Homosexuality & Moral Harm

Everyone Has Rights!

Let me first say that violating the basic rights of any human being should not be upheld. Every person, qualified for a job should be able to work. Every sick person, should have adequate health care. In most instances, no one should be discriminated against in housing and basic access to the essentials services of life and living. (Just in case you want to know why I say "in most instances" well, that's because I believe that child molesters shouldn't live next to schools and parks where children play etc...I think solid moral arguments can be used to justify those sorts of things)  However, what is in question here, is not simply a matter of rights, it is a matter of normalizing, endorsing and even favoring certain types of "politically acceptable" behaviors that have moral implications.

The problem is this: When certain types of what could be considered immoral behavior are accepted as normal or moral, one must review the basis upon which other forms of behavior are excluded or considered to be immoral.

Politics & Morality

Have you ever herd someone say, "You can't legislate morality"? The fact is that someone's morality is being legislated every day in the courts. What can't be established through the courts and legislative system is objective morality itself. Court and legislative standards are subject to change because they are products of men dealing in specific times and eras.  

The political and legislative arena is the primary venue in which proponents of the homosexual agenda have created a space for the acceptance of homosexual practices. Many of their leaders are deeply politically connected. However, what they know is that political intervention only goes so far. A society must be retrained and re-educated if the desire is to normalize things that have questionable moral implications. Therefore, the rise of the homo-agenda in efforts such as GLSEN's  ALLY Week, and the ominous and deceptive "It Gets Better" campaign, go a step further, catering to the youth and playing on the emotions of individuals seeking to condemn opponents of homosexuality by associating them with bias and discrimination and thus illiciting an overtly emotional response.

Family Re-Engineering

Some years ago, instead of announcing layoffs, many major corporations said that they were going through a  "corporate re-engineering". This was the "new socially sensitive" way to say that they were laying off good employees while at the same time placing a greater burden on the remaining employees who would be retained for the same amount of money. In the meantime the corporations would also keep the savings in salaries and benefits as a result of the layoffs using it to pad the bottom line of the balance sheet. In fact some CEO's were hired with the express mission of cutting the corporate workforce and causing the company to "operate more efficiently". Although some companies benefited as a result, all it really was, was an attempt to increase company stock prices and dividends for its shareholders at the expense and cost of everyone else. 

Gay advocacy is really no different in this regard. A considerable amount of time, resource and energy has been spent by the gay advocacy movement focusing  on concepts of family and what a family is supposed to be as discovered by Dr. David Parker in our post, "When Gay Day Comes Your Way".  In gay advocacy, a family with two mothers yields the same results as a family with two fathers yields the same results as a family with a man and a woman as parents. There is no quantifiable difference as to the results in their analysis.  In addition, even as Michelle Bachmann learned on the campaign trail, there is no age too young for the brainwashing that gay is OK. As I also reviewed, in Illinois, when the Catholic Church took a differing opinion with the State on the issue of placing children into what it considered family structures harmful to the growth and development of children based on religious values and principles, they lost over $30 M as a result! So the  grassroots effort to restructure and "re-engineer" the family with an intent to affirm homosexual normalization is in full effect and in full swing at every level.

However, there is another and more ominous argument that is hung over from the days of "free love" during the 50's and 60's. this argument has been repackaged for consumption by the modern politically connected and socially accepting masses. This argument is highly emotional and is being used to support the moral acceptance of the gay agenda and gay lifestyle in general. It is called the morality of harm.

Gay Love Harms No One!

Anyone that has argued against homosexuality at any level has run into this opposition once or twice I'm sure. This is the theme song of the modernists not just toward the gay agenda, but in almost every other argument you can name that either prohibits or restricts persons from certain actions.

It is called the morality of harm. Simply put this argument when applied to homosexuality, states that personal expressions of love are of a private nature and that homosexuals agree to be with one another as a matter of free will, and that their expressions of love are not intrinsically harmful to anyone. Therefore, homosexuality is not wrong and should be socially accepted and is justifiable as a human right and a right of those seeking to engage in such behavior.

Is any of that true however? Is homosexuality "harmless"? If it is, should homosexuality be deemed to be "right" simply because it does not appear to "harm" anyone? Are behaviors socially and morally acceptable simply because they do not "harm" anyone? Are the only ones that stand to be harmed as a result of homosexuality the participants in the relationships themselves? ie: can anyone else be harmed as a result of their actions and acts? 

As you can see, these are some rather profound questions. Let's look at what I call the "harm principle" for a minute:

The "Harm Principle"

There are generally two types of recognizable harm:

1- Active Harm
2- Passive Harm

Very briefly, many Christians can associate these things to concepts of sin such as the sin of commission (active harm) and sins of omission (passive harm) Whereas active harm would be similar to someone beating a person to death, passive harm would be similar to watching a person get beat to death and offering no or very little assistance in mitigating the circumstance.

Most often, when defending homosexuality, modern moral relativists, tend to defend the active harm associated with homosexuality. While most people that attack homosexuality as a lifestyle choice tend to attack it from the position that it would be a passive harm to remain silent while those who are engaged in the lifestyle  do so to their own hurt and to the hurt of others.

Is Homosexuality Harmless?

While gay advocacy places considerable time, resource and energy promoting the idea that homosexuality is harmless, the actual statiscs say otherwise within the United States. According to the Centers For Disease Control (CDC)

• Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are the population of individuals most severely affected by HIV/AIDS within the US.

• Although these men (MSM) represent roughly 2% of the US population they account for nearly 61% of all new HIV infections annually.

• In 2009 although Black men account for 14% of the US Population, Black (MSM) accounted for  nearly 44% of all new HIV infections. 

• Estimation of new HIV infections among Black women are 15 times that of new infections among White women. 

Several studies done by the American Psychology Association (APA) in 2002 suggest that:

"...gay men, lesbians and bisexuals appear to have higher rates of some mental disorders compared with heterosexuals, although not to the level of a serious pathology."

Their rationalization for this was that "Discrimination may help fuel these higher rates." I certainly don't believe that homosexuals are crazy (no more crazy than me or anyone else) but it should be pointed out that a lifestyle contrary to God's purpose, whether one is a heterosexual or a homosexual, is bound to be filled with mental anguish and frustration because it is not blessed!

Continuing: In 2002 Several large population based public heath studies were discussed in the November American Psychologist (Vol. 56, No. 11) by Susan Cochran, PhD, an epidemiologist in the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health, who authored or co-authored many of the studies. Specifically, the studies find that there were:

• Higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence in lesbian and gay youth.

• Higher rates of recurrent major depression among gay men.

• Higher rates of anxiety, mood and substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts among people ages 15 to 54 with same-sex partners.

• Higher use of mental health services in men and women reporting same-sex partners.

As one can see, from just these stats alone, homosexuality is anything but harmless. Now, the critic associates these numbers with a lack of public education on homosexual issues. They would claim that distributing condoms and total social and societal acceptance of homosexuality would solve all the problems, and that resistance to allowing homosexuals their "rights" are what is damaging  to both the psychology and the culture. None of those arguments are supportable by any evidence and are merely emotional assertions placed within the argument to incite an emotional response. 

Closer Look At "Harm Morality" And Its Implications

I think it can be clearly established that homosexuality, as an act, is harmful both psychologically and physically to its participants to whatever degree. However, I think we should also look at "harm morality" in general to see if it is a rationally based approach to morality to say that just because something doesn't appear to be "harmful" there's no problem with it...

I almost don't know where to begin...

Consider this, would adultery be right simply because the unwitting spouse doesn't know about it?  Surprisingly, under concepts of harm morality one would have to say yes! If the unknowing spouse doesn't know, then "no harm, no foul"!!! 

Of course we KNOW that this is a ridiculous notion. Just because an adulterous spouse doesn't know about the affair and doesn't suffer emotionally because of the affair, does not mean that the affair is not harmful. Both the personal character of the adulterer and to the marriage in general has been damaged and compromised. Whether in secret or public knowledge, it is fully and immoral act and an act to be condemned. 

What about drug usage? An addict takes crack in the basement of his house. Is it a moral act because no one else appears to be "harmed"? Modern moral relativists think its OK. This is what we are facing. 

Let's look a little further; How about a robber who robs a bank? The monetary system has plenty of money and taking paper from the bank doesn't effect anyone's account. Therefore, because no one is "really harmed", is it OK to rob banks?

How about squatters on land such as we see with the "Occupy" protesters. State and public land is paid for with our tax dollars therefore we (the occupiers) have a right to claim it indefinitely for our own purposes. Claiming taxpayer land harms no one?

Are any of these things considered "moral actions" solely of themselves? I venture to say NO way!

However, these are the thoughts of modern moral relativists who believe that, if it doesn't "harm" it should be allowed. I mean, look at all kinds of immoral activities that persons could consent and agree to do and maintain between themselves and others claiming a moral act is allowable. However what is in question is does the thought that , "I ain't harming nobody" trump the immorality of the performance of one's actions? I think when it is rationally thought through we can clearly see "harm" is a intellectually unfulfilling basis from which to assess sexual morality or the moral status of many other actions.  

Conclusion

As we can see "harm morality" is full of problems as it pertains to assessing the moral "rightness" of many situations and the assessment of many moral issues. When it comes to homosexuality and sexual issues in general, though the adherents may "agree" to do many things, that doesn't make their agreement nor the resultant actions "morally acceptable" by any means. Agreement or consent to evil DOES NOT make evil right!

Isaiah 5:20 ~"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"  

I believe that I have shown that the implications of assessing morality based on "harm" are enormous. The fact is that "harm" is also a subjective standard. What may be considered to be harmful to one, may be something normal, harmless and socially acceptable to another. 

When it comes to assessing the moral value of sexual activity, there IS a right way and a wrong way. The bible has outlined an OBJECTIVE standard whereby we must live to obtain the optimal amount of peace and blessings upon our lives. The fact is that God created a MAN for a WOMAN and a WOMAN for a MAN without any deviation or mixture of the two. though sin has brought many perversions of this truth into our genome, the fact remains that God has spoken, has not modified what he said and will judge every man according to what he has stated from eternity. 

I believe that the Christian who knows the truth and refuses to tell those engaged in sexually immoral practices the truth, adds an insurmountable amount of harm to those engaging in sexually immoral practices themselves. Sitting passively and not pointing out the dangers and ultimate immorality of the homosexual lifestyle would be a SIN of omission in a world full of darkness a mere excuse for sin that perpetuates sin. That is not the testimony that the believer is to leave to this world, no matter how unpopular and politically incorrect the sentiment may be.

Will we add to the harm of sexual immorality by remaining silent? I won't!

Blessed!