Why the Greatest Argument for Homosexuality is No Argument

on April 17, 2013
"Called it!" (Photo Credit: standpointmag.co.uk)
“Called it!” (Photo Credit: standpointmag.co.uk)

by Blake Adams

“When ranks are almost equal in a people, all men having nearly the same manner of thinking and feeling, each of them can judge the sensations of all the others in a moment: he casts a rapid glance at himself; that is enough for him. There is therefore no misery he does not conceive without trouble and whose extent a secret instinct does not discover for him. It makes no difference whether it is a question of strangers or of enemies: imagination immediately puts him in their place. It mixes something personal with his pity and makes him suffer himself while the body of someone like him is torn apart…On the contrary, as peoples become more like one another, they show themselves reciprocally more compassionate regarding their miseries, and the law of nations becomes milder.”

– Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.

I confess I approach homosexual temptation from the luxury of having never suffered from it. We all have our pet sins. Homosexual behavior is not one of mine. The notion itself was so foreign to me I would not hear about it until I was twelve. Yet no matter how acquainted I’ve become with the issue, the initial and enduring sentiment is that it just makes no sense.

I have sexual urges. I also, by God’s enabling grace, do not act on them. I do not need sex. Whatever your sexual orientation, there is no reason you must act on it ever. People have not died of virginity. Thus to engage in sex at all suggests some element of choice. I do not need a “why” to eat or breathe. These are self-apparent. Eating and breathing ensure life. But there is a “why” to sex, because the end of sex is not itself.

Someone might say the role of sex is to please. That is the “why.” Yet it is bad form to say a thing is meant to please because it tends to please. If pleasure were the ends, I would be licensed to any sexual behavior I liked, provided it was pleasurable. Even rape. But this won’t do…

…because there is an actual point to sex, found prominently in its results. Namely, to procreate. I never needed the chat from my father about the “birds and the bees.” I was raised with puppies and kittens. I knew from an early age it took a mommy dog and a daddy dog to make puppies. Consequentially, I understood sex as something natural, but without the erotic baggage; it was sensible, not sensual; every spring, it made the world blossom with color – it was not something nasty committed under cloak.

Babies are not a result to the ends of pleasure, but are a legitimate cause to engage in a pleasurable activity.

Sex committed without cause, or reason, has no reason to be about. It has no point. If you crave sexual relations with a member of the same sex, so what? The desire does not warrant the deed. You don’t have to do it. If you do, it is because you want to.

That said, nobody, least of all society, needs homosexuality.

Aside from the intellectuals at the head of the movement, most practicing homosexuals consider their chosen lifestyles to be exactly that: chosen. It is a thing they want. Yet bizarrely, in the wanting, they consider themselves entitled. It is not necessary to have a rational basis. One is free to live irrationally. This is America, after all.

Studies show an infinitesimal number of Americans fall under LGBT categories (about 4% of the total population). The majority of people supporting homosexuals, then, are people like me who do not have homosexual urges.

Forgoing the rational basis for sex (to procreate), I would think heterosexuals would see homosexuality as I did: sexual license, committed by selfish people looking either for pleasure or sexual release. Perhaps it was so in a bygone era. But a few things began to reveal to me how the modern age sees it.

The thing is, Americans are free to engage in aberrant sexual behaviors. They are also free to live together. They do not need permission to share a bed. It’s when they want to be legally recognized as married that I scratch my head. If it was just about two people desiring to indulge with each other…well…no one was stopping them. They got what they want, it seemed, so why are they still complaining?

Clearly, there is something more than sexual urges at work. They want to engage in the enterprise of marriage! That is the whole modern debate.

Now for the big revelation: in a bizarre historic turn, modern homosexuality is not actually about sex.

Most people who support homosexual marriage are not themselves homosexuals, nor care to become so. What two people do in bed is not actually a part of the debate. In fact, the issue isn’t even open to debate. It is a battle of wills, with those on one side shouting “Nay!” and the others “Yay!”

We have a culture infatuated with equality and liberty. And for good reason: these were championed by our founders, and have proliferated human happiness and prosperity. They glue our democracy and ensure our rights. They are our rights. The very word “freedom” puts a warm-fuzzy in our bellies and fireworks in the sky. At the cry of “equality,” our society redirects its course, without the term being questioned or defined. As would happen to anyone who worships the virtue, but loses its God, a nation will pursue “equality” to its fatal extremes. The church is placed as a restraint. And that is why the church is now the enemy.

No wonder the church is a bunch of “haters.” Because they’ve forgone any rational basis, they see the issue as our wills clashing with theirs. To them it has been reduced to a battle of passions. We cannot merely disagree, because the issue is being fought on the emotional front. They cannot understand our position as anything more than emotional, because that is how they understand theirs. It makes perfect sense we would be “haters” and they “lovers” – theirs is the romanticized side of “freedom” and “progress.” Ours is the ugly, scared one of “restraint” and “bigotry.”

Homosexuality does not need a reason for existing. It does not even have to contribute to society. It merely has to be something people want, and want badly enough, and those who are not homosexuals will want it for them. To step between a person and their desires is to trample their freedom and individuality, after all, which have become their own indisputable ends. One no longer needs a “why” to be free.

The issue of homosexuality has united the American people because it has taken advantage of those values which all Americans share and cherish. As Tocqueville points out, if one American suffers, the others flock to liberate him, because his rights are their rights. Homosexuality today has reached an unprecedented status in the minds of the people: to oppose it is not to oppose any philosophy or legal case, but the very culture democracy has produced.

I am persuaded those in favor of recognizing homosexual marriages have no actual arguments. And they don’t need them. They have megaphoned ideals of “equality” and “progress.”

This is not isolated to the homosexual debate. In fact, a great jumble of issues fall victim to the same thinking. Notably, abortion. What gave it such success legislatively was the rosy language of women’s health and the right to choose, which any lover of liberty would support. The anti-abortion position has grown in popularity of late because through horrific photographs and teary testimonials people are being confronted with its ugliness. And people do not want to live with ugliness.

If we made the issue about sex, the homosexual community might lose support.

People support homosexuality because it seems to include those values people find beautiful. Perhaps someone ought to repulse the heterosexual majority with graphic photographs and nauseating anecdotes of what really transpires under the sheets. Though I have witnessed passive supporters of sodomy gag at its descriptions, I doubt this method (for its obscene nature and inflammatory focus on nastiness) would benefit most people. People who identify as homosexual themselves, least of all.

If we made the issue about sex, the issue could reenter the debate forum.

Sex would be given back it’s “why” – and a “why” can be questioned. But again, the issue is not about sex. It’s not even about marriage. It is about the right of a person to live as he chooses. It is about the right of a person to shape himself and his own identity, to pursue what he thinks is lovely, and what will result in his personal happiness. It is about getting what you want. It is about freedom. Aye, there’s the rub!

The mob has spoken. Whether this nationwide fad will pass or stick remains uncertain. However, in the words of Horace, the Latin poet, “You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, yet she still will hurry back.”

Blake Adams is a junior enrolled at Patrick Henry College, majoring in journalism.

  1. Comment by paynehollow on April 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    Just to touch a bit on the first part of your essay…

    Blake said…

    Yet no matter how acquainted I’ve become with the issue, the initial and enduring sentiment is that it just makes no sense.

    No? I find a great deal of great and glorious sense in sexuality, along with not a bit of great and glorious non-sense (which is not necessarily bad). But first, Blake also said…

    …because there is an actual point to sex, found prominently in its results. Namely, to procreate.

    1. Procreation is only one functional purpose of sex.

    2. Sexual activity also builds intimacy, trust, joy… at its best, it can bond and heal and promote love for the Lover.

    3. This intimacy-which-can-lead-to commitment and love is a great and moral good (not to mention the tremendous God-given pleasure) for the couple involved. It can help to build a home, a family, a sense of unique togetherness.

    4. This bonding, then, is a good and moral thing for the couple, but not only that – the couple that forms a strong marriage relationship also helps to build a strong family (and not only in the sense of having children, although that could be included)…

    5. …and strong families help build strong communities, strong faith communities, strong societies.

    All of that from a little (or, better yet, a LOT of) well-placed, well-lived-out sexual activity.

    But surely you would agree with this?

    And, if it’s good for the goose, is it not also good for the ganders? If straight folk – aside from children – have a great and glorious blessing from healthy sexuality, leading to stronger communities and societies, then what rational reason would there be for discouraging gay folk from this same rich and moral blessing?

    So, where Blake says…

    That said, nobody, least of all society, needs homosexuality.

    Perhaps you can understand how strange this question seems. “Needs homosexuality…”? People ARE straight. They ARE gay. We have heterosexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals. It’s just a reality of nature.

    Thus, if we HAVE this group of people, then of course we need them! They are our family, our community, our brothers and sisters. And, if, by God-given orientation, part of our humanity is our sexuality, then we need that, as well.

    It almost sounds like (and I’m quite sure you don’t intend it this way, but consider how it sounds…) you’re speaking of some sort of ruthless Darwinian utilitarianism – if people aren’t helpful in some specific way, then we don’t need them! God forbid! And again, I’m sure that was not your intent, but it does sound that way.

    I think we DO need our sexuality, practiced in healthy ways. Our sexuality is part of who we are and to deny our sexuality or squelch it down, that is to our personal detriment and to the detriment of society as a whole, I’d say.

    Blake…

    I am persuaded those in favor of recognizing homosexual marriages have no actual arguments.

    Funny, I am persuaded of just the opposite. I just laid out for you the reason to support marriage – gay or straight – because it provides a healthy place to enjoy our sexuality and promotes a better, healthier society. I can easily see reasons to support marriage for all.

    What I can’t see and, even years after this topic has come up, have YET to see is the first rational argument (something other than, “It is my opinion that God’s opinion is, it’s a bad thing…”) against supporting loving, healthy, committed marriage relationships, gay or straight.

    Have you ever heard one?

    In Christ,

    Dan Trabue

  2. Comment by Marco Bell on April 17, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    So who does one redress for this article, Blake Edwards, or Bart Gingerich?

    Firstly, if it is the young Blake Edwards, (and I’ll assume it is), I trust he hasn’t yet lived enough years to experience all that Life offers. But even so, is he really sure that Homosexuality is completely a CHOICE?

    Just as many immature people think that Nudism is secretly about sex, Homosexuality is no more about sex either, but instead simply a point on the scale of the human gender spectrum. Sex is secondary to the human condition.
    (Noted; Mr. Edwards did state this very point.)

    Nobody that I fight this fight with, is fighting for sexual liberty. The struggle for the millions of “not-so-completely-male-and-not-so-completely-female” is with hope that the rest of Society understands that there is more to humans than just primal urges. The Marriage Equality issue is about social recognition of the full spectrum of humans that seek to codify their existence as legitimate couples by the State.

    Enter the Church. Yes, I agree that the Church exists for purposes of helping guide humanity through the ravages of the world, and I think that it has done wonderful things to that end. God and the Church are a big part of most of my LGBT friends.

    It is made clear to most religious followers that certain things are sinful (an innumerable list for sure). The example of Alexis de Tocqueville’s thoughts are helpful if one is trying to see the social dynamic of the “Mob mentality”, or the tendencies to rally for the common good, but I think it falls short for it’s relevance to issues as personal as individual sexuality.

    I sincerely hope that Mr. Edwards never “suffers” from any such sexual vacuousness. And this issue is NOT a fad that will pass!

    Thanks,
    Marco

  3. Comment by Nick Barden on April 17, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    Dang son. Pull no punches. I approve. It is quite a persistent fad, however (see Greece, Rome, Paul’s Epistles, etc).

  4. Comment by mainbain on April 18, 2013 at 3:23 am

    Society has an interest in supporting a loving, committed, exclusive and life-long relationship between a man and a woman ordered to the begetting and raising of children in a setting of love which fosters mutual aid and support. The institution of marriage validates, affirms, honours and promotes such relationships which are essential for the proper functioning of society.

    Dan has merely asserted that people are homosexual or heterosexual by nature – it never been scientifically established that people are born with same sex attraction.
    Dan has asserted that any form of sexual restraint is unhealthy for individuals and for society (he calls it “squelching it down”) – such a view has never been tolerated in any society.

    His premises are either false or unsafe.
    In any event, Dan’s conclusion (his “reason to support marriage [for all]”) does not follow from the premises.
    Dan merely asserts that marriage between persons of the same sex “provides a healthy place to enjoy sexuality and promotes a better healthier society”.
    The same argument would “prove” that prostitution ought to be honoured, validated and affirmed by society.

    People have sexual urges, it’s just a reality of nature. Denying or squelching down our sexual urges is to our personal detriment and to the detriment of society as a whole, I’d say – I just laid out for you the reason to support prostitution, because it provides a healthy place to enjoy our sexuality and promotes a better, healthier society. I can easily see reasons to support prostitution for all.

    Bain Wellington

  5. Comment by chriscamsmith on April 18, 2013 at 10:11 am

    Wow, I bet the ladies love you…but seriously, you admit early on that you have never had any “homosexual” urges thus admitting that you can never truly understand any that was born gay. And yes, there is tons of scientific evidence that homosexuality is biological. I have a good friend that was born gay, it is truly the way God made him. I was born heterosexual just like you so I cannot understand homosexuality either. Neither can I understand what it is like to live with Down’s Syndrome, colorblindness, or any other genetic or biological condition that people have. But I can love all of God’s creation just as I love myself without any feelings of superiority about my condition. Because we are all created in the image of God, it is our duty to see God’s presence in every human on earth regardless of how they were born. Yes, I admit that some people do in fact choose to be gay. That can be seen clearly in the case of bisexuals. But many are born gay or transexual. Some men are born more feminine than others and some women are born more masculine. Think of Britney Griner, the women’s basketball star from Baylor. She just “came out” and I’ve noticed for the past few years that she is very masculine in many ways. She cannot help that, she was obviously born that way.

  6. Comment by David Hart (@davidcaryhart) on April 18, 2013 at 11:06 am

    “Aside from the intellectuals at the head of the movement, most practicing homosexuals consider their chosen lifestyles to be exactly that: chosen. It is a thing they want. Yet bizarrely, in the wanting, they consider themselves entitled. It is not necessary to have a rational basis. One is free to live irrationally. This is America, after all.”

    This kid has some growing up to do. Sexual orientation is the attraction to men, women, both or none. A sexual orientation has no “heads” and is not by choice. Does he consider himself to be a “practicing heterosexual.” The construction is patently absurd.

  7. Comment by Eric Lytle on April 21, 2013 at 11:26 am

    The article oozes common sense and logic, but unfortunately the public debate over this non-issue is controlled by the Left, and the Left’s brilliant argument boils down to “That’s not fair!” So a huge societal change is underway, under pressure not from clear-thinking adults, but from people with the mental development of bratty second-graders whining on the playground about “fairness.” Call me old-fashioned, but when Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal,” he didn’t have in mind kicking the props out from under civilization by redefining marriage, to making “equality” mean “any human can marry any other human” (and if you think this trend will draw the line at humans, stand by). We know the Left is winning this, but I hope they aren’t deluding themselves into thinking there is anything “logical” or “scientific” about their stance. There is no way on God’s green earth anyone can “prove” that they were “born gay” but this laughable ‘fact” gets parrotted constantly by the softheaded. Exactly how is the “fact” proved? Show male and female centerfolds to a newborn and see which one makes him giggle? See if he prefers breastfeeding on a man? No one is “born gay,” any more than anyone is born a kleptomaniac. “I can’t help being what I am” is the stupidest argument ever made. According to the Bible, I can’t help being a sinner, either, but God calls us to a life where, with his help, we strive to win the battle over our own sins. If someone is attracted to five-year-olds, we don’t let “I was born this way” get in the way of prosecution and prison, do we? Maybe Adam Lanza fancied he was “born” to commit mass murder of schoolkids, but so what?

    I’d love to hear some toughminded pastor preach a sermon on this topic: “I Gotta Be Me” Is Not a Christian Principle. God doesn’t call any of us to “be who we are,” we’re called to be much better. Let’s dump this “unconditional love” crapola and get back to Jesus and his “take up your cross daily and follow me.”

  8. Comment by Ray Bannister on April 21, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Thank you, Blake Adams (NOT Edwards – can’t you guys at least spell the author’s name right?). Fine article.

    Paynhollow would probably release poor Jerry Sandusky from prison. Woe to us who would “squelch him down,” for, after all, the only real crime or sin in the liberals’ ideology is restraining our sexual urges. I’m betting there are a number of rape victims who would argue with that, ditto for pedophilia victims. Since liberals never bother to think through the possible consequences of their policies (after all, their tender hearts are as pure as the driven snow), they fancy a future utopia where every face will constantly wear the smile of immense sexual satisfaction. Having no knowledge of history, or human nature, it doesn’t occur to them that no society ever was completely open in sexual matters, that boundaries have to exist.

    But it’s not about what’s good and right, is it? It’s about sounding like really “caring” people and winning the approval of their gay friends, as if that were some laudable goal. Heaven forbid we would say or do anything that might cause discomfort to one of the “marginalized” groups.

    “God-given orientation” had me rolling on the floor. I guess Jesus and Paul were bad guys for devoting themselves to the gospel and living celibate lives. Without people like them and their whole-souled commitment to the faith, Christianity probably wouldn’t exist – which, come to think of it, is a situation liberals approve of.

  9. Comment by Marco Bell on April 22, 2013 at 9:36 am

    Dear Ray Bannister,

    You truly don’t understand the heart or soul of a Liberal, if you think we can be described as childishly as you have described us in your letter.

    Individuality is what we are discussing here, and where each person is located in the human gender spectrum. I would venture to guess that you have no Gay relatives or friends? There is more to human gender than the polar Male and Female form.

    Sandusky is a pedophile, which makes him a criminal, NOT Gay!
    Utopia is a fairytale for Disney fans and Unicorn lovers, not Liberals who stand strong against the social injustices that have plagued the body politic.
    Might I presume you have a low opinion of the ACLU? They are not a ‘Commie” organization, or Terrorist group, but instead, a voice for those that are compromised by injustices. The Gospel of Truth and Justice.

    As for Jesus and Paul, who knows that they weren’t Gay?
    Because even if they were, it wouldn’t affect their ability to preach Peace Love and Understanding. And keep in mind, that not everybody is Christian, so don’t think that your religion is the only guiding force in the Universe.

    Peace be upon you.
    Marco

  10. Comment by Alex Soderberg on April 23, 2013 at 10:17 am

    Blake, your article is excellent, and I’m hoping there are more people your age who can think as clearly. A certain radio host frequently refers to college kids with “skulls full of mush,” and regrettably I think this applies to most people in your age bracket. The combination of stupidity, hedonistic morality, narcissism and (gulp) snide self-righteousness do not bode well for the country, so your task won’t be easy. Gather your friends together, sing a few verses of “The Son of God Goes Forth to War” or “Stouthearted Men” and be glad you aren’t part of the liberal herd.

  11. Comment by Marco Bell on April 23, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    Referencing Alex Soderberg’s suggestion to Blake Adams to sing “The Son of God goes forth to War” …PLEASE don’t even consider a song as self righteous as that one, Please!!!! Goes off to WAR? Oh Jesus!

  12. Comment by alexpsoderberg on April 25, 2013 at 9:41 am

    I had a hunch one of the lefties would get into a snit at the mere mention of that wonderful old hymn. How do I explain this . . . ? There is something called “figurative language,” also “metaphor.” “The Son of God Goes Forth to War” is not about literal war, nor is “Onward Christian Soldiers.” These are about spiritual war, not literal war, just as Paul and Jesus also used words like “war” and “sword” and “armor” in a figurative sense. Thanks to the killjoy, self-righteous liberals and their hatred for the military (well, the US military, anyway), hymns like these were dropped from the liberal churches’ hymnals. It’s funny that the lefties bash Christians for being “literalists,” yet they themselves are unable to grasp the concept of metaphorical language. Are they that stupid that they think that a congregation goes off on a killing spree after singing “The Son of God Goes Forth to War”? If Christians were as moronic as lefties think we are, how do we even hold down jobs?

    We sing these hymns in my church, and so far, amazingly, they have led to zero acts of violence. There remain some churches that have not yet been converted into bastions (figurative phrase) of Political Correctness.

  13. Comment by Marco Bell on April 26, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Thanks Alexpsoderberg,
    I’m glad to know I shouldn’t take any of this stuff seriously.
    I always enjoyed singing these same hymns as a Methodist youth choir member, and even then, it seemed a tad too militant for my tastes… but that’s just me!
    ‘Glad to hear that there is no fallout from your experiences.
    And the beat goes on!

  14. Comment by Erica on November 19, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Either way, people should be able to love who they want. If we are basing our laws off of religion then
    (1.) ALL laws should be.
    (2.) No one should judge, let alone denying someone the right to love who they want.
    It states in the constitution, we have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. WE being ALL Americans. Taking away anyone’s rights is unethical.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.