Archive for June, 2012

How homosexuality destroys society and families: Part 3 – Increased immorality

June 23, 2012
Image

On May 10, 2012 – the day after Barack Obama announced that he supported same-sex “marriage,” St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Acushnet, Massachusetts (USA) countered with its own message. Almost immediately the church received hateful phone calls and Facebook page posts. Is that the wonderful “tolerance” for divergent opinions homo lobbies are always preaching about?

American President Barack Obama announced on 9th May, 2012 that his views on homosexuality have “evolved” to the point where he now supports same-sex “marriages”. This must really stand out as one of the most brazen lies ever uttered by the man. The truth is, Obama has always been an ardent supporter of so-called homosexual rights in America since the 1990s.

He did try to hide the fact during the 2008 elections. Tragically, his rival in that year’s presidential campaign Senator John McCain woefully failed to call his bluff on the subject. In my opinion, this was deliberate on McCain’s part to give Obama an easier pass into the presidency as part of an elaborate charade that passes for democracy in that country. Mitt Romney will likely do the same thing this year.

Nonetheless, the recent “coming out” by Obama sets the stage for us to examine a fundamental question the cultural wars in America are grappling with today – whether homosexuality is in fact a destructive and immoral behaviour as thousands of past generations have rightly believed, or whether it is after all a human “right” beyond the moral question as advocated by supporters of homosexuality. This is the last of my three-part series demonstrating how homosexuality destroys society.

Morality is largely defined as principles concerning the distinction between wrong or right behaviour among human beings. In that context, it’s pretty easy to conclude that homosexual behaviour is actually a wrong sexual behaviour because of the following three simple reasons:

1. It’s biologically unhealthy:

This is due to a raging epidemic of diseases documented by credible medical research, higher suicide rates, higher rates of child sexual molestation and insanely high rates of sexual promiscuity – these statistics show that for every one woman a heterosexual man has had sex with in his lifetime, the average homosexual man has engaged in sodomy with nearly 50 male partners. Yes, you read that right – fifty men or boys! Because of this deadly lifestyle (a “deathstyle” actually), homosexuals have an overall diminished life expectancy of up to 20 years on average compared to heterosexuals.

2. It’s biologically unnatural:

This is rather obvious from our genital make-up. When it comes to same-sex relations, the parts simply don’t fit and that’s why it is regarded as abnormal. For those liberal minded fellows who have a problem with the word “normal”, here’s a working definition – “that which works according to design”.

Sex between a man and a woman is an act according to nature (natural). More appropriately – its how God designed human beings to enjoy  themselves as couples and procreate their own kind. Anything else is really a distortion or a perversion of that fact. When this fundamental truth is ignored, the catastrophic results are what we see in (1) above. Homosexuality accomplishes nothing in nature other than fulfill some perverted sexual lust.

3. Because God (the Creator of the universe and everything in it) declared it so:

This is in answer to those people who want to ask: “Says who?”

If you are not theistic in your worldview, I truly understand if the third point triggers all the secular alarm bells in you. Like it or not, accept it or reject it, this statement is in fact the best and most reliable moral grounding for any human behaviour. Allow me to explain.

The moral foundation of human societies

History has continuously demonstrated that when you remove God (the objective moral law-giver) from human societies, you are left with unreliable human opinions that are subjective, whimsical and ever changing to accommodate the latest popular fad or desire. You are left with no objective and authoritative standard to judge human behaviour and the results are always catastrophic.

To understand what I mean, take the following statements by Prof J. Budziszewski in his book “What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide”.

“The whole meaning of morality is a rule that we ought to obey whether we like it or not. If so, then the idea of creating a morality we like better is incoherent. Moreover, it would seem that until we had created our new morality, we would have no standard by which to criticize God. Since we have not yet created one, the standard by which we judge Him must be the very standard that He gave us. If it is good enough to judge Him by, then why do we need a new one?”

Without a moral system whose foundation is our Creator God, we’ve got nothing. No one would be in any position to condemn anything any human being does, because…er…um….that would just be your opinion. That’s exactly what Hitler would tell us if we condemned him for killing 6 million jews! The reality of our human lives is that we inherently live out our lives relying on an objective moral code far above our subjective human opinions. And this code is innate, placed there by God whether one acknowledges His existence or not. This code (our conscience) is what empowers us to say that the holocaust was objectively wrong, even if the Nazis had won the 2nd world war and somehow convinced the world that exterminating all Jews was the right thing to do!

The destructive consequences of human immorality

The following enlightened perspective on human immorality is quite revealing regarding the instincts that inform support for homosexuality in the West:

“Immorality affects our ability to reason properly regarding moral and spiritual matters. We begin to reason in ways that supports what we want to be true, rather than what we know to be true. For example, to avoid the conviction of our conscience when engaging in immorality, we first attempt to justify/rationalize our behavior as an exception to the moral law. Eventually, however, we find it easier to deny the moral law-giver Himself.  If there is no moral law-giver, there is no moral law; and if there is no moral law, then we are not moral law-breakers, so the guilt we feel for doing X can be safely ignored, suppressed, or explained away. Such reasoning leads to self-deception, and ultimately deadens one’s awareness of God.”Source.

This is the tragedy faced by secular western nations today. They have denied the moral law-giver so that they can comfortably embrace homosexuality. The destructive consequences of this decision are now thriving in the west. They have quickly forgotten that one of the critical historical explanations for the collapse of the once mighty Roman empire was due to the absurd normalisation of homosexuality among its nobility.

On the other hand, Kenya’s new constitution has a preamble that acknowledges God as the supreme guiding authority in our affairs as a nation. So inevitably, God and His opinion will feature prominently in moral questions that affect the way we live and govern ourselves as Kenyans. This is the philosophy that informed the decision to retain the penal code sections 162-165 that criminalize homosexual behaviour in the country.

I’ve always wondered, if Barack Obama and his UK counterpart David Cameron are so keen on promoting homosexuality, why not support all other forms of sexual orientations such as bestiality or necrophilia as well? Otherwise one would posit that they are discriminating against other human beings who want to publicly celebrate their “animal love” through marriage to their dogs, cows, horses or whatever animal they sexually engage with. Why is this any different from homosexuality?

If you legitimise homosexuality in the name of “diversity” and “human rights”, you simply cannot afford to discriminate against all other types of sexual orientations. Science tells us that there are over 20 documented sexual orientations including some that would make you vomit uncontrollably. I submit that Obama and his friends would have no grounds to reject their demands for “equality” and even celebration. That is the only logical destination for all people who support the legitimisation of homosexuality in society. All other sexual behaviours deemed to be perversions would naturally have to be accommodated as legitimate identities under the homosexual clarion call for “tolerance”, “diversity”, “pride” and “human rights”.