing no moral issue with homosexual “sex.” In order to see where a homosexual version of the sexual act is morally good or not, we must analyze the scientific and natural purpose of the sexual act.

This essentially means that when we refer to homosexuality as wrong we are not discriminating or attacking anyone with degenerate homosexual desires, we are instead saying it is wrong to engage in the homosexual act by acting upon those desires. The same is true for degenerate heterosexual desires. For example, a married man would be morally wrong to engage in heterosexual sex with someone other than his spouse despite feeling an inclination to do so. In reality, everyone has desires which must be suppressed and ordered toward the achievement of what is good. Because we feel to do something at a given time for our own sensual pleasure does not mean we are right in doing it.

The sexual act and homosexuality

Sex is analyzed, like other things, by its scientific function which is the reproduction of the species. The act itself can only actually occur when there is a male and a female. The reality is that it is in no way possible for the purpose of the sexual act to be fulfilled by two people of the same sex/gender.

Some may object by saying that the purpose of sex is also the satisfaction derived through engaging in sexual intercourse. While this is true, the pleasure derived through the act is not the primary purpose of the act just as satisfying the tastebuds is not the primary purpose of eating, sexual pleasure and stimulation are not the primary purposes for engaging in sex. The purpose of the sensual pleasure included in the act encourages men and women to engage in the act itself. If sex were unenjoyable, it would occur far less. Further, if people engage in sex for the secondary purpose of achieving pleasure without understanding properly this reproductive primary element and purpose of the act then we run the risk of encouraging a placidity of disgusting sexual acts including bestiality.

A great deal can be learned by comparing the act of eating and the act of sex. Today many think it normal to achieve sexual pleasure while avoiding the primary scientific purpose of sex (reproduction). Yet very few would consider it normal to achieve sensual satisfaction through eating while aiming to avoid the natural primary purpose of eating (nourishment). People would certainly think it odd, to say the least, if society was filled with bulimic people who perhaps by applying some artificial device, managed to remove food, after it was consumed, in order that nourishment is prevented. This is to invert the proper order of the act and corrupt the thing itself entirely.

This is perhaps the greatest issue in relation to sexual ethics today. People now believe that as long as a sexual act is stimulating, it is good, forgetting the natural law and science itself. Homosexuality is objectively wrong because the natural purpose of the sexual act can never be brought about by the engagement in homosexual “sex.

Homosexuality and reproduction

Additionally, since sex is for reproduction, as shown above, it is undoubtedly connected to children. It is natural for children to have a mother and a father, not two fathers or two mothers. It would be criminal to deprive children of their natural right of having normal parents. The negative psychological effects of being deprived of a mother and/or a father are well documented and studied. This is another reason why homosexuality is objectively wrong. Because despite not being able to generate children naturally by the “sex” they engage in, the couples often fight for the legal ability to raise children. It is outright wrong to disregard nature and the natural rights of children by subjecting them to such an unnatural situation.

Homosexuality, therefore, is objectively wrong for two reasons:

  1. Sex is impossible among people of the same gender since the primary purpose of the act cannot come to fruition.
  2. Children (the result of the sexual act) are brought into the world by a male and a female, a father and a mother, and they have a right to be raised by a mother and a father.

May God Bless our Nation!