Homosexuality

A great deal has been said recently about homosexuality, and it seems to, like all politicised issues, descend from discussion to debate to mindless table-thumping extraordinarily quickly with little consideration for thought about exactly what it is that has become such an inflammatory topic of late. It would seem that most of the controversy stems from the accusation that homosexuality is inherently wrong.

My first instinct is as always to challenge this premise. Why would this be so? There seems to be significant evidence to the contrary; homosexuality amongst animals has been documented thoroughly in over 500 species, and observed in another 1000, and humans have been known to engage in homosexual acts since antiquity. In fact, all of the Roman emperors bar Claudius are known to have kept male lovers at some point during their reigns; in ancient times, the distinction between 'heterosexual' and 'homosesxual' was far more blurred. Indeed, the ancients did not even possess equivalent terms, and it was considered unusual for a Roman man not to engage in sexual activities with a man (or boy) as he did with a woman. And of course, lesbianism, though not as well documented, was likewise common (indeed the lesbian poet Sappho was revered as one of the best lyric poets of ancient times).

Similarly, during the classic revival during the Renaissance in northern Italy, homosexuality was known to be widespread. Indeed, since then homosexuality has been documented thoughout recent history, often in spite of social sexual or homosexual repression. And though this does not necessarily mean homosexuality is 'right', it lends strong credence to the notion that to some degree at the very least it is natural.

Considerable opposition to homosexuality comes from religious groups, most of whom cite various scriptures or religious beliefs as explanations for this. If you know me, then you know that this simply does not stick- if something cannot be shown to be right or wrong within the confines of the natural world, then it is not right or wrong in the natural world. Logic and reason should dictate such matters, not the inviolate words of beings who may or may not exist nor persons long dead who may or may not have said such things as they are quoted as saying.

An argument used against homosexuality is that the genitalia of men and women fit together simply far too snugly for anything other than male-female sexual relationships to be normal, an argument which is riddled with fallacy. I could number any amount of objects in my house which could be said to be similarly accomodating, not to mention that the anal cavity is of similar size to the vagina in any case, and even if it weren't this in and of itself would prove nothing of normalcy or rectitude.

More moderate critics might say that what adults do in their own homes is up to them, but that such activities should not be exposed to youths lest homosexuality should be normalised and somehow convince those young people to turn gay or lesbian. Even as a straight man I find this idea to be somewhat offensive; as has been demonstrated above, in terms of nature homosexuality is normal enough. If society is too insecure, fearful or reticent of tradition irrespective of worth to adapt to that then that is indicative only of where society is left wanting.

As to the risk of turning people gay, I can't understand the logical basis for this. Nobody chooses to be gay - if you could choose between being gay and straight with no other influencing factors, why on Earth would anyone choose the potential social ostracism over social acceptance? If one cannot choose to become gay, then either sexuality is hardwired or it is developed in early childhood; I am not expert enough in the fields of sociology or biology to say definitively, but for the purposes of discussing this point, it is not necessary that I am; it would seem to me that exposure to homosexuals is not going to turn anyone, even young children, who would be far too young to understand what they are seeing regardless.

And let's face it: even if this weren't the case, homosexuality would not become rampant. As it is, homosexuality is generally between only 1 and 20% of populations, and any mass conversions or infiltration of society (a charge levelled against those pushing the so-called 'gay agenda') isn't going to change that. Personally, I think that the very idea of straight and gay is an unnecessary one (indeed it has only come into use within the past two centuries) created to suit social perception rather than reality. Considering the multitude of sexual identities in the modern age anyway, it seems almost irrelevant to try and classify people into certain groups when it seems clear that sexuality is not something which easily lends itself to definite classification, seeming to be far more fluid. And ultimately, what does classification achieve? If anything, all it does is make it easier for discrimination and the tyranny of the masses to take hold.

Of course, I couldn't write a piece, however brief, about the status of homosexuality in society without consideration of gay marriage. My point of view is simple, and, as always, it comes down to definition: if marriage is a religious institution, as is so often claimed, and those religions forbid gay marriage, then that seems perfectly alright. However, the State, as a secular body, should not therefore be allowed to wed people, and married people should not recieve any special benefits from the government - in a legal sense, marital status should be something of irrelevance to the government. Irreligious straights as well as gays would be forced to take up civil unions instead; this could very well make it so that the benefits of the married could be conferred indiscriminatorily. But then, if it looks like marriage, and it smells like marriage...

I would venture to say, however, that marriage has become more than a religious instituation, and is now ingrained into all aspects of society. If so, then this robs the aforementioned argument against gay marriage of its main sticking point, and so, all things considered, it would seem like there is little reason to forbid gay marriage. A culture of irrational fear is not something solid enough to build a society on - it's about time people started to realise that.

ADDENDUM: It has occurred to me that in my haste to complete the post, I ommitted a number of points on this topic which I had wished to address, if only briefly. First and foremost, another matter of contention regarding gays is as to whether or not they should be permitted to adopt or in the case of lesbians, recieve IVF treatment. This is a more complicated aspect, I think; individuals should be permitted to do as they wish so long as they don't impact negatively on others. No matter how how good a gay couple might be as parents, in today's society, it would be impossible for a child to be raised by gay parents and not be in some way negatively impacted by it, if only by the consequences of that child being excluded or bullied for their parents' sexual orientation.

It may seem at this point that I would be in favour of preventing gay couples from having children. I do not think this is the answer, however; ultimately, it is society that must adapt to be more accepting - in the case of the hypothetical good gay parents, they have done nothing wrong, and so it does not make sense for them to be punished by the iron boot of social self-righteousness. Irrespective of this, it should be noted that aspects such as social, fiscal, or other standards can negatively affect a child in the same way, something which all parents are equally culpable to. It would seem wrong to prevent poor people from having children, merely because the parents have not, for whatever reason, acculmulated enough wealth throughout the course of their life to afford them another lifestyle. In many cases, such a thing would simply not have been feasible. In a sense, gay couples are in a similar situation - the fact that they are gay is out of their control, and so to prevent them from rearing children on that reasoning would be a flawed approach.

Another major point which I failed to address was the fact that homosexuality and heterosexuality I dislike as terms because they are both exceedingly rigid. The addition of further terms such as MSM and WSW, though permitting better categories for some, further muddy the waters of sexual terminolgy that already include terms such as bisexual and pansexual. Are so many classifications necessary? Why? But this is besides the point; what I seek to point out is that primarily these terms are limited to sexual preference, when in reality the complex situation of love far oftener enters the equation than some of us are perhaps ready to acknowledge, gay or straight alike. It seems cruel at worst and inaccurate at best to so readily discuss the topic acknowledging only the sexual side. The fact is, gays fall in love as straights do. For people who hear me speak my opinion relatively often may this may seem an unusually emotional argument coming from me, but even so I feel compelled to bring it up: how can anyone deny someone the rights and recognition they deserve on, of all things, what must be truly the most sacrosanct human emotion? People can't help the way they feel, and the idea that what would have to be, if one is to be selected, the holiest of all emotions, which in some manifest form is surely felt by all of us, as one underlying current of togetherness that conflates our common humanity, is used as an excuse to further intolerance must surely be one of the most absurd statements I have ever come across in the short time of my being. And on that note, I bid you, my devoted readership, adieu.